Levine v. New York City Department of Education
- Rearden
- 1:24-cv-01110
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Levine v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Rearden denied defendants’ motion to dismiss Levine’s First Amendment retaliation lawsuit.
The ruling affects Brendan Levine and the New York City Department of Education, Tanya Drummond, and Howard MacDonald by denying the defendants’ request to dismiss Levine’s lawsuit.
What happened
Brendan Levine sued the New York City Department of Education, Principal Tanya Drummond, and Assistant Principal Howard MacDonald. He alleges that they retaliated against him for speaking about school safety, threats, and preventing school shootings by giving him poor ratings, a disciplinary letter, and ending his employment with the Department of Education.
The defendants asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit because they argued it did not state a valid claim. A magistrate judge recommended denying that request. The defendants did not object to the recommendation, even though they were warned that failing to object could waive further review.
Judge Rearden reviewed the recommendation for clear error, found none, adopted it in full, and denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The order therefore did not dismiss Levine’s lawsuit, but it did not decide whether he will ultimately prevail.
The detailed version
- Levine v. New York City Department of Education · No. 1:24-cv-01110
- Rearden
- Mar. 31, 2025
Background
Brendan Levine brought this action against the New York City Department of Education, Principal Tanya Drummond in her individual capacity, and Assistant Principal Howard MacDonald in his individual capacity. Levine alleges that the defendants retaliated against him for exercising First Amendment rights by speaking about school safety, consequences for making threats, and school-shooting prevention. He claims the defendants gave him poor ratings as a teacher, issued a disciplinary letter, and discontinued his employment with the Department of Education effective July 25, 2022.
Levine was representing himself when he filed the action. A footnote states that he was represented by counsel as of March 25, 2025. The opinion does not describe the full factual record because it assumes familiarity with the facts set out in the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation.
Motion and Report and Recommendation
The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) for failure to state a claim. Levine opposed the motion. On January 17, 2025, Magistrate Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky recommended that the motion be denied.
The Report and Recommendation gave the parties fourteen days to file written objections and warned that failing to object would waive objections and prevent appellate review. No party filed objections or asked for more time.
District Court’s Review and Ruling
When no timely objection is filed, a district court reviews the recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. Clear error exists when the court is left with a firm conviction that a mistake was made. The defendants’ failure to object also waived their right to further judicial review of the magistrate judge’s recommendation, because they had received clear notice of the consequences.
Judge Jennifer H. Rearden nevertheless reviewed the Report and Recommendation and found no clear error. The court adopted the recommendation in its entirety and denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the docket entry for that motion. This ruling addressed the defendants’ request to dismiss the complaint; it did not determine whether Levine will ultimately succeed on his retaliation claim.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.