Source: https://nycrubberroomreporter.blogspot.com/2015_01_11_archive.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 20:11:10+00:00

Document:
In determining what constitutes the kind of specific statutory authority permitting an exemption from FOIL, the courts have held that what is required is clear legislative intent to establish and preserve confidentiality. M. Farbman & Sons v. New York City, 62 N.Y.2d 75, 464 N.E.2d 437, 476 N.Y.S.2d 69 (1984).
The other statute need not expressly state that it is intended to establish a FOIL exemption, but it must show the intention of confidentiality. Capital Newspapers Division of Hearst Corp. v. Burns, 67 N.Y.2d 562, 496 N.E.2d 665, 505 N.Y.S.2d 576 (1986). Only a state or federal statute and not an administrative rule, regulation or city ordinance will create an exemption under this section. See Morris v. Martin, 82 A.D.2d 965, 440 N.Y.S.2d 365 (3d Dep't 1981); rev'd, 55 N.Y.2d 1026, 434 N.E.2d 1079, 449 N.Y.S.2d 712 (1982); Brownstone Publishers Inc. v. New York City Department of Finance, 167 A.D.2d 166, 561 N.Y.S.2d 245 (1st Dep't 1990) (in 1989 the state legislature amended section 11-2115 of theAdministrative Code of the City of New York to deem it a state statute for purposes of FOIL to enforce its "secrecy" provision). Contra Faulkner v. LeFevre, 140 Misc.2d 699, 532 N.Y.S.2d 337 (Sup. Ct. 1988) (redacting names from inmate grievance document pursuant to agency rule requiring privacy).
Where records are subject to other specific statutory exemptions, FOIL's provisions for deletion of identifying details do not remove confidentiality requirements. Short v. Board of Managers, 57 N.Y.2d 399, 442 N.E.2d 1235, 456 N.Y.S.2d 724 (1982).
A number of cases have addressed other state or federal statutes as a basis for exemption from disclosure, as set forth below.
a. Abandoned Property Law (“APL”) [N.Y. Aband. Prop. Law (McKinney)].
U.S. Claims Services, Inc. v. New York State Dept. of Audit and Control, Office of the State Comptroller, 23 Misc.3d 923, 873 N.Y.S.2d 897 (Sup. Ct. Albany County 2009) (holding that the value of abandoned property, including value ranges, is exempt from disclosure under Abandoned Property Law § 1401).
b. Civil practice law and rules ("CPLR") [N.Y. Civ. Prac. L. & R. (McKinney)].
Mid-Boro Medical Group v. New York City Dep't of Finance, N.Y.L.J., Dec. 7, 1979 (Sup. Ct., Bronx County, 1979) (denying access to memos sent by department attorney to department official as within attorney-client privilege of CPLR 3101 (b)).
Various provisions in the CPLR deal with the fees that county clerks may charge for services that they provide. Section 8019 deals with the preparation of copies, but referred only to copies made on paper. A new paragraph (5) added to section 8019(f) states that the provisions in FOIL dealing with the actual cost of reproducing records "in a medium other than paper" serve as the standard under which county clerks may assess fees for preparing copies of records.
In Re Carnevale, 68 A.D.3d 1290, 891 N.Y.S.2d 495 (3d Dep’t 2009) (documents containing statements of police officers given to investigative body to determine whether discipline against officers was warranted were properly withheld as personal records of a law enforcement agency under Civil Rights Law § 50-a).
Capital Newspapers Div. of Hearst Corp. v. City of Albany, 63 A.D.3d 1336, 881 N.Y.S.2d 214 (3d Dep’t 2009) (“gun tags” identifying officers involved in a police scandal fell within personnel records under Civil Rights Law § 50-a and were therefore exempt under a specific state or federal statute. However, the court ordered the “gun tags” disclosed with identifying information redacted).
People v. Pack, N.Y.L.J., April 27, 1978 (Crim. Ct., New York County, 1978) (denying access to police personnel records on basis of Civil Rights Law § 50-a, but granting access to records of Civilian Complaint Review Board).
Lesher v. Hynes, 80 A.D.3d 611, 914 N.Y.S.2d 264 (2d Dep’t. 2011) (denying access to certain police records since they were expressly exempt under Civil Rights Law §50-b which prohibits disclosure of the name of a victim of a sexual offense).
d. County law [N.Y. County Law (McKinney)].
Lyon v. Dunne, 180 A.D.2d 922, 580 N.Y.S.2d 803, (3d Dep't 1992), motion for leave to appeal denied, 79 N.Y.2d 758 (1992) (denying access to autopsy reports under County Law § 677).
Bartczak v. Dillon, N.Y.L.J., Nov. 2, 1989 (Sup. Ct. Nassau County, 1989) (County Law § 2207(3) was a "state statute" exempting county attorney's records from FOIL).
Newsday v. O'Brien, No. 23660/87 (Sup. Ct., Nassau County, 1987).
e. Criminal procedure law [N.Y. Crim. P. Law (McKinney)].
King v. Dillon, No. 20859/84 (Sup. Ct., Nassau County, Dec. 19, 1984) (minutes of village board meeting available under FOIL even though transferred to District Attorney under Grand Jury subpoena; Criminal Procedure Law § 190.25 prohibits disclosure of Grand Jury proceedings but does not "eradicate records otherwise public in nature").
f. Domestic relations law [N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law (McKinney)].
Gannett Co. v. City Clerk's Office, City of Rochester, 157 Misc.2d 349, 596 N.Y.S.2d 968 (Sup. Ct. Monroe County 1993), aff'd, 197 A.D.2d 919, 604 N.Y.S.2d 848 (4th Dept. 1993) (Domestic Relations Law § 19 does not exempt the names of marriage license applicants).
g. Education law [N.Y. Educ. Law (McKinney)].
Murphy v. State Educ. Dept., 148 A.D.2d 160, 543 N.Y.S.2d 70, (1st Dep't 1989) (records of investigation of professional misconduct are confidential pursuant to Education Law § 6510(8) except from the order of a court in a pending action or proceeding).
LaRocca v. Board of Education, 159 Misc.2d. 90, 602 N.Y.S.2d 1009 (Sup. Ct. Nassau County 1993) (denying access to records relating to settlement of a disciplinary matter as protected by Education Law § 3020-a, 8 N.Y.C.R.R. Part 82.9; finding such documents to constitute employment records the release of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy), modified, LaRocca v. Board of Education, 220 A.D.2d 424, 632 N.Y.S.2d 576 (2d Dept. 1995) (holding that agency must release those portions of documents that do not constitute an "employment history" and ordering disclosure of redacted settlement agreement).
Herald Co. v. School District, 104 Misc.2d 1041, 430 N.Y.S.2d 460 (Sup. Ct. 1980) (name of and charges lodged against tenured teacher found specifically exempt from disclosure by Education Law § 3020-a).
h. Executive law [N.Y. Exec. Law (McKinney)].
Alliance for the Preservation of Religious Liberty v. State, N.Y.L.J., April 10, 1979 (Sup. Ct., New York County, 1979) (denying access to records of the Attorney General compiled under Executive Law § 63 (8) and Civil Rights Law § 73 (8)).
i. General business law [N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law (McKinney)].
Ragusa v. New York State Dept. of Law, 152 Misc.2d 602, 578 N.Y.S.2d 959 (Sup. Ct. 1991) (Attorney General is authorized to disclose investigation of monopolies under General Business Law § 343).
j. Judiciary law [N.Y. Jud. Law (McKinney)].
Newsday v. Sise, 120 A.D.2d 8, 507 N.Y.S.2d 182 (2d Dep't 1986), aff'd, 71 N.Y.2d 146, 518 N.E.2d 930, 524 N.Y.S.2d 35 (1987) (names and addresses of jurors derived from questionnaire held confidential by Judiciary Law § 509-a).
Clegg v. Bon Temps, Ltd., 114 Misc.2d 805, 452 N.Y.S.2d 825 (Civ. Ct. 1982) (information acquired for unemployment insurance purposes held confidential pursuant to Labor Law § 537).
Mullady v. Bogard, 153 Misc.2d 1018, 583 N.Y.S.2d 744 (Sup. Ct. 1992) (denying access to autopsy reports of the Chief Medical Examiner of the City of New York as exempt pursuant to New York City Charter 557(g)); Matter of Mitchell, N.Y.L.J. September 16, 1994 (Sup. Ct., New York County, 1994) (denying access to audiotape and autopsy worksheets pursuant to § 557(g) of the New York City Charter).
l. Penal law [N.Y. Penal Law (McKinney)].
New York News Inc. v. Office of the Special State Prosecutor of the State of New York, 153 A.D.2d 512, 544 N.Y.S.2d 151 (1st Dep't 1989) (denying access to investigative information of leak from Grand Jury under FOIL and Penal Law § 215.70 which prohibits disclosure of matters before a Grand Jury).
m. Personal privacy protection law [N.Y. Pub. Off. Law, art. 6-A (McKinney)].
Records contained in an indexed computer data base may be protected by the New York State Personal Privacy Protection Law ("PPPL") which was enacted to protect against the danger to personal privacy posed by modern computerized data collection and retrieval systems. N.Y. Pub. Off. Law art. 6-A (McKinney). See Spargo v. New York State Commission on Government Integrity, 140 A.D.2d 26 (3d Dep't 1988).
George v. New York Newsday, N.Y.L.J., October 4, 1994 (Sup. Ct. New York County, 1994) (Personal Privacy Protection Law provides a civil cause of action only against a government agency which is releasing private material; it is inapplicable to private parties).
Reape v. State of New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 185 A.D.2d 275, 586 N.Y.S.2d 23 (2d Dep't 1992) (denying access to Transit Adjudication Bureau records under Public Authorities Law § 1209-a[f]).
o. Public health law [N.Y. Pub. Health Law (McKinney)].
In 1988, Public Health Law § 4174(1)(a) was amended to require the Commissioner of Health to issue death certificates or transcripts only when they are required for certain enumerated purposes. This amendment has exempted death certificates from FOIL requests.
In re Radov, N.Y.L.J., Oct. 19, 1981 (Sup. Ct., New York County, 1981) (birth records identifying natural parents held confidential under Domestic Relations Law § 114, Public Health Law § 4138(3)(d), Social Services Law § 372(4)).
p. Public officers law [N.Y. Pub. Off. Law (McKinney)].
Bensing v. LeFevre, 133 Misc.2d 198, 506 N.Y.S.2d 822 (Sup. Ct. 1986) (granting access to names of inmates housed in special unit, rejecting claim of exemption under Public Officers Law § 95).
q. Real property tax law [N.Y. Real Prop. Tax Law (McKinney)].
Property Valuation Analysts Inc. v. Williams, 164 A.D.2d 131, 563 N.Y.S.2d 545, (3d Dep't 1990) (Real property transfer reports are confidential under Real Property Tax law § 574).
In the 2008 amendments, a new subparagraph (iv) added to section 89(2)(c) specifies that disclosure of records involving real property, such as assessment records critical to enable individuals to ascertain the fairness of their real property tax assessment, would not constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy if disclosed.
r. Real property transfer tax law of New York City (1989 N.Y. Laws ch. 714, § 10).
Brownstone Publishers Inc. v. New York City Department of Finance, 167 A.D.2d 166, 561 N.Y.S.2d 245 (1st Dep't 1990) (in 1989 the state legislature amended section 11-2115 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York to deem it a state statute for purposes of FOIL to enforce its "secrecy" provision).
s. Social services law [N.Y. Soc. Serv. Law (McKinney)].
In re Radov, N.Y.L.J., Oct. 19, 1981 (Sup. Ct., New York County, 1981) (birth records identifying names of natural parents held confidential under Domestic Relations Law § 114, Public Health Law § 4138(3)(d), Social Services Law § 372(4)).
t. Tax law [N.Y. Tax Law (McKinney)].
Kooi v. Chu, 129 A.D.2d 393, 517 N.Y.S.2d 601 (3d Dep't 1987) (confidentiality provisions of Tax Law §§ 384 and 697 and Public Officers Law § 96 were not violated by disclosure of name of state employee who failed to file tax return, because confidentiality is accorded to information submitted by taxpayers).
u. Transportation law [N.Y. Transp. Law (McKinney)].
McAuley v. Commissioner, 99 Misc.2d 83, 415 N.Y.S.2d 389 (Sup. Ct. 1979) (granting access to departmental accident records under FOIL and Transportation Law § 83, except for notice of accident filed by bus company under Transportation Law § 142).
u. Election Law [N.Y. Elec. Law (McKinney].
Waldman v. Vill. of Kiryas Joel, 31 A.D.3d 569, 819 N.Y.S.2d 72 (2d Dep’t 2006) (denying disclosure on the basis that under New York Election Law § 3-220(2), certain election records may not be publicly disseminated, and are subject only to inspection).
Shedrick v. Coughlin, 176 A.D.2d 391, 574 N.Y.S.2d 98, (3d Dep't 1991), appeal dismissed, 79 N.Y.2d 896, 590 N.E.2d 244, 581 N.Y.S.2d 659 (denying access to Alcoholics Anonymous records as exempt under Public Health Service Act § 544(a), as amended 42 U.S.C. § 290dd-3(a)).
Krauss v. Nassau Community College, 122 Misc.2d 218, 469 N.Y.S.2d 553 (Sup. Ct. 1983) (denying access to names and addresses of students as precluded by federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1232g).
Ok, I'm stumped. Mayor De Blasio and Chancellor Carmen Farina appoint a person to oversee the State and Federal policies that she was found guilty of violating by a jury in federal court?
I think we are owed a detailed explanation of this one. Please describe your reasons, Carmen and Bill!
A judge has given an assistant principal a second chance to argue that she was a victim of retaliation for refusing to frame African-American teachers for disciplinary violations.Saying he was acting to "correct a possible injustice," Eastern District Judge Jack Weinstein (See Profile) agreed to allow reargument on the 1981 retaliation claim of Christina Villavicencio that she was punished by P.S. 316 principal Elif Gure-Perez for failing to write false reports.
Weinstein said case law on discrimination was overlooked, and he cited cases not mentioned by either party.
He had granted a motion for summary judgment on Oct. 2 in favor of Gure-Perez and the New York City Department of Education in Villavicencio v. Gure-Perez, 14-CV-0889.
He made that decision on the basis of Leibovitz v. N.Y.C. Transit Authority, 252 F.3d 179 (2d Cir. 2001), where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit said a plaintiff had no cause of action for discrimination that she did not observe herself.
But Weinstein reversed course on Wednesday, issuing an order and withdrawal of dismissal, saying that a line of U.S. Supreme Court and Second Circuit cases shows that a 42 U.S.C. ?1981 cause of action could be pursued against a superior where an employee suffers retaliation for trying to prevent discrimination by that superior.
Villavicencio worked as an assistant principal on probationary status from 2008 to 2009 at P.S. 316, where Gure-Perez allegedly told her to "aggressively supervise" older staff members--all but one of whom was African-American--to "shake them up."
Gure-Perez allegedly instructed Villavicencio to focus on two employees, give them "unsatisfactory" ratings and use "fear" and "intimidation" against a third teacher she wanted forced into retirement.
Villavicencio refused, and in her complaint, she charged that once Gure-Perez realized she would not take part in "her plan to use trumped-up write-ups, fraudulent evaluations and false pretenses to get rid of older African American staff at P.S. 316," Gure-Perez created "a false paper trail" to get rid of Villavicencio.
Gure-Perez placed seven disciplinary letters in her file on a single day on March 17, 2009. Nine days later, Villavicencio received her first unsatisfactory rating of her career along with a notice of discontinuance of her probationary status.
When she was reassigned to another school, P.S. 161, the principal, who was a friend of Gure-Perez's, allegedly gave her a hard time and threatened disciplinary action. Villavicencio was advised by a United Federation of Teachers representative to leave the school because the principal and her friends "are after you." She went on medical leave for anxiety and depression.
Weinstein said that neither side in the summary judgment phase of the case cited any cases that he said favored Villavicencio. Among them are Thompson v. N. Am. Stainless, LP, 131 S.Ct. 863 (2011) where the Supreme Court said third-party reprisals are not categorically excluded from the anti-retaliation provisions of Title VII, and CBOCS W., Inc. v. Humphries, 553 U.S. 442, where the court said a ?1981 claim can be made where a person suffers retaliation for trying to help a person who was the target of discrimination.
The Supreme Court also said in Sullivan v. Little Hunting Park, Inc. 396 U.S. 229 (1969), that a person can sue under the Civil Rights Act if he or she could show they were "punished for trying to vindicate the rights of minorities." And the Second Circuit held in Albert v. Carovano, 851 F.2d 561 (2d Cir. 1988) that "non-minority plaintiffs may bring an action under ?1981 against one who retaliated against them because they did not engage in purposeful discrimination."
Weinstein said that these cases and more "provide grounds for distinguishing the decision in Leibowitz" which was his basis for granting the motion for summary judgment.
In an interview Thursday, Weinstein said that after issuing the decision, "we thought about it and did further research" on the matter that led to the withdrawal of dismissal.
He set Oct. 23 for reargument.
Assistant Corporation Counsel Leah Schmelzer argued for the Department of Education.
Okoli said Thursday he had argued that Liebovitz did not apply and the judge had to look at the totality of the circumstances in deciding retaliation. He said he did not cite the cases, but argued nonetheless that a person who refused to participate in discrimination can state a case of retaliation.
"I'm happy that the judge took the time to take a second look at the case," he said.
Design and deliver graduate level courses regarding study of approaches, methods, and techniques used in teaching language skills and developing cross-cultural understandings to second/foreign language learners at the elementary and secondary levels. The emphasis of the courses include curriculum development, language development through development stages and content areas, language testing, lesson planning, and micro-teaching.
Lead cross-functional initiatives including NYC Principal Performance Evaluations, School Quality Reviews and Formative Quality Reviews. Manage professional development design and facilitation for quality reviewers and principal performance evaluators.
Lead design, implementation and delivery of Quality Review (QR) trainings for NYC Quality Reviews. Implement and deliver QR orientations for principals across networks. Oversee field support and quality assurance for QR process and reports. Facilitate professional development for quality reviewers. Oversee and guide each QR to ensure that they are adequately staffed and supported, resulting in high quality feedback to schools for continued school improvement.
Lead and foster a culture of improvement through personal leadership. Utilize multiple sources of data to set high learning goals and increase student achievement. Leverage deep knowledge of curriculum, instruction and assessment to improve student learning. Develop staff, share school leadership and build strong school community. School received and sustained a score of A on the NYC Progress Report Card and Good Standing on the NYS School Report Card.
Implement accountability measures and instructional systems designed to assist schools in improving student achievement. Assist principals in capturing and disseminating best practices around school improvement. Design and present school and network level trainings on the use of diagnostic and formative assessment tools. Conduct and facilitate instructional rounds for quality review assistance. Support principal in formulating and achieving performance review targets as well as facilitate collaborative action research projects.
Design and implement curriculum and professional development, federal, state and city compliance monitoring and supervision systems as well as instructional support for teachers, administrators and parents of English Language Learners in NYC Department of Education schools.
Manage the implementation and evaluation of system-wide discretionary federal grants projects including the design, implementation and coordination of a teacher training curriculum for a co-sponsored Master’s Degree Program for pre and in-service teachers as well as supplemental educational programs for immigrant students and families in NYC schools.
The de Blasio administration promoted a disgraced principal to a top Department of Education post despite multiple charges that she’s racist, The Post has learned.
Elif Gure-Perez, who was named in June as an executive director in the DOE’s Office of School Improvement, created a “hostile, race-based work environment,” a Manhattan federal court found months before her appointment.
Gure-Perez, the former principal of PS 316 in Prospect Heights, Brooklyn, called one staffer the N-word to her face; referred to an African-American teacher as “Shining,” an insulting term for a shoe shiner; and spoke of buying a bright orange blouse to wear to school “since I know black people like loud colors,” witnesses testified.
In her new post, Gure-Perez is assigned to support 14 high schools in the mayor’s $150 million School Renewal Program for struggling schools, according to DOE spokesman Will Mantell. Her salary is $144,195.
Asked why Chancellor Carmen Fariña promoted Gure-Perez in light of the complaints, the DOE had no comment.
In March, a Manhattan jury found Gure-Perez liable for civil damages, awarding Lovejoy $110,000, which the city is paying.
“I felt belittled, and as a black person and an astute student of history, it smacks of racism to me,” Williams said.
Williams said he complained to then-Chancellor Joel Klein after Gure-Perez made reference to a story called “Old Black Joe,” which teachers considered a negative stereotype, at a faculty meeting.
“Total disrespect and constant embarrassment” drove Butler to retire, she says.
In another pending suit, then-assistant principal Christina Villavicencio claims Gure-Perez punished her for defying orders to give bogus “Unsatisfactory” ratings to older African-American teachers, and to use “fear and intimidation” tactics to drive them out.
Villavicencio, who is seeking $1 million in damages, said Gure-Perez slapped her with seven disciplinary letters in one day, gave her the first U-rating of her career and fired her.
“From the moment Villavicencio refused to file false reports on these African-American teachers, Gure-Perez started a campaign to terminate Villavicencio’s employment as assistant principal,” Manhattan federal Judge Jack Weinstein wrote in a November ruling. The case is set for trial on Jan. 27.
Gure-Perez, 40, who immigrated from Turkey in 2001, got her bachelor’s degree from Istanbul University and a master’s degree in education from NYU. She joined the DOE in 2002 and quickly took administrative posts. She was principal of PS 316 from 2008 to 2011, then was moved to DOE headquarters.
When Carl (Campanile, NYPOST) called, I told him what I thought about the rise in complaints against school employees: secret recordings and social media.
New York State is a one party state. This means that as long as you are in a conversation with someone, you can secretly record the discussion and you do not have to tell the person/people with whom you are speaking that you are recording. You should assume that whenever anyone speaks with you at your school, especially in an office such as a Principal or AP, you are being recorded. Return the favor. Tape every meeting secretly and be creative.
I remember a teacher who recorded everyone, and the principal thought she was doing it, so whenever she entered the principal's office, she was given a pat down. So she kept the tape recorder in her bra or her sock.
You cannot secretly record any conversation in which you are not a party. Take a look also at the penal code for eavesdropping. You can, and should be documenting everything said to you, for your records. And remember that you are also legally allowed to secretly tape telephone calls in which you are a party.
Now that the cell phone ban is ending for all public school students, there will be more chances for a hidden tape recorder/phone to get an educator/principal/AP/Dean/etc saying something that is harassing, improper, or criminal.
If you look at the cell phone ban for a minute, consider this: the schools with high-scoring kids (NEST+M, La Guardia, Stuyvesant) never told students they could not bring their phones to school. Students were told "don't have anyone see your phone in class, keep it in your backpack/bag". I know, because my daughters always had their phones with them, and went to those schools. My oldest daughter was a student at Stuyvesant on 9/11. There was no way I would let her on the subway or at school without her cellphone.
On the other side of the coin are the schools where the demographics are very different. Take Wadleigh HS on West 114th Street in Manhattan. Harlem. Parents told me that when the phone scanner officers were stationed at the door, parents and students - mostly African-American - were body searched. Who decides?
My thoughts about why the cell phone ban was put in place was not to protect the learning experience but to guard against student exposure of employee misconduct.
Let's see what happens now that students throughout the city will be able to carry their phones inside the school building.
Investigators were flooded with a record number of complaints against school employees last year — but pursued fewer cases against them, records show.
Investigators received 5,287 complaints in 2014, according to a report released Thursday by Special Schools Investigator Richard Condon.
But his office completed only 714 investigations, 123 fewer than last year, when there were 4,335 complaints.
Regina Romain, a spokeswoman for Condon, said many of the complaints were frivolous or did not fall under his purview.
“We do not have any control over the amount of complainants that call our office,” she said.
One advocate who helps defend teachers in disciplinary cases attributed the complaint surge to an explosion in the use of high-tech gadgets and social media.
One Brooklyn principal said it has become easier to file complaints through the 311 hot line.
“Administrators are being called in and hearing, ‘We got a 311 complaint,’ ” said Dakota Keyes, principal of PS 272 in Canarsie.
She said the situation is frustrating because many of the accusations are unfounded.
Keyes recalled one incident in which her students held fund-raisers for a classmate who was hospitalized.
When she delivered the money to the student’s parents in front of numerous eyewitnesses, someone complained.
“There was a 311 call saying the funds were not used for what was intended,” said Keyes.
Investigators discovered evidence of sexual misconduct in 52 out of 581 complaints received that had a sexual component.
The cases included an after-school aide in PS 300 in The Bronx who allegedly abused two 8-year-old female students; Brooklyn Tech teacher Sean Shaynak’s alleged relations with seven girls in his classes; and a school investigator who sext-messaged a teacher he was investigating.
Few cases resulted in dismissals.
Condon recommended that the city fire only 63 school employees and never rehire 115 others who left on their own.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1401
 v. 
 § 50
 v. 
 § 50
 v. 
 § 50
 v. 
 §50
 v. 
 § 677
 v. 
 § 2207
 v. 
 v. 
 § 190
 v. 
 § 19
 v. 
 § 6510
 v. 
 § 3020
 v. 
 v. 
 § 3020
 v. 
 § 63
 § 73
 v. 
 § 343
 v. 
 § 509
 v. 
 § 537
 v. 
 § 557
 v. 
 § 215
 art. 6
 art. 6
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1209
 § 4174
 § 114
 § 4138
 § 372
 v. 
 § 95
 v. 
 § 574
 § 10
 v. 
 § 114
 § 4138
 § 372
 v. 
 § 96
 v. 
 § 83
 § 142
 v. 
 § 3
 v. 
 § 544
 § 290
 v. 
 § 1232
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.