Severin v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ.
| Decision Date | 31 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | 1:19-cv-00775-MKV-RWL |
| Parties | JEAN RICHARD SEVERIN, Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, STEVEN DORCELY, former Principal of Urban Action Academy High School, JORDAN BARNETT, former Assistant Principal of Urban Action Academy High School, and MICHAEL PRAYOR, former Superintendent over Urban Action Academy High School, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Plaintiff Jean Richard Severin ("Plaintiff"), a former New York City public school teacher, has sued Defendants New York City Department of Education ("DOE"), Steven Dorcely, Jordan Barnett, and Michael Prayor (collectively, "Defendants") alleging unlawful retaliation under the First Amendment and New York State law. (See generally Compl. [ECF No. 1].) Defendants have moved for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). (Mot. J. Pleadings [ECF No. 33].) For the reasons discussed below, Defendants' motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
Plaintiff was hired by Defendant Principal Steven Dorcely to teach at Urban Action Academy High School ("UAA"). (Compl. ¶ 18.) Shortly thereafter, Dorcely summoned Plaintiffto a meeting and asked him to review a student's Regents examination with the student because she had failed. (Id. ¶ 20.) In this meeting, the student changed her test answers with Dorcely's encouragement. (Id. ¶¶ 20-21.) Plaintiff reported this incident to the New York City Special Commissioner of Investigation ("SCI"). (Id. ¶¶ 23-24.)
As the investigation unfolded, Dorcely learned that Plaintiff had filed the SCI report. (Id. ¶ 27.) Things then went sour between Plaintiff and Dorcely. At a faculty meeting, while looking at Plaintiff, Dorcely informed the staff that a teacher reported him, but he was "back and stronger than ever" and "going to go in beast mode." (Id. ¶ 28.) Shortly thereafter, Dorcely approached Plaintiff and threatened, "This year you're done and you're gone, I'm going to . . . you up." (Id. ¶ 29.) Plaintiff also alleges that Dorcely physically assaulted him and photographed him without his consent. (Id. ¶¶ 30-31.) In addition, Plaintiff began receiving dozens of negative evaluations and disciplinary letters from Dorcely and the UAA administration, despite receiving positive assessments the prior year. (Id. ¶ 32-35.) A meeting was held with Plaintiff, Dorcely, and Superintendent Michael Prayor where they agreed to a "cooling off" period during which Dorcely would not contact or otherwise interact with Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 37.)
Months later, Plaintiff was served with 18 disciplinary specifications under New York Education Law Section 3020-a seeking termination of his employment, initiated by Dorcely. (Id. ¶ 39.) Hearing Officer James Brown conducted a six-day hearing where the parties submitted evidence and argument in support of their positions. (Wesley Decl. Ex. A at 2 [ECF No. 35-1].) Plaintiff claimed that the administration had a "vendetta" against him and that "he was disciplined 'in retaliation for filing the SCI report that Principal Dorcely engaged or attempted to engage in testing irregularities.'" (Id. at 11, 16.) Plaintiff's counsel stressed this retaliatory defense duringopening and closing arguments, urging Hearing Officer Brown to dismiss all of the specifications. (Wesley Decl. Ex. B at 369:14-371:5, 776:19-828:8 [ECF No. 35-2].)
Hearing Officer Brown found Plaintiff guilty of 10 of the specifications, including failure to attend work meetings; failure to submit his mid-term exam to the administration for feedback and review; failure to inform the administration of absences; and failure to follow various directives by administrators. Hearing Officer Brown outlined Plaintiff's retaliatory defense (id. at 11, 16-17) and noted the "truly dysfunctional" and "toxic" relationship between Dorcely and Plaintiff, but ultimately concluded that "the unmistakable thread running through [Plaintiff's] misconduct is his stubborn noncompliance with his administrators' directives" (id. at 30). Plaintiff was fined $2,000 for his misconduct. (Id. at 30-31.)
Thereafter, Plaintiff was permanently reassigned from UAA, first to the Absent Teacher Reserve pool as a roving substitute teacher (Compl. ¶ 43) and then to Middle School for Marketing and Legal Studies ("MLS") (Wesley Decl. Ex. C at 2, 27 [ECF No. 35-3]). Notwithstanding Plaintiff's reassignment, Dorcely allegedly "continued his campaign of retaliation against [Plaintiff]." (Compl. ¶ 44.) Plaintiff was served with additional specifications, including charges that related back to his time UAA. (Compl. ¶¶ 44-45; Wesley Decl. Ex. C at 3-6.) Plaintiff was charged with, inter alia, using expletives and discriminatory language, allowing minor students to view an inappropriate television show, allowing students to listen to music with explicit lyrical content, frequently sleeping on the job, and excessive lateness. (Wesley Decl. Ex. C at 3-6.) The DOE sought Plaintiff's termination as a penalty. (Id. at 2.)
Hearing Officer Richard Williams presided over a ten-day hearing regarding the latest specifications. (Id.) Plaintiff testified extensively about Dorcely's alleged animus toward himfollowing the Regents exam incident. (See Wesley Decl. Ex. D at 1236:15-1254:15, 1339:6-1362:24 [ECF No. 35-4].)
Hearing Officer Williams ultimately found that Plaintiff engaged in the following misconduct: First, during "spirit week" at UAA, in referencing boys dressing up as girls, Plaintiff remarked to students, "This is not okay and/or This is not right"; "The school is promoting gays"; "The boys are dressed up like trannies"; and "This is a disgrace." (Wesley Decl. Ex. C at 19-20.) Second, Plaintiff stated to students at UAA: "This school is bullshit"; Dorcely is "dumb," "an asshole," and a "[p]iece of shit principal"; and "This piece of shit [Dorcely] lets students walk around dressing like girls." (Id. at 20-21.) Third, without permission from the UAA administration, Plaintiff permitted his minor students to watch The Boondocks, an R-rated animated sitcom with adult themes and pervasive language and sexual references. (Id. at 22-23.) Plaintiff also permitted his students to listen to a song called "Dick Riding" with sexually explicit lyrical content. (Id.) Fourth, at both UAA and MLS, Plaintiff was observed sleeping or in a relaxed position during work hours and instructional time. (Id. at 21-22, 26-27.) Fifth, Plaintiff failed to comply with MLS protocols and procedures as well as directives from the administration. (Id. at 27-30.) Finally, Plaintiff was late to work several times while at MLS. (Id. at 31.)
Hearing Officer Williams explained that Plaintiff's misconduct evidenced his "unprofessionalism, extremely poor judgment, lack of control, lack of restraint, impulsiveness, and unwillingness to accept the demands of his position." (Id. at 36.) He emphasized Plaintiff's "frustration stemming from his personal animosity towards Principal Dorcely," noting that "[a]t the crux of [Plaintiff's] misconduct is a personal inability to let his resentment go." (Id. at 35-36.) Hearing Officer Williams found it "highly unlikely [Plaintiff] can or will correct his behavior" given his "continued denial of wrongdoing" and "lack of understanding that what he did waswrong." (Id. at 36.) Accordingly, Hearing Officer Williams terminated Plaintiff's employment. (Id.)
Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff commenced an action under Article 75 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, challenging Hearing Officer Williams's decision. Severin v. Dep't of Educ., Index No. 655086/2017 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty.) (Hagler, J.). (Wesley Decl. Ex. E [ECF No. 35-5].) Plaintiff argued that the decision was arbitrary and capricious, imposed an excessive penalty, and violated his due process rights. (Id. at 1.) In particular, Plaintiff argued that the charges in the second set of specifications arising from his time at UAA should have been adjudicated with the first set of specifications so that his previously spotless record could have mitigated the more serious charges in the second set. (Id. ¶ 27.)
At oral argument before Justice Hagler, Plaintiff stressed that he was the victim of retaliation. Plaintiff's counsel asked Justice Hagler to "realize that [Plaintiff] has lost his job because he was a whistleblower" and that Plaintiff "had no issues until, you know, he antagonized the principal [by] reporting him for misconduct." (Id. at 6:14-6:19.) Counsel argued that "Mr. Dorcely wanted [Plaintiff] gone" and "decided to consolidate and play arbitrator[] to get the right combination of factors here to get [Plaintiff] fired." (Wesley Decl. Ex. F at 14:16-14:20 [ECF No. 35-6].) Counsel continued:
The fact is [Plaintiff] would still be teaching if he had not reported the principal for fraud. . . . [Plaintiff] has been the victim of reporting — he's a whistleblower and he's being terminated because he's a whistleblower and the board knows how to play the games with charges. . . . [Plaintiff] was a fine teacher who was loved by Mr. Dorcely until he reported him for fraud and he's being fired because he's a whistleblower. That's all this case is really about.
(Id. at 14:20-15:12.) Justice Hagler, however, noted that the papers did not reflect "an argument as strong as [counsel] just made that the principal was out to get the petitioner." (Id. at 9:18-9:21.) And counsel for the DOE argued that there were no retaliation-based arguments in the petition and that they should not be considered. (Id. at 10:18-10:20, 15:19-15:21.)
Justice Hagler dismissed Plaintiff's petition in its entirety. He explained that the alleged retaliation "really goes to the heart of the issue." (Id. at 20:7.) Nevertheless, Justice Hagler found that the record adequately supported Hearing Officer Williams's...
To continue reading
Request your trial