Forman v. New York City Department of Education
- John Cronan
- 1:19-cv-08156
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 31
In Forman v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Cronan granted summary judgment to Defendants, rejecting Erik Forman’s First Amendment retaliation claims.
Erik Forman’s First Amendment retaliation, hostile-work-environment, and constructive-discharge claims against the New York City Department of Education, Julie Nariman, and Yan Wang were resolved against him on summary judgment.
What happened
In Forman v. New York City Department of Education, former teacher Erik Forman claimed that the Department of Education, a principal, and an assistant principal retaliated against him for raising school concerns and engaging in union activities. He also alleged that the retaliation created a hostile work environment and forced him to leave his job.
The court ruled that Forman’s safety complaint and administrative complaints were made as part of his job duties, so they were not protected by the First Amendment. The court did not decide whether his union-related activities were protected because, in its view, he had not shown a legally significant employment action or a connection between those activities and the actions he challenged. The court also found that his claims were not supported by evidence of a hostile work environment or forced resignation.
Judge Cronan granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment in its entirety and directed the clerk to close the case. Summary judgment means the court decided that the available evidence did not present a genuine dispute requiring a trial.
The detailed version
- Forman v. New York City Department of Education · No. 1:19-cv-08156
- John Cronan
- Mar. 29, 2022
Background
Erik Forman, a former teacher at the High School of Language and Innovation, sued the New York City Department of Education, principal Julie Nariman, and assistant principal Yan Wang. The opinion also discusses assistant principal Shira Wrightman. Forman proceeded without a lawyer.
Forman brought a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows a person to sue someone acting under state authority for violating federal constitutional rights. He alleged that Defendants retaliated against him for raising concerns about school administration and safety, running for and serving as the United Federation of Teachers chapter leader, representing another teacher at a grievance meeting, and organizing or participating in union meetings. He also alleged a hostile work environment and constructive discharge, meaning that working conditions supposedly became so intolerable that he was forced to resign.
The events included Forman’s safety complaint about a March 2016 incident involving a student and scissors, a disciplinary meeting, classroom observations, a “developing” annual rating for the 2015–2016 school year, the removal of his school email account while he was on leave, and his eventual departure from the Department of Education. Forman took leaves of absence, worked at other institutions, and resigned from the Department of Education effective June 30, 2019.
An earlier order in the same case dismissed as untimely claims concerning acts before August 30, 2016. The remaining claims were presented through Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
Legal Standard
The court explained that summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court was required to view disputed evidence and reasonable inferences in Forman’s favor, while giving his filings the broader reading generally afforded to a person proceeding without a lawyer. That treatment did not eliminate his obligation to produce evidence supporting his claims.
To establish First Amendment retaliation in the public-employment context, Forman needed evidence that his speech was protected, that Defendants took an adverse employment action against him, and that his speech caused that action. An adverse employment action is conduct that would deter a reasonably firm person from exercising constitutional rights.
First Amendment Protection
The court held that Forman’s safety complaint was not protected speech because it concerned his responsibilities as a public-school teacher and an internal dispute about how the school handled a student-safety incident. Forman signed the complaint as a teacher rather than as a union representative, and the complaint focused on the school’s handling of the incident and its relationship with teachers. The court likewise held that his complaints about staffing, curriculum, committee membership, and similar administrative matters were internal employment grievances rather than speech as a private citizen on a matter of public concern.
The court did not decide whether Forman’s union-related activities—including his chapter-leader candidacy, representation of another teacher, and union meetings—were protected by the First Amendment. It concluded that those parts of the claim failed for other reasons: Forman had not shown an adverse employment action or causation.
Adverse Employment Action
The court considered four events that Forman identified as adverse actions within the limitations period:
- Forman’s alleged failure to obtain a Department of Education teaching position after the 2017–2018 school year. The court found no evidence that the Department denied him employment. Forman accepted a position at SUNY, requested another leave of absence, and did not return to work for the Department during that school year.
- The deactivation of Forman’s HSLI email account while he was on voluntary leave. The court held that this would not deter a reasonable employee from exercising constitutional rights, particularly because the school temporarily reactivated the account so he could retrieve files and he retained his Department of Education email account.
- Forman’s “developing” annual rating for the 2015–2016 school year. The court found that the classroom observations and student-testing information underlying the rating occurred before the limitations cutoff. It also held that, even if those matters were timely, Forman had not shown harm resulting from the rating. A negative evaluation standing alone was not an adverse employment action on the evidence presented.
- Forman’s alleged constructive discharge and hostile work environment. The court held that the cited events were not objectively intolerable and that Forman had not shown he was forced to resign. He requested and received leaves of absence, chose to work at SUNY, and did not explore returning to another Department of Education school before resigning.
The court separately rejected Forman’s hostile-work-environment theory. It found that the alleged negative evaluations, criticism, email deactivation, limited communication, and other conduct were episodic and not severe or pervasive enough to alter the conditions of employment or create an abusive workplace.
Causation
The court held that Forman also failed to show that his union-related speech was a substantial motivating factor in any challenged action. He relied mainly on the timing of the events. The court found that the relevant gaps were too long to support causation without additional evidence: approximately four and a half months after a union meeting, nearly a year after he represented another teacher, and fourteen months after he ran for chapter leader. The court also found that comments by school officials about union activities did not supply enough evidence of retaliatory motive.
Disposition
The court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment in its entirety. Judge John P. Cronan directed the clerk to close the case and mail a copy of the opinion and order to Forman.
Read the full 31-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.