Case: Gulino v. New York City Board of Education

1:96-cv-08414 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Filed Date: Nov. 8, 1996

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On November 8, 1996, a group of Black and Latinx teachers in the New York City Public School System filed this class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Board of Education of the New York City School District (Board) and the New York State Education Department (Department). This action was filed on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated Black and Latinx teachers in the system who were adversely affected by either of two allegedly …

On November 8, 1996, a group of Black and Latinx teachers in the New York City Public School System filed this class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Board of Education of the New York City School District (Board) and the New York State Education Department (Department). This action was filed on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated Black and Latinx teachers in the system who were adversely affected by either of two allegedly discriminatory tests developed and administered by the defendants: the National Teacher Examination Core Battery (NTE), and its successor, the Liberal Arts & Sciences Test of the New York State Teacher Certification Examination (LAST). Represented by the Center for Constitutional Rights, the Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School, and private counsel, the plaintiffs sought declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief, as well as class certification.

The defendants had required teachers to pass one of the tests in order to receive their licenses and receive teaching appointments. The plaintiffs claimed that the tests were misused and not designed to measure whether the test-takers were qualified as teachers. They alleged that because Black and Latinx teachers disproportionately failed the tests in contrast to white test-takers, the use of these tests had a disparate impact on them and violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), and various state laws.

Class Certification and Definition

On July 13, 2001, the District Court (Judge Constance B. Motley) granted the plaintiffs' motion to certify this action as a class action on behalf of: "all African-American and Latino [teachers] in the System who were employed by the defendants on or after June 29, 1995, failed either the NTE or the LAST, and had suffered adverse employment consequences." 201 F.R.D. 326 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). The Court certified the class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) for injunctive relief.

The lawsuit continued for several years and in 2011 the Supreme Court issued an opinion in Wal-Mart v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 that overruled the Second Circuit's test for class certification. The Supreme Court held that for class members to obtain individualized monetary relief, the putative class must satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) and could not avoid its additional requirements by seeking certification under Rule 23(b)(2). The defendants argued that because the plaintiffs had been certified under Rule 23(b)(2) but sought both monetary damages and individualized injunctive relief, the class certification was not valid and the class must be decertified.

On December 4, 2012, the Court (Judge Kimba M. Wood) granted the decertification motion in part and denied it in part. Relying on Rule 23(c)(4), which allows the court to bifurcate proceedings, the court decertified the class with respect to the plaintiffs' claims for individual injunctive relief but maintained the class with respect to the declaratory judgment of the Board's liability under Title VII and injunctive relief benefiting the class as a whole. 907 F. Supp. 2d 492. The Board appealed the decision.

On August 29, 2013, the court granted the plaintiff's motion to certify a damages class under Rule 23(b)(3). After administering the NTE exam, the Board had administered two iterations of the LAST exam, LAST-1 from 1993-2004 and LAST-2 from 2004-2012. The damages class, as amended on June 18, 2014, included those affected by the LAST-1 exam and was defined as: "all African-American and Latino individuals employed as New York City public school teachers by Defendant, on or after June 29, 1995, who failed to achieve a qualifying score on an administration of the LAST-1 given on or before February 13, 2004, and as a result either lost or were denied a permanent teaching appointment." 2013 WL 4647190.

On February 25, 2014, the Circuit Court (Judges Robert A. Katzmann, Richard C. Wesley, and Raymond J. Lohier, Jr.) held that the Board's challenge to the District Court's class action decertification decision was moot because when the District Court certified the damages class, it had addressed the relief that the Board sought on appeal—namely, a determination of whether the predominance and superiority requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) were met. 555 F. App'x 37.

The parties then litigated the validity of the LAST-2 test, and ultimately the Court held that the LAST-2 also violated Title VII. On October 7, 2016, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion to amend the damages class definition. The class definition was expanded to include:

"All African American and Latino individuals Employed as New York City public school teachers by Defendant, on or after June 29, 1995, who failed to achieve a qualifying score on any administration of the LAST, and as a result either last or were denied a permanent teaching appointment." 2016 WL 9777081.

Defendant's Crossclaim

On September 20, 2000, the Board of Education filed a crossclaim against the State Education Department for indemnification and contribution, arguing that because the Department had required the Board to administer the NTE and LAST, the Board should be indemnified. By 2003, all the plaintiffs' claims against the Department had been dismissed, but the Board's indemnification claims remained.

On June 25, 2009, the District Court (Judge Kimba M. Wood) dismissed the crossclaim, finding that the cross-claim failed as a matter of law because there is no right to indemnification or contribution under Title VII.

The District Court Summary Judgment Decisions

On November 25, 2002, the Court (Judge Motley) granted the plaintiffs' and the defendants' summary judgment motions in part and denied them in part. Specifically, the court decided the following issues:

  1. Procedural claims: The Court denied the defendant’s motions for summary judgment, holding that the plaintiffs' suit was not barred under res judicata, the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine, the statute of limitations, or the plaintiffs’ failure to file a timely notice of claim.
  2. Failure to state a claim: The court found that because prior to January 1, 1991, New York City was endowed with independent licensing authority, the plaintiffs could not state a claim against the Department for actions taken prior to that date. The court granted the Department's motion for summary judgment on this issue.
  3. Lack of jurisdiction: The court denied the Department’s motion for summary judgment on the theory that the court lacked jurisdiction due to the plaintiffs' failure to sue the right party (the New York State Board of Regents). The Court found that the Board of Regents was not a necessary party and that the Department’s argument was a mistaken apprehension of the law.
  4. Title VII employer liability: The court denied both defendants' motions for summary judgment that had sought a release from liability on the basis that they were not Title VII employers. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the issue and held that both defendants were employers under Title VII.
  5. Title VI claims: The court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, finding that there was no private right of action under Title VI.
  6. Disparate impact claim: The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, finding that that the plaintiffs had failed to establish a prima facie case of disparate impact.
  7. Misuse of the tests: Both parties had moved for summary judgment as to whether the tests were appropriately used to demote some of the plaintiffs. The court denied both motions, finding that there were issues of fact remaining.

236 F. Supp. 2d 314. On November 27, 2002, the court denied the Education Department's request for certification of an interlocutory appeal with respect to the ruling that the Education Department could be liable as an employer under Title VII (issue 4 above). 234 F. Supp. 2d 324. On December 26, 2002, the court reversed its summary judgment ruling for the Department as to actions taken before January 1, 1992 (issue 2 above). The court found that an issue of fact still remained as to whether the Department played a significant role in the licensing of teachers before that date. 2002 WL 31887733.

Trial

Subsequently, the parties had a number of discovery disputes resolved in front of the court. The case went to a bench trial before Judge Motley beginning on December 11, 2002 to address the Title VII disparate impact claims and remaining issues of fact. The court recessed from January 27, 2002 until April 7, 2003, and the trial concluded on April 24, 2003. In total, the trial lasted over eight weeks.

After the bench trial, the court ruled in favor of the defendants on September 4, 2003, and issued a judgment accordingly. The court held that, although the two tests in question had a disparate impact on the employment prospects of African-American and Latinx test-takers, the defendants had no Title VII liability because both tests were job-related, a defense to the plaintiffs' disparate impact showing. 2003 WL 25764041.

The plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Education Department filed a cross-appeal, but the appeal was later dismissed in March 2004 for lack of standing (documents unavailable).

Court of Appeals Decision

On August 17, 2006, the Circuit Court (Circuit Judges Reena Raggi and Richard C. Wesley, and District Judge Christopher F. Droney) affirmed the lower court's ruling in part, vacated it in part, and remanded the case back to the trial court. The Circuit Court held that the Department was not a Title VII employer and that the District Court had applied the wrong standard and erred in finding that the Department was subject to Title VII liability. The Circuit Court dismissed the Title VII claims against the Department accordingly. On the other hand, the Circuit Court affirmed that the Board was a proper Title VII employer and that its act of following state laws requiring teachers to pass the tests was not an act of business necessity that would exempt it from Title VII liability. 460 F.3d 361.

The Circuit Court also found both legal and factual errors in the District Court's Title VII claim ruling in the defendants' favor. The Circuit Court agreed with the lower court that the NTE was properly validated and job-related. However, it found that the lower court had applied the wrong legal standard in its determination that the LAST was job-related. The Court vacated the lower court's ruling with respect to the LAST, and remanded the case. The Circuit Court noted that although it had found both legal and factual errors in the holding for the defendants, it was not convinced that judgement for the plaintiff appellants on the Title VII claim was warranted as a matter of law, either. 460 F.3d 361. The Board filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, but it was denied on June 23, 2008.

Events after Remand

Judge Motley passed away in 2005, and on remand, the case was reassigned to Judge Sidney H. Stein. The case was then reassigned to Judge Kimba M. Wood in February 2009 (pursuant to a memorandum issued by a case processing assistant). The remaining issues included: (1) whether the LAST was properly validated, and thus job related, and (2) whether the Board misused the NTE and the LAST exams to make decisions regarding the plaintiffs' employment.

In the meantime, the Department, the New York State Board of Regents (the Regents) and the New York State Commissioner of Education (the Commissioner) sought to intervene in this action, seeking declaratory judgment from the Court against the plaintiffs under several theories. On September 17, 2009, the Court (Judge Wood) denied all three entities' motions but granted them the right to participate in the action as amici curiae. 2009 WL 2972997. The Department, the Regents, and the Commissioner appealed the denial to the Circuit Court, but later withdrew the appeal.

On December 5, 2012, the court held that the Board did not misuse the NTE to make decisions regarding conditions of experienced teachers' employment. However, the court found that the Board violated Title VII by requiring the plaintiffs to pass the LAST as a condition to receive teaching licenses, because the LAST was not properly validated and thus it was not job-related.

On January 28, 2013, the court granted the Board's motion for certification of an interlocutory appeal of the decision, finding that the issue of whether the Board's compliance with a facially neutral state licensing requirement that has a disparate impact on members of a protected class may be subject to Title VII liability met the requirements for an interlocutory appeal. However, the court declined to stay proceedings pending the appeal due to the age of the case.

On July 2, 2013, the court ordered the Board to show cause why it should not issue an injunction enjoining the Board from further use of the LAST. On February 24 2014, the Circuit Court affirmed the District Court judgment.

Special Master and Injunction

In May 2014, the court appointed a Special Master to oversee litigation and make reports and recommendations to the court. On November 24, 2014, the court issued an injunction enjoining the Board from using the LAST exam administered on or before February 13, 2004, as a benchmark for any employment decisions for the class members. The court also established criteria that would enable class members to be deemed certified by the State of New York to teach.

The court appointed a neutral expert to evaluate whether the LAST-2 exam (administered from 2004-2012) also had a disparate impact on Black and Latinx test takers and whether it violated Title VII. The expert concluded that it did. The court held on June 5, 2015 that the Board violated Title VII by requiring the plaintiffs to pass the LAST-2 exam in order to receive a permanent teaching license. 113 F. Supp. 3d 663. The court subsequently granted a motion to amend the class definition to account for the holding. 2016 WL 9777081.

However, by the time the court reached its decision regarding the LAST-2 exam, the State Education Department had retired the exam and implemented a new test called the Academic Literacy Skills Test (ALST). The parties litigated over the validity of the ALST, and on August 7, 2015, the court held that the Board’s administering of ALST and the State Education Department’s requirement that all licensed teachers pass the ALST did not violate Title VII. The Court found that the content of the exam was related to the job of teaching in state public schools, the content of the exam reflected the content of a teacher’s job, and the developers used reasonable competence in constructing the exam. 122 F. Supp. 3d 115.

Individual Money Judgments

The parties continued to litigate over the content of the injunction and over specific claimants' inclusion or dismissal from the class. In 2016, the court dismissed the case with respect to paraprofessionals employed by the defendants and claimants who had worked as per diem substitute teachers. On December 14, 2018, the court issued an order adopting the Special Master's Report on Classwide Conclusions of Law, Stipulation of Classwide Facts and Procedures, and Stipulation of the Admissibility of Exhibits. The Report provided a guide to compute damages for claimants. The court has issued monetary judgments for several individual claimants against the Board. Starting on April 11, 2019, the Board appealed all of the individual judgments to the Circuit Court.

On April 29, 2019, the Board moved to stay enforcement of these judgments, both past and future. The court granted the motion for monetary relief and denied the motion for injunctive relief on June 12, 2019. Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this stay applied only to past judgments and not future ones.

Individual monetary judgments and appeals of those judgments continued through 2019 and into 2020. On March 26, 2020, the court extended the LAST injunction to March 31, 2021. Six months later, the injunction was further extended to July 30, 2021. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the injunction was once again extended, this time to August 26, 2022.

On April 23, 2020, the court ordered an interim award of attorneys' fees for the plaintiffs amounting to $1,736,625.26. The court awarded another interim payment on December 12, 2020, this time for $2,241,902.82.

The Circuit Court heard oral argument on January 14, 2021, on the appeal the defendants had filed on April 11, 2019. It issued a summary order two weeks later, affirming the District Court's judgments and holding that those final judgments were calculated properly. On March 15, 2021, the Board filed a petition for a rehearing with the Circuit Court.

The case is ongoing.

Summary Authors

Emma Bao (8/5/2013)

Sara Stearns (4/9/2019)

Lauren Yu (4/8/2021)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4328284/parties/gulino-v-board-of-education/


Judge(s)

Carney, Susan Laura (Connecticut)

Katzmann, Robert A. (New York)

Lohier, Raymond Joseph Jr. (New York)

Motley, Constance Baker (New York)

Wesley, Richard C. (New York)

Wood, Kimba Maureen (New York)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Gill, Anthony David (New Jersey)

Olshansky, Barbara J. (New York)

Samant, Anjana (New York)

Sohn, Joshua Samuel (New York)

Judge(s)

Carney, Susan Laura (Connecticut)

Katzmann, Robert A. (New York)

Lohier, Raymond Joseph Jr. (New York)

Motley, Constance Baker (New York)

Wesley, Richard C. (New York)

Wood, Kimba Maureen (New York)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Gill, Anthony David (New Jersey)

Olshansky, Barbara J. (New York)

Samant, Anjana (New York)

Sohn, Joshua Samuel (New York)

Stevens, Rachel (New York)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Banks, Steven (New York)

Conrad, Jane (New York)

Foley, Eamonn Francis (New York)

Fraenkel, William S.J. (New York)

Glass, Bryan D. (New York)

Kim, Grace Diane (New York)

Lieberman, Frederic L. (New York)

Mangum, Ryan Todd (New York)

Osmond, Mark Andrew (New York)

Osowski, Kevin (New York)

Schowengerdt, John Stephen (New York)

Stockman, Benjamin E. Mr. (New York)

Welikson, Benjamin (New York)

Other Attorney(s)

Blanchette, Antoinette W (New York)

Enloe, Charles Ethan (New York)

McHale, Bruce Burton (New York)

Expert/Monitor/Master

Siffert, John (New York)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

Docket (PACER)

Gulino v. Board of Education

April 8, 2021 Docket
1

Complaint

Gulino v. New York State Department of Education

1996 WL 33683281

Nov. 8, 1996 Complaint

Opinion

Gulino v. New York State Department of Education

201 F.R.D. 326

July 13, 2001 Order/Opinion
128

Opinion and Order

Gulino v. New York State Department of Education

236 F.Supp.2d 314

Nov. 25, 2002 Order/Opinion
129

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Gulino v. New York State Department of Education

234 F.Supp.2d 324

Nov. 27, 2002 Order/Opinion
145

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Gulino v. New York State Department of Education

2002 WL 31887733

Dec. 26, 2002 Order/Opinion
151

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Gulino v. New York State Department of Education

2003 WL 41997

Jan. 6, 2003 Order/Opinion
164

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Gulino v. New York State Department of Education

2003 WL 1191349

March 13, 2003 Order/Opinion
168

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Gulino v. New York State Department of Education

2002 WL 32068971

March 31, 2003 Order/Opinion
186

Opinion

Gulino v. New York State Department of Education

2003 WL 1858160

April 9, 2003 Order/Opinion

Resources

Title Description External URL

Gulino v. Board of Education Litigation

Garden City Group

In 1996, plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the New York City Department of Education ("DOE")1 and the New York State Education Department (“SED”), alleging that the DOE and SED were violating Title … March 22, 2021 http://www.gulinolitigation.com/...

Gulino v. The Board of Education of the City of New York and the New York State Education Department

Center for Constitutional Rights

Gulino v. The Board of Education of the City of New York and the New York State Education Department is a class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of public school teachers of color challenging the use o… Sept. 23, 2020 https://ccrjustice.org/...

The Meacham and Gulino Rulings: Remnants of the Wards Cove Era

Art Gutman, Eric Dunleavy

In August 2006 the 2nd Circuit ruled in two cases that have implications for adverse impact in the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) (Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory [KAPL]; on Au… April 1, 2008 http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/...

Understanding Gulino: A Legal Perspective

Michelle Croft

Gulino v. New York State Department of Education is a class action lawsuit that involves a teacher certification examination in New York. The case spanned over two decades and three iterations of the… April 1, 2017 https://files.eric.ed.gov/...

Judicial Independence, Employment Discrimination Studies Funded

Ann Nicholson

This brief article describes the Clearinghouse's award of $12,000 to build its collection of employment discrimination class actions brought by private plaintiffs. Nov. 1, 2008 https://law.wustl.edu/...

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4328284/gulino-v-board-of-education/

Last updated May 11, 2022, 8 p.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link
1

COMPLAINT filed; Summons issued and Notice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c); FILING FEE $ 120.00 RECEIPT # 274604 (ricm) (Entered: 11/12/1996)

Nov. 8, 1996 PACER
2

Rule 9 certificate filed by Elsa Gulino, Mayling Ralph, Peter Wilds, Nia Greene (ricm) (Entered: 11/12/1996)

Nov. 8, 1996 PACER

Magistrate Judge Katz is so Designated. (ricm)

Nov. 8, 1996 PACER
3

Affidavit of service as to NYS Education Dept. by Ms Sylvia More, Recept. at the Office of Dennis Vacco, Attny. Gen., 120 Bdwy., NY, NY 10271 on 11/12/96 Answer due on 12/2/96 for NYS Education Dept. (ls) (Entered: 11/19/1996)

Nov. 15, 1996 PACER
4

Filed Memo_Endorsement on letter from Brigitte Duffy dated 11/27/96, reset answer due for 1/6/97 for NYS Education Dept., for Board of Education...SO ORDERED... ( signed by Judge Deborah A. Batts ) (ls) (Entered: 12/03/1996)

Dec. 2, 1996 PACER
5

STIPULATION, reset answer due for 1/17/97 for NYS Education Dept. ( signed by Judge Deborah A. Batts ). (kw) (Entered: 12/11/1996)

Dec. 11, 1996 PACER
6

Filed Memo_Endorsement on letter from Brigitte Duffy dated 12/23/96, reset answer due for 1/17/97 for NYS Education Dept., for Board Education....SO ORDERED... ( signed by Judge Deborah A. Batts ) (ls) (Entered: 01/03/1997)

Jan. 2, 1997 PACER
7

STIPULATION, Plaintiffs will serve their opposition to the motions to dismiss on or before 3/17/97, Defendants will serve and file their reply papers on or before 3/31/97. ( signed by Judge Deborah A. Batts ). (kw) (Entered: 03/06/1997)

March 5, 1997 PACER
8

Filed Memo_Endorsement on letter dated 3/10/97, for leave to file opposition brief exceeding the page limit .....So Ordered...( signed by Judge Deborah A. Batts ) (pl) (Entered: 03/20/1997)

March 20, 1997 PACER
11

Affidavit of service of Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss the Complaint as to Board of Education, NYS Education Dept. by mail on 3/17/97 (ae) (Entered: 04/02/1997)

March 31, 1997 PACER
12

NOTICE OF MOTION by NYS Education Dept. pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the FRCP, dismissing the complaint on the grounds thatthe amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted., Return date 3/17/97 (ae) (Entered: 04/03/1997)

March 31, 1997 PACER
13

MEMORANDUM OF LAW by NYS Education Dept. in support of [12-1] motion pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the FRCP, dismissing complaint on the grounds thatthe amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (ae) (Entered: 04/03/1997)

March 31, 1997 PACER
14

REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW by NYS Education Dept. in further support of re: [12-1] motion pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the FRCP, dismissing the complaint on the grounds thatthe amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (ae) (Entered: 04/03/1997)

March 31, 1997 PACER
15

MEMORANDUM OF LAW by Elsa Gulino, Mayling Ralph, Peter Wilds, Nia Greene in opposition to [12-1] motion pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the FRCP, dismissing the complaint on the grounds thatthe amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (ae) (Entered: 04/03/1997)

March 31, 1997 PACER
9

Filed Memo_Endorsement on letter by Brigitte Duffy to Judge Batts dated 3/27/97, Granted. Extending time for municipal defendants to reply plaintiff's opposition papers to 4/4/97 to motion to dismiss the complaint. ( signed by Judge Deborah A. Batts ) (ae) (Entered: 04/02/1997)

April 1, 1997 PACER
10

Filed Memo_Endorsement on letter from Martin Bienstock dated 03/28/97, .. requests leave to file a 15-page reply brief, 5 pages above the limit specified in the Court's Rules. GRANTED. SO ORDERED. (signed by Judge Deborah A. Batts) (djc) (Entered: 04/02/1997)

April 1, 1997 PACER
16

NOTICE OF MOTION by Board of Education pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the FRCP, dismissing the complaint on the ground that it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted., Return date 3/17/97 (ae) Modified on 04/07/1997 (Entered: 04/07/1997)

April 4, 1997 PACER
17

MEMORANDUM OF LAW by Board of Education in support of [16-1] motion pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the FRCP, dismissing complaint on the ground that it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (ae) (Entered: 04/07/1997)

April 4, 1997 PACER
18

REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW by Board of Education in support of re: [16-1] motion pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the FRCP, dismissing the complaint on the ground that it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (ae) (Entered: 04/07/1997)

April 4, 1997 PACER
19

STIPULATION and PROTECTIVE ORDER; regarding procedures that will govern the handling of "Confidential Materials" . ( signed by Judge Deborah A. Batts ) (sn) (Entered: 04/05/2000)

March 31, 2000 PACER
20

Notice of reassignment to Judge Constance B. Motley. Copy of notice and judge's rules mailed to Attorney(s) of record: Barbara J. Olshansky. (em) (Entered: 04/19/2000)

April 12, 2000 PACER
21

ORDER; set pre-trial conference for 2:00 p.m. on 5/31/00 in Courtroom 26-A in the United States Courthouse at 500 Pearl Street. The parties should be prepared to argue any outstanding motions ; (signed by Judge Constance B. Motley ); Copies mailed. (djc) (Entered: 05/09/2000)

May 8, 2000 PACER
23

ORDER; all discovery cutoff 11/30/00; each party's pre-trial memorandum and a joint pretrial order to be submitted on or before 3/30/01; the next pretrial conference will be held in Room 26A on 4/16/01 @10:00 a.m. at which time all motions will be heard; the trial will commence on 4/30/01 @ 10:00 a.m., proceeding which there will be a final pre-trial conference in Room 26A. (the lawyer who will try the case must attend); Class Certification motion by 12/8/00 response to motion deadline 12/21/00; reply to response to motion deadline 1/5/01; the parties are to meet on or before 7/31/00 and exchange all documents, of any description, relevant to this case. Sanctions will be imposed for failure to produce any relevant documents; no interrogatories are to be served, except those seeking the location or identity of prospective witnesses or deponents; thereafter, on 9/18/00, the parties are to meet and prepare a schedule of all depositions to be taken during the period 10/02/00 to 10/31/00. A copy of the schedule shall be sent to the court; the motions to dismiss filed by both the City and State Defendants are denied, without prejudice to renew after all discovery has been completed and a pre-trial memo from each party and a joint pre-trial order has been filed; no motion for summary judgment will be entertained until all discovery has been completed and a pre-trial memo from each party and a joint pretrial order has been filed; sanctions will be imposed on the state for failure to appear at this pre-trial conference; there will be no extensions of time granted as to this schedule; sanctions will be imposed for failure to abide by this schedule; all parties are instructed to thoroughly familiarized themselves with this Court's "Memorandum to all Attorneys." copies are available in Chambers . ( signed by Judge Constance B. Motley ); Copies mailed. (pl) Modified on 06/22/2000 (Entered: 06/20/2000)

June 15, 2000 PACER
22

ORDER; for the reasons stated herein, the Court hereby revokes the sanctions imposed against the State of New York in the Order of 5/31/00 . ( signed by Judge Constance B. Motley ); Copies mailed. (sn) (Entered: 06/20/2000)

June 16, 2000 PACER
24

Transcript of record of proceedings before Judge Constance B. Motley for the date(s) of 5/31/00. (lf) (Entered: 07/10/2000)

July 10, 2000 PACER
25

ANSWER to Complaint and CROSSCLAIM by Board of Education (Attorney Bryan D. Glass from the Corporation Counsel of the City of New York) against NYS Education Dept. (kw) (Entered: 09/22/2000)

Sept. 20, 2000 PACER
26

ORDER, parties in this action are directed to appear for a pre-trial conference on 11/15/00 at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 26A in the U.S. Courthouse at 500 Pearl St, to discuss issues regarding the enforcement of pltff's subpoena against National Evaluation Systems, Inc. ( signed by Judge Constance B. Motley ); Copies mailed. (sac) (Entered: 11/03/2000)

Nov. 2, 2000 PACER
27

NOTICE OF MOTION by non-party National Evaluation Systems, Inc.; for an order pursuant to Rules 26 & 45 of the F.R.C.P. to modify supoena ; and for entery of a protective Order ; w/ attch memorandum in support; Return date: not indicated; (pl) Modified on 10/09/2001 (Entered: 11/09/2000)

Nov. 8, 2000 PACER
28

ORDER, all discovery shall be concluded by all parties no later than 6/30/01; each party's pre-trial memorandum and a joint pre-trial order must be submitted by 9/28/01; the next pre-trial conference shall be held on 10/25/01 at 10:00 a.m.; the trial will commence on 11/5/01 at 10:00 a.m., preceding which there will be a final pre-trial conference. (The lawyers who will try the case must attend.) The parties are to meet by 12/15/00 and exchange all documents, of any description, relevant to this case. Sanctions will be imposed for failure to produce any relevant document. Thereafter, on 5/15/01, the parties are to meet and prepare a schedule of all depositions to be taken during the period 6/1/01 to 6/22/01. A copy of the schedule shall be sent to the court. All depositions of defendants, already set, may proceed as scheduled. No interrogatories are to be served, except those seeking the location or identity of prospective witnesses or deponents. There will be no extensions of time granted as to this schedule. Sanctions will be imposed for failure to abide by this schedule. National Education Systems (NES), non-party, is directed to produce by 11/30/00 for inspection and copying by plaintiffs' counsel all documents which disclose the tests given to teachers in NYC and all data which are used in creating the tests, as set forth by NES counsel on the record on this date. Plaintiffs' counsel may show this material and share this material with their experts only. No materials may be shown to plaintiffs, except for good cause approved by this court. Class certification motion must be filed by 2/15/01 and will be heard on 4/16/01 at 11:00 a.m. ( signed by Judge Constance B. Motley ); Copies mailed. (kw) (Entered: 11/20/2000)

Nov. 16, 2000 PACER
29

Transcript of record of proceedings before Judge Constance B. Motley for the date(s) of 11/15/00. (db) (Entered: 12/28/2000)

Dec. 28, 2000 PACER
30

ORDER, reset 4/16/01 pre-trial conference for 11:00 4/17/01 ( signed by Judge Constance B. Motley ); Copies mailed. (cd) (Entered: 01/05/2001)

Jan. 4, 2001 PACER
31

ANSWER to Complaint by NYS Education Dept. (Attorney Frederic L. Lieberman from the Firm: Attorney General of the State of New York). (kw) (Entered: 01/18/2001)

Jan. 17, 2001 PACER
32

ANSWER by NYS Education Dept. to [25-2] cross claim. (kw) (Entered: 01/18/2001)

Jan. 17, 2001 PACER
33

NOTICE OF MOTION by Elsa Gulino, Mayling Ralph, Peter Wilds, Nia Greene for an order, purs. to Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) of the F.R.C.P., certifying this action as a class action on behalf of the Class of: All African-American and Latino NYC public school teachers employed by defts on or after 6/29/95, who have failed to achieve a qualifying score on either the NTE or the LAST, and have suffered adverse employment consequences . Return date 4/17/01. (Rec'd in night deposit box 2/26/01 5:12 PM) (sn) (Entered: 02/28/2001)

Feb. 26, 2001 PACER
34

MEMORANDUM OF LAW by Elsa Gulino, Mayling Ralph, Peter Wilds, Nia Greene in support of [33-1] motion for an order, purs. to Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) of the F.R.C.P., certifying this action as a class action on behalf of the Class of: All African-American and Latino NYC public school teachers employed by defts on or after 6/29/95, who have failed to achieve a qualifying score on either the NTE or the LAST, and have suffered adverse employment consequences. (Rec'd in night deposit box 2/26/01 5:12 PM) (sn) (Entered: 02/28/2001)

Feb. 26, 2001 PACER
35

NOTICE of attorney appearance for Elsa Gulino, Mayling Ralph, Peter Wilds, Nia Greene by Joshua Samuel Sohn. (djc) (Entered: 03/28/2001)

March 27, 2001 PACER
36

MEMORANDUM OF LAW by NYS Education Dept. in opposition to [33-1] motion for an order, purs. to Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) of the F.R.C.P., certifying this action as a class action on behalf of the Class of: All African-American and Latino NYC public school teachers employed by defts on or after 6/29/95, who have failed to achieve a qualifying score on either the NTE or the LAST, and have suffered adverse employment consequences. (kkc) (Entered: 04/03/2001)

March 30, 2001 PACER
37

AFFIDAVIT of Frederic L. Lieberman by NYS Education Dept. in opposition to [33-1] motion for an order, purs. to Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) of the F.R.C.P., certifying this action as a class action on behalf of the Class of: All African-American and Latino NYC public school teachers employed by defts on or after 6/29/95, who have failed to achieve a qualifying score on either the NTE or the LAST, and have suffered adverse employment consequences. (kkc) (Entered: 04/03/2001)

March 30, 2001 PACER
38

MEMORANDUM OF LAW by Board of Education in opposition to [33-1] motion for an order, purs. to Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) of the F.R.C.P., certifying this action as a class action on behalf of the Class of: All African-American and Latino NYC public school teachers employed by defts on or after 6/29/95, who have failed to achieve a qualifying score on either the NTE or the LAST, and have suffered adverse employment consequences. (kkc) (Entered: 04/03/2001)

March 30, 2001 PACER
39

DECLARATION of Bryan D. Glass by Board of Education in opposition Re: [33-1] motion for an order, purs. to Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) of the F.R.C.P., certifying this action as a class action on behalf of the Class of: All African-American and Latino NYC public school teachers employed by defts on or after 6/29/95, who have failed to achieve a qualifying score on either the NTE or the LAST, and have suffered adverse employment consequences. (kkc) (Entered: 04/03/2001)

March 30, 2001 PACER
40

REPLY MEMORANDUM by Elsa Gulino, Mayling Ralph, Peter Wilds, and Nia Greene in support of re: [33-1] motion for an order, purs. to Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) of the F.R.C.P., certifying this action as a class action on behalf of the Class of: All African-American and Latino NYC public school teachers employed by defts on or after 6/29/95, who have failed to achieve a qualifying score on either the NTE or the LAST, and have suffered adverse employment consequences. (kw) (Entered: 04/11/2001)

April 9, 2001 PACER
41

ORDER, reset pre-trial conference for 11:00 5/10/01 . ( signed by Judge Constance B. Motley ); Copies mailed. (ae) (Entered: 04/12/2001)

April 12, 2001 PACER
42

PRE-TRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER: All discovery cutoff 10/30/01; Pre-trial memorandum and a Joint Pretrial order to be submitted on or before 12/31/01; Next pretrial conference set for 11:00 1/28/02; Trial will commence on 4/8/02 @11:00am preceding which there will be a final pre-trial conference in Room 26A; The parties ar to meet by 5/30/01 and exchange all documents relevant to this case; Sanctions will be imposed for failure to produce any relevant document; Thereafter, on 7/31/01, the parties are to meet and prepare a schedule of all depositions to be taken during the period 10/1/01 to 11/15/01 ( signed by Judge Constance B. Motley ); Copies mailed. (lam) (Entered: 05/15/2001)

May 11, 2001 PACER
43

MEMORANDUM OPINION #85835; granting [33-1] motion for an order, purs. to Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) of the F.R.C.P., certifying this action as a class action on behalf of the Class of: All African-American and Latino NYC public school teachers employed by defts on or after 6/29/95, who have failed to achieve a qualifying score on either the NTE or the LAST, and have suffered adverse employment consequences . ( signed by Judge Constance B. Motley ); Copies mailed. (djc) (Entered: 07/18/2001)

July 17, 2001 PACER
44

NOTICE OF MOTION by NYS Education Dept. for an order pursuant to Local Civil Rule 6.3, FRCP, granting reconsideration of plaintiffs' [33-1] motion for class certification, and upon such reconsideration denying plaintiffs' motion [33-1] motion in whole or in part, or, in the alternative, pursuant to FRCP 23(c), decertifying the class described in the in the Court's 7/13/01 Opinion, and granting such other and further relief as may be just and proper . That pursuant to Local Civil Rule 6.1(b) of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Plaintiffs' answering papers must be served upon the undersigned within ten (10) business days after service of this motion . Return date 8/30/01. (tp) (Entered: 08/03/2001)

Aug. 1, 2001 PACER
45

MEMORANDUM OF LAW by NYS Education Dept. in support of [44-1] motion for an order pursuant to Local Civil Rule 6.3, FRCP, granting reconsideration of plaintiffs' [33-1] motion for class certification, [44-2] motion upon such reconsideration denying plaintiffs' motion [33-1] motion in whole or in part, or, in the alternative, pursuant to FRCP 23(c), decertifying the class described in the in the Court's 7/13/01 Opinion, and granting such other and further relief as may be just and proper, [44-3] motion. That pursuant to Local Civil Rule 6.1(b) of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Plaintiffs' answering papers must be served upon the undersigned within ten (10) business days after service of this motion. (tp) (Entered: 08/03/2001)

Aug. 1, 2001 PACER
46

ORDER, for the reasons set forth in the Opinion dated 7/13/01, plntfs' motion for class certification is granted ( signed by Judge Constance B. Motley ); Copies mailed. (cd) (Entered: 08/06/2001)

Aug. 6, 2001 PACER
47

MEMORANDUM OF LAW by Elsa Gulino, Mayling Ralph, Peter Wilds, Nia Greene in opposition to [44-1] motion for an order pursuant to Local Civil Rule 6.3, FRCP, granting reconsideration of plaintiffs' [33-1] motion for class certification, [44-2] motion upon such reconsideration denying plaintiffs' motion [33-1] motion in whole or in part, or, in the alternative, pursuant to FRCP 23(c), decertifying the class described in the in the Court's 7/13/01 Opinion, and granting such other and further relief as may be just and proper, [44-3] motion That pursuant to Local Civil Rule 6.1(b) of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Plaintiffs' answering papers must be served upon the undersigned within ten (10) business days after service of this motion . (pl) (Entered: 09/04/2001)

Aug. 31, 2001 PACER
48

ORDER, set pre-trial conference for 2:00 p.m. on 10/3/01 ; by 9/19/01, defendants shall file a letter brief not to exceed two pages responding to plaintiffs' 7/26/01 letter to the Court . ( signed by Judge Constance B. Motley ); Copies mailed. (kw) (Entered: 09/10/2001)

Sept. 7, 2001 PACER
49

Transcript of record of proceedings before Judge Constance B. Motley for the date(s) of 5/10/01. (yv) (Entered: 09/27/2001)

Sept. 27, 2001 PACER
50

PRETRIAL SCHEDULE AND ORDER: Each party's Pre-trial memorandum Joint Pretrial order to be submitted on or before 5/30/02; Pretrial conference set for 10:00 6/6/02; The trial will commence on 6/10/02 at 10:00; the state defts will have until 11/5/01 to produce all relevant documents not yet produce to plntfs. The City defts will have until 12/3/01 to produce all disks and other documents previoulsy requested by plntfs ( signed by Judge Constance B. Motley ); Copies mailed. (cd) (Entered: 10/05/2001)

Oct. 4, 2001 PACER
51

REPLY MEMORANDUM by NYS Education Dept. re: [44-1] motion for an order pursuant to Local Civil Rule 6.3, FRCP, granting reconsideration of plaintiffs' [33-1] motion for class certification, [44-2] motion upon such reconsideration denying plaintiffs' motion [33-1] motion in whole or in part, or, in the alternative, pursuant to FRCP 23(c), decertifying the class described in the in the Court's 7/13/01 Opinion, and granting such other and further relief as may be just and proper, [44-3] motion That pursuant to Local Civil Rule 6.1(b) of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Plaintiffs' answering papers must be served upon the undersigned within ten (10) business days after service of this motion. (jco) (Entered: 10/19/2001)

Oct. 18, 2001 PACER
52

AFFIDAVIT of Frederic L. Lieberman by NYS Education Dept. in support of [44-1] motion for an order pursuant to Local Civil Rule 6.3, FRCP, granting reconsideration of plaintiffs' [33-1] motion for class certification, [44-2] motion upon such reconsideration denying plaintiffs' motion [33-1] motion in whole or in part, or, in the alternative, pursuant to FRCP 23(c), decertifying the class described in the in the Court's 7/13/01 Opinion, and granting such other and further relief as may be just and proper, and [44-3] motion That pursuant to Local Civil Rule 6.1(b) of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Plaintiffs' answering papers must be served upon the undersigned within ten (10) business days after service of this motion. (kw) (Entered: 10/23/2001)

Oct. 18, 2001 PACER
53

NOTICE OF MOTION by NYS Education Dept. for Bruce B. McHale to appear pro hac vice for deft NYS Education Dept ; Return date not indicated (cd) (Entered: 11/26/2001)

Nov. 20, 2001 PACER
54

ORDER granting [53-1] motion for Bruce B. McHale to appear pro hac vice for deft NYS Education Dept . ( signed by Judge Constance B. Motley ); Copies mailed; (forwarded orig. doc. to the Attorney Admissions Clerk) (cd) (Entered: 11/28/2001)

Nov. 27, 2001 PACER
55

NOTICE OF MOTION by NYS Education Dept. for an order for the admission pro hac vice of Jane A. Conrad, purs. to Local Civil Rule 1.3(c), to appear as co-counsel for deft New York State Education Department . No return date indicated. Declarations of Jane A. Conrad, and of Frederic L. Lieberman, and proposed order are attached. (Rec'd in night deposit box 11/28/01 4:57 PM) (sn) (Entered: 12/04/2001)

Nov. 28, 2001 PACER
56

Transcript of record of proceedings before Judge Constance B. Motley for the date(s) of 10/3/01. (moc) (Entered: 12/04/2001)

Dec. 4, 2001 PACER
57

ORDER; granting [55-1] motion for an order for the admission pro hac vice of Jane A. Conrad, purs. to Local Civil Rule 1.3(c), to appear as co-counsel for deft New York State Education Department. (signed by Judge Constance B. Motley ); Copies mailed. (docmt forwarded to atty admissions clerk) (djc) (Entered: 12/06/2001)

Dec. 6, 2001 PACER
58

STIPULATION and ORDER OF CONFIDENTIALITY, regarding procedures that will govern the handling of "Confidential Documents" . ( signed by Judge Constance B. Motley ) (kg) (Entered: 01/24/2002)

Jan. 18, 2002 PACER
59

ORDER, all fact and expert witnessees shall be identified by 4/15/02; all fact discovery shall be completed by 5/15/02 expert reports shall be exchanged by 6/3/02; expert rebuttal reports shall be exchanged by 6/24/02; expert depositions shall be completed by 7/22/02; cross-motions for summary judgment shall be fled and served by 8/2/02. Memoranda of law shall not exceed 40 pages; opposition to cross-motions for summary judgment shall be filed and served by 8/23/02; replies to oppositions to motions for summary judgment shall be filed and served by 9/6/02. Memoranda of law shall not exceed 20 pages; the court will hear oral argument on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment by 9/25/02 at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 26-A of the U.S. Courthouse at 500 Pearl St.; pre-trial memoranda and a proposed joint pre-trial order shall be filed by 11/8/02; trial shall commence on 11/18/02 at 10:00 a.m., proceeding which there will be a final pretrial conference in Courtroom 26A. The parties are hereby advised that 11/18/02 is a firm trial date. No further extensions of time whatsoever will be granted with respect to any aspect of this schedule. Sanctions will be imposed for any failure to comply with this schedule. ( signed by Judge Constance B. Motley ); Copies mailed. (sac) Modified on 03/28/2002 (Entered: 03/28/2002)

March 25, 2002 PACER
61

SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVIT of Frederic L. Lieberman by NYS Education Dept. in further support of [44-1] motion for an order pursuant to Local Civil Rule 6.3, FRCP, granting reconsideration of plaintiffs' [33-1] motion for class certification, [44-2] motion upon such reconsideration denying plaintiffs' motion [33-1] motion in whole or in part, or, in the alternative, pursuant to FRCP 23(c), decertifying the class described in the in the Court's 7/13/01 Opinion, and granting such other and further relief as may be just and proper, [44-3] motion That pursuant to Local Civil Rule 6.1(b) of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Plaintiffs' answering papers must be served upon the undersigned within ten (10) business days after service of this motion. (kkc) (Entered: 04/02/2002)

March 27, 2002 PACER
60

ORDER; denying [44-1] motion for an order pursuant to Local Civil Rule 6.3, FRCP, granting reconsideration of plaintiffs' [33-1] motion for class certification; The Court will revisit th class certification isue at the close of discovery in the context of the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. SED may renew its objections to class certification at that time, but not before ; ( signed by Judge Constance B. Motley ); Copies mailed. (djc) (Entered: 04/02/2002)

April 1, 2002 PACER
62

NOTICE of change of firm name by Elsa Gulino, Mayling Ralph, Peter Wilds, Nia Greene . (yv) (Entered: 04/22/2002)

April 17, 2002 PACER
63

ORDER; that non-party National Evaluation Systems, Inc. is hereby ordered to produce to plaintiffs, on or before 5/15/02, pursuant to the subpoena served upon it on 5/1/02, copies of all statements and testimony given by any of the enumerated NES Officials in the Alabama or Georgia Litigation, to the extent that such statements or testimony are within NES's possession, custody, or control ; under no circumstances, however, will plaintiffs be allowed to redepose any NES official. The court has repeatedly made clear that it will not extend the strict 5/15/02 fact discovery cutoff for any reasons whatsoever . ( signed by Judge Constance B. Motley ); Copies mailed. (pl) (Entered: 05/07/2002)

May 6, 2002 PACER
64

ORDER, regarding issues concerning defendant SED's letter challenging the adequacy of plaintiffs' answers to its requests for addmissions. Pursuant to FRCP 36(a), the Court hereby excercises its discretion to defer final resolution of this dispute until this case is tried; all parties are warned that the Court will not hesitate to issue post-trial sanctions pursuant to Rule 37(c)(2) as set forth in this Order ; Any party may, on or before 7/1/02, serve amended answers to an opposing party's requests for admissions as further set forth . ( signed by Judge Constance B. Motley ); Copies mailed. (tp) Modified on 06/17/2002 (Entered: 06/14/2002)

June 13, 2002 PACER
65

AFFIDAVIT of Kristen L. Gerentine Re: attached with Exhibit I-II attached. (sac) (Entered: 08/08/2002)

Aug. 5, 2002 PACER
66

NOTICE OF MOTION by Board of Education for an Order pursuant to Rule 56 of the FRCP granting summary judgment in favor of defendant . Return Date 9/25/02. Declaration of Donald C. Sullivan in support of motion and local rule 56.1 statement attached. (yv) (Entered: 08/09/2002)

Aug. 5, 2002 PACER
67

MEMORANDUM OF LAW by Board of Education in support of [66-1] motion for an Order pursuant to Rule 56 of the FRCP granting summary judgment in favor of defendant . (yv) (Entered: 08/09/2002)

Aug. 5, 2002 PACER
87

NOTICE OF MOTION by NYS Education Dept. in limine to Fed. R. Evid. 104 adn 702 to exclude expert testimony, reports and opinions by plaintiffs' statistical expert . Return Date 9/25/02 at 11:00. (db) (Entered: 09/10/2002)

Aug. 5, 2002 PACER
88

DECLARATION of Jeanne W. Clayton by NYS Education Dept. in support Re: [87-1] motion in limine to Fed. R. Evid. 104 adn 702 to exclude expert testimony, reports and opinions by plaintiffs' statistical expert . (db) (Entered: 09/10/2002)

Aug. 5, 2002 PACER
89

DECLARATION of Carolyn Emrick Massad by NYS Education Dept. pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746. (db) (Entered: 09/10/2002)

Aug. 5, 2002 PACER
90

MEMORANDUM OF LAW by NYS Education Dept. in support of [87-1] motion in limine to Fed. R. Evid. 104 adn 702 to exclude expert testimony, reports and opinions by plaintiffs' statistical expert. (db) (Entered: 09/10/2002)

Aug. 5, 2002 PACER
91

NOTICE OF MOTION by NYS Education Dept. for an order purs. to Rule56 of the FRCP granting summary judgment in favor of defendant NYS Education Dept. . Return Date 9/25/02 at 11:00. (db) (Entered: 09/10/2002)

Aug. 5, 2002 PACER
92

MEMORANDUM OF LAW by NYS Education Dept. in support of [91-1] motion for an order purs. to Rule56 of the FRCP granting summary judgment in favor of defendant NYS Education Dept. . (db) (Entered: 09/10/2002)

Aug. 5, 2002 PACER
93

DECLARATION of Bruce B. McHale by NYS Education Dept. in support Re: [87-1] motion in limine to Fed. R. Evid. 104 adn 702 to exclude expert testimony, reports and opinions by plaintiffs' statistical expert . (db) (Entered: 09/10/2002)

Aug. 5, 2002 PACER
94

DECLARATION of Edith L. Hunsberger by NYS Education Dept. in support Re: [91-1] motion for an order purs. to Rule56 of the FRCP granting summary judgment in favor of defendant NYS Education Dept. . (db) (Entered: 09/10/2002)

Aug. 5, 2002 PACER
95

DECLARATION of Charles C. Mackey, Jr. by NYS Education Dept. in support Re: [91-1] motion for an order purs. to Rule56 of the FRCP granting summary judgment in favor of defendant NYS Education Dept. (db) (Entered: 09/10/2002)

Aug. 5, 2002 PACER
96

DECLARATION of Carl T. Hayden by NYS Education Dept. in support Re: [91-1] motion for an order purs. to Rule56 of the FRCP granting summary judgment in favor of defendant NYS Education Dept. . (db) (Entered: 09/10/2002)

Aug. 5, 2002 PACER
97

RULE 56.1 STATEMENT filed by NYS Education Dept. (db) (Entered: 09/10/2002)

Aug. 5, 2002 PACER
98

DECLARATION of Jane Faggen by NYS Education Dept. Re: [91-1] motion for an order purs. to Rule56 of the FRCP granting summary judgment in favor of defendant NYS Education Dept. .(db) Modified on 09/10/2002 (Entered: 09/10/2002)

Aug. 5, 2002 PACER
99

DECLARATION of Frederic L. Lieberman by NYS Education Dept. in support Re: [91-1] motion for an order purs. to Rule56 of the FRCP granting summary judgment in favor of defendant NYS Education Dept. (db) (Entered: 09/10/2002)

Aug. 5, 2002 PACER
68

NOTICE OF MOTION by Elsa Gulino, Mayling Ralph, Peter Wilds, Nia Greene for an order pursuant to Rule 1.3(c) of the FRCP permitting Joel Hellman to appear pro hac vice . Return Date 9/25/02 at 11:00. (db) (Entered: 08/14/2002)

Aug. 12, 2002 PACER
69

DECLARATION of Barbara J. Olshansky by Elsa Gulino, Mayling Ralph, Peter Wilds, Nia Greene in support Re: [68-1] motion for an order pursuant to Rule 1.3(c) of the FRCP permitting Joel Hellman to appear pro hac vice . (db) (Entered: 08/14/2002)

Aug. 12, 2002 PACER
70

DECLARATION of Joel M. Hellman by Elsa Gulino, Mayling Ralph, Peter Wilds, Nia Greene in support Re: [68-1] motion for an order pursuant to Rule 1.3(c) of the FRCP permitting Joel Hellman to appear pro hac vice . (db) (Entered: 08/14/2002)

Aug. 12, 2002 PACER
71

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE of motion to permit pro hac vice attorney & declarations in support of motion as to Board of Education, NYS Education Dept. by first class on 8/9/02. (db) (Entered: 08/14/2002)

Aug. 12, 2002 PACER
72

MEMORANDUM OF LAW by Elsa Gulino, Mayling Ralph, Peter Wilds, Nia Greene in opposition to motion in limine of New York State Education Department to exclude testimony, reports and opinions by plaintiffs' statistical expert. (yv) (Entered: 08/21/2002)

Aug. 19, 2002 PACER
73

DECLARATION of Barbara J. Olshansky by Elsa Gulino, Mayling Ralph, Peter Wilds, Nia Greene in support Re: [72-1] opposition memorandum . (yv) (Entered: 08/21/2002)

Aug. 19, 2002 PACER
74

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE of plaintiffs' memorandum of law in opposition to defendant New York State Education Department's motion in limine to exclude testimony, reports and opinions by plaintiffs' statistical expert and plaintiffs' supporting declaration of Barbara J. Olshansky as to Board of Education, NYS Education Dept. by First Class on 8/19/02 . . (yv) (Entered: 08/21/2002)

Aug. 19, 2002 PACER
75

SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (wv) (Entered: 08/26/2002)

Aug. 26, 2002 PACER
76

RULE 56.1 STATEMENT of the material facts as to which exists a genuine issue to be tried in opposition to plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, filed by NYS Education Dept. (gf) (Entered: 08/29/2002)

Aug. 26, 2002 PACER
77

RULE 56.1 STATEMENT of the material facts as to which there exists a genuine issue to be tried in partial opposition to the board of education's motion for summary judgment, filed by NYS Education Dept. (gf) (Entered: 08/29/2002)

Aug. 26, 2002 PACER
78

MEMORANDUM OF LAW by NYS Education Dept. in partial opposition to [66-1] motion for an Order pursuant to Rule 56 of the FRCP granting summary judgment in favor of defendant . (gf) (Entered: 08/29/2002)

Aug. 26, 2002 PACER
79

DECLARATION of Joan G. Haworth pursuant to 28U.S.C. 1746,by NYS Education Dept. (gf) (Entered: 08/29/2002)

Aug. 26, 2002 PACER
80

DECLARATION of Thomas E. Hogan by NYS Education Dept. (gf) (Entered: 08/29/2002)

Aug. 26, 2002 PACER
81

MEMORANDUM OF LAW by NYS Education Dept. in opposition to plaintiffs motion for summary judgment.. (gf) (Entered: 08/29/2002)

Aug. 26, 2002 PACER
82

MEMORANDUM OF LAW by Board of Education in opposition to [66-1] motion for an Order pursuant to Rule 56 of the FRCP granting summary judgment in favor of defendant . (yv) (Entered: 08/29/2002)

Aug. 26, 2002 PACER
83

COUNTER STATEMENT TO RULE 56.1 filed by Board of Education (yv) (Entered: 08/29/2002)

Aug. 26, 2002 PACER
86

REPLY MEMORANDUM by NYS Education Dept. in support of its motion in limine to exclude testimony, reports and opinions by plaintiffs' statistical expert. (moc) (Entered: 09/06/2002)

Aug. 30, 2002 PACER
84

NOTICE OF MOTION by Elsa Gulino, Mayling Ralph, Peter Wilds, Nia Greene; for an order to strike the affidavit of Carolyn Emrick Massad . Return Date 9/25/02 at 11:00. (gf) (Entered: 09/05/2002)

Sept. 3, 2002 PACER
85

DECLARATION of Stephen G. Seliger by Elsa Gulino, Mayling Ralph, Peter Wilds, Nia Greene in support Re: [84-1] motion for an order to strike the affidavit of Carolyn Emrick Massad. (gf) (Entered: 09/05/2002)

Sept. 3, 2002 PACER

State / Territory: New York

Case Type(s):

Equal Employment

Special Collection(s):

Post-WalMart decisions on class certification

Key Dates

Filing Date: Nov. 8, 1996

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

A class of Black and Latinx teachers in the New York City public school system required to pass certain tests in order to receive or retain their licenses and appointments to teach.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR)

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

New York State Department of Education, State

New York City Board of Education (New York City), City

Defendant Type(s):

Elementary/Secondary School

Case Details

Causes of Action:

State law

Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e

Title VI, Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Monetary Relief

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Mixed

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Attorneys fees

Damages

Source of Relief:

Litigation

Content of Injunction:

Monitor/Master

Monitoring

Issues

General:

Disparate Impact

Discrimination-area:

Hiring

Pay / Benefits

Seniority

Testing

Discrimination-basis:

Race discrimination

Race:

Black

National Origin/Ethnicity:

Hispanic