Source: http://silvermanandassociatesny.com/news.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 20:52:28+00:00

Document:
Lewis Silverman and Caroline Zacholl obtained a defense verdict in the Eastern District of New York on October 9, 2015 following a five-day trial. The plaintiff was an Assistant Superintendent for Personnel in a Long Island school district. The plaintiff alleged that the school district and its Superintendent discriminated against her because she was lower paid than other administrators who were younger and/or were male. The defense focused on proof that all Assistant Superintendents received the same percentage rate raise each year and that in a few situations, raises were larger because of consolidation of administrative positions and certain individuals took on more responsibilities and duties. Prior to summations the Court dismissed by motion the 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 claims against the Superintendent and the school district. The jury deliberated for approximately one hour and returned a verdict in favor of the school district dismissing all claims under Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Equal Pay Act.
On September 16, 2015, in Maldari v. Mt. Pleasant CSD, we obtained a decision from the Appellate Division, Second Department affirming the summary judgment dismissal of a “bullying” claim. According to the plaintiff’s allegations, he was teased, pushed and shoved and that an escalating pattern of bullying led to an assault in a high school cafeteria. During discovery, we produced evidence to establish that the school district did not have notice of any prior similar conduct by the alleged bully. The Westchester County Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the school district and the plaintiff appealed.
On appeal, the Appellate Division Second Department held that the school district established that there was a lack of actual or constructive notice of any prior similar conduct. Based on the lack of notice, the school district could not be responsible for any claims of negligent supervision of students. In addition, the court held that the school district established that the cafeteria assault was an unforeseeable act. For these reasons, the plaintiff could not establish a negligent supervision cause of action and the bullying claim was dismissed.
Caroline B. Lineen obtained a decision from the Southern District of New York granting defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s Due Process and State-Law claims. The plaintiff, a tenured elementary school teacher, was suspended after a parent reported “possible testing irregularities” where teachers may have coached students during New York State standardized exams. Plaintiff was administratively reassigned to home with full pay and benefits pending the District’s investigation.
As a result, plaintiff brought a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment. On plaintiff’s deprivation of a protected property interest in employment claim, the District Court held, “Plaintiff who continues to receive full pay and benefits has suffered no deprivation of property as a result of her reassignment.” The court also rejected Plaintiff’s claim of deprivation of protected property interest in contractual right to professional development, holding plaintiff, “presents no authority for that proposition and the court has found no case so holding. The scanty facts plaintiff provides do not suggest that she depends on its permanence or that it is important to her livelihood.” Ultimately, all remaining claims were dismissed and plaintiff’s leave to amend was denied.
Jerry Smith prevailed in a Second Department case that upheld dismissal of an Article 78 Petition. The claim was brought by four former and current teachers who alleged that they had been improperly denied tenure and seniority credits. The Supreme Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss the action in its entirety and the decision was subsequently affirmed by the Appellate Division, Second Department, after briefing and oral argument.
Jerry Smith successfully defended a school district against a former employee’s retaliation and whistleblower claims. The Eastern District of New York granted a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6). This matter involved the claims of a former employee who alleged that her employment had been terminated in retaliation for speaking out about improper activities by co-workers. The plaintiff also alleged retaliation under State “whistleblower” statutes as well as breach of contract and breach of implied contract, defamation, libel, libel per se, and stigma plus due process.
Lewis Silverman presented a seminar entitled “Social Media and Claim Investigation” during the New York Association of Independent Adjusters, Inc. (NYAIA) 74h annual convention in Lewiston, New York on September 12, 2014. The seminar was given to a diverse group of insurance adjusters and industry executives. The seminar focused on the use of social media during the claim investigation process and included tips on best practices, emerging social media platforms and related legal issues.
Lewis Silverman obtained dismissal of a Complaint against a school district, the Superintendent of Schools and an Elementary School Principal. The plaintiff alleged that a gym teacher pulled her hair during an incident that occurred while waiting in line to have to have school photographs. The court agreed that the school district and administrators could not be liable for violating the student’s right to substantive due process or that the incident constituted an unlawful seizure. The Court granted the motion to dismiss and dismissed all constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, along with all state law negligence claims against the District, Superintendent and Principal.
Lewis Silverman, Caroline Lineen and Jerry Smith presented a CLE seminar to attorneys and claims staff of the Wright Insurance Group entitled “Social Media and Litigation” on September 13, 2013. The seminar topics included social media’s role in litigation, social media investigation, discovery and trial issues, and ethical considerations.
Lewis Silverman led a training session for the staff of LaMarche Associates, Inc.,a regional independent insurance adjusting firm, entitled “Claim Handling and Investigation 101.” The training session was given to new and experienced members of the LaMarche staff and focused on issues related to the investigation and adjustment of trucking, construction and general liability claims. The training session provided an overview of claim handling, actions to take in claim adjusting and investigation, and a review of particular issues in trucking and construction liability cases.
In Glowczenski v. TASER, et al., Lewis Silverman represented a Village of Southampton, New York police officer in a wrongful death and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 excessive force case pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The court granted a motion to exclude the plaintiff’s expert forensic pathologist from testifying at trial. Without a cause of death expert, the plaintiff was not able to produce any evidence that the police officer’s actions were a contributing cause of death. Furthermore, because the officer was operating upon orders of a superior officer, the court found that he was also entitled to qualified immunity. Consequently, the excessive force and wrongful death causes of action against the officer were dismissed.
Lewis Silverman prevailed on a FRCP 12(b)(6) pre-Answer motion to dismiss in a case where a school district allowed police to interview a nineteen year old developmentally disabled student after she reported that her brother had thrown something at her, causing bruising to her face. The plaintiff alleged a host of constitutional causes of action under 42 U.S.C § 1983, including due process violations, Fourth Amendment search and seizure violations and conspiracy claims. The plaintiff sought damages from the school district, a teacher and a school social worker. The Southern District of New York dismissed all of the federal claims, holding that the plaintiff did not sufficiently allege a Monell cause of action and the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity regarding the Fourth Amendment search and seizure claim. The conspiracy claims were dismissed because of a lack of any specific details about the purported conspiracy and because of the intra-corporate conspiracy doctrine.
Lewis Silverman obtained summary judgment on behalf of a school district in a case where the plaintiff, a high school student, alleged that he had been “bullied” and subjected to “harassment” by other high school students. The motion argued that New York State does not recognize a cognizable cause of action for bullying. The plaintiff’s cause of action, therefore, was analyzed under a negligent supervision theory. The Court found that because the plaintiff had no evidence that any of the alleged bullies had a prior history of dangerous activities, the plaintiff could not prove the notice element of the claim and summary judgment dismissing the case was appropriate.
Lewis Silverman and Caroline Lineen obtained a defense verdict following a seven-day jury trial in the Eastern District of New York. The plaintiff was a former school administrator who sued her school district employer, the District Superintendent and the Board of Education President after her position was abolished by the District’s Board of Education. The plaintiff alleged that her position was abolished because of race and age. A central issue during the trial involved “minority recruitment” efforts by the District and evidence was submitted that demonstrated the District’s hiring was race-neutral. The jury returned a verdict dismissing all of the plaintiff’s claims against the defendants.
Lewis Silverman obtained a summary judgment ruling that was affirmed on appeal to the New York State Appellate Division, Second Department, resulting in dismissal of the complaint and a declaration that the challenged real property tax laws were constitutional. Plaintiffs were a collection of condominium owners that alleged a local law enacted by the Village of Piermont, which formally adopted Article 19 of New York State’s Real Property Tax Law, resulted in a disparate tax rate in violation of the equal protection clauses of the federal and New York State Constitutions. Plaintiffs further alleged that their right to due process was violated, they were retaliated against for having filed tax grievances in violation of the First Amendment, and that the defendants conspired to commit the foregoing violations. The Second Department declared that the Village’s tax law and Article 19 were constitutional, held that Plaintiffs were not retaliated against, and dismissed all claims on the merits.
Lewis Silverman and Caroline Lineen obtained summary judgment dismissing a claim by a high school student that her Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process right to bodily integrity was violated when she was attacked by other students following a graduation ceremony. The plaintiff alleged that she had made complaints about the other students to the District’s administration and that the District was deliberately indifferent to her complaints and a general pattern of violence and assaults by students that was hidden by the District. The Southern District of New York held that the Due Process Clause does not impose upon a school district a constitutional duty to protect students from harm inflicted by fellow students or private actors. The court found that the school district administrators’ actions did not communicate to the attackers that an attack would be condoned or go unpunished and, thus, the plaintiff could not pursue a “state created danger” theory of liability.
Lewis Silverman obtained summary judgment dismissing a school custodian’s claim of “gender plus” discrimination, a Title VII retaliation claim and a First Amendment retaliation claim against her employer, a suburban school district. The plaintiff, a woman, was denied a promotion to a head custodian position in favor of another female applicant. The plaintiff claimed that she was denied the position because she had a “more feminine appearance” than the other applicant and because she previously successfully sued the same school district for sexual harassment. The Eastern District of New York held that an interview committee member’s comment that the plaintiff did not present as an “authoritative figure” did not evidence a discriminatory motive. Furthermore, the court found that there was no evidence that would establish a causal connection between the prior lawsuit and the District’s decision to promote the other custodian.
Lewis Silverman and Caroline Lineen obtained a decision from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirming the summary judgment dismissal of a First Amendment retaliation case. The plaintiff, who was a Head Custodian at a high school, alleged that he was terminated from his employment in retaliation for making complaints about asbestos in the gymnasium. The District Court granted summary judgment and dismissed the case. On appeal, the Second Circuit ruled that the plaintiff was not speaking as a citizen and, relying on Garcetti v. Ceballos and their previous decision in Weintraub v. Board of Education, upheld the District Court’s dismissal. Morey v. Somers Central School District, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 2554 (2d Circuit, 2011).
Lewis Silverman obtained dismissal of two of three counts in a Section 1983 civil rights case against a school district, its Superintendent of Schools and the Deputy Superintendent of Schools. The plaintiff’s Complaint alleged that the District violated her First Amendment right to association and further violations of her Fourteenth Amendment rights to substantive due process and privacy. The plaintiff alleged that the District improperly ordered her to submit to a New York State Education Law § 913 psychiatric examination and then publicized the order on the District’s web-site after it received information that she had inappropriately raised her voice at students and discarded student work. The teacher was suspended with pay, and was directed not to communicate with any school district employees while suspended.
On a pre-discovery motion to dismiss, the court held that the District did not violate the plaintiff’s substantive due process rights by ordering her to undergo an examination or posting the order on the web-site using only the employee number and without any other identifying information. All claims against the administrators were dismissed based on the qualified immunity doctrine. The only claim that survived was the plaintiff’s argument that the District violated the First Amendment by directing her not to speak to other staff members because she has a right to association with her union representatives.

References: v. 
 § 1983
 § 1983
 v. 
 § 1983
 § 1983
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 913