Alexander v. New York City Department of Education

Background

Brendamarie Alexander sued the New York City Department of Education, Carmel Macklin, and Cedric Hall. The opinion states that she asserted claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. She alleged, among other things, that Defendants discriminated against her because of her age and later retaliated against her.

During a leave of absence from the Department of Education for the 2019–2020 school year, Alexander taught at Harlem Village Academies, a charter school. Defendants sought records from that former employer. The court had previously quashed a subpoena seeking Alexander’s entire personnel file but allowed Defendants to propose a narrower subpoena. The court later denied Defendants’ request to serve a revised subpoena, finding that the request was untimely, lacked an adequate factual basis, and was not proportional to the needs of the case.

At a March 9, 2022 deposition, Alexander testified about Facebook posts stating that she had left a school because a younger person told her how to teach. Alexander identified the school as Harlem Village Academies and testified that she had resigned rather than been fired. Defendants received the transcript and moved for reconsideration based on this new evidence.

Legal standard

The court explained that reconsideration may be granted when a party identifies an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, a clear error, or a need to prevent manifest injustice. The decision whether to grant reconsideration is within the court’s discretion.

Ruling

Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion. Based on Alexander’s deposition testimony and the circumstances of her departure from Harlem Village Academies, the court found an adequate factual basis for seeking records that could be relevant to Defendants’ position that their actions toward Alexander had legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons. The court also found that the burden of the subpoena was slight because Alexander had testified that she resigned.

The court granted Defendants leave to serve a subpoena for Alexander’s performance evaluations, disciplinary records, complaints of discrimination by or against her, the reason for her separation, and separation agreements. The court denied the motion to the extent it sought Alexander’s salary records because she had already provided Defendants with documents reflecting her salary from Harlem Village Academies.

The court did not decide whether any information obtained from Harlem Village Academies would ultimately be admissible at trial. It also did not address Defendants’ alternative requests for relief under Rules 59 and 60(b) because it granted relief through reconsideration.