Spaulding v. New York City Department of Education

Justia Dockets & Filings Second Circuit New York Eastern District Spaulding v. New York City Department of Education

Spaulding v. New York City Department of Education

Plaintiff:	Yvonne Spaulding
Defendant:	New York City Department of Education
Case Number:	1:2012cv03041
Filed:	June 13, 2012
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Office:	Brooklyn Office
Presiding Judge:	Kiyo A. Matsumoto
Presiding Judge:	Viktor V. Pohorelsky
Nature of Suit:	Civil Rights: Jobs
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
March 31, 2017	Filing 79 ORDER: For the reasons set forth in the attached order, the Court hereby adopts Magistrate Judge Scanlon's December 28, 2016 Report and Recommendation 77 in its entirety as the opinion of this Court. Plaintiff's motion to vacate the sett lement agreement 66 is hereby denied in its entirety. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close this case accordingly. The Clerk of Court is further directed to mail a copy of this order to the pro se plaintiff. Ordered by Judge LaShann DeArcy Hall on 3/31/2017. (Valentin, Winnethka)
September 21, 2015	Filing 58 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Upon a careful clear error and de novo review of the record and Judge Scanlon's well-reasoned and thorough Report and Recommendation, the court denies plaintiff's and defendant's object ions, and affirms and adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety as the opinion of the court. Thus, for the reasons set forth in this Order and in Judge Scanlon's comprehensive R & R, the court grants defendant's motion for summa ry judgment with respect to plaintiff's FMLA interference claim, FMLA and ADA discrimination claims, ADA retaliation claim, hostile work environment claim, and constructive discharge claim. The court denies defendant's motion for summary j udgment with respect to plaintiff's FMLA retaliation claim. Moreover, the court deems as abandoned and dismisses any claims which may be based on the following allegations, which Judge Scanlon noted as abandoned in her R & R, and which neither party addressed in their summary judgment submissions or in their objections to the R & R: (1) plaintiff's allegedly unlawful denial of her opportunity to rescind her resignation; (2) an email that was removed from and a "log of assistance" that was placed in plaintiff's personnel file; (3) defendant's purported lack of response to plaintiff's letter to Human Resources concerning alleged discrimination; and (4) defendant's assignment of other teachers to help t each plaintiffs students. See, e.g., Codrington v. City of New York, No. 12-CV-01650, 2015 WL 893567, at 14 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2015) (deeming claims abandoned where plaintiff failed to address defendants arguments in her opposition); Carri llos v. Inc. Vill. of Hempstead, No. 11-CV-5775, 2015 WL 728244, at 17 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 20, 2015) (same). The parties shall confer and submit a joint status letter by October 2, 2015 on how they intend to proceed. Ordered by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 9/21/2015. (Tsay, Stephanie)

Date Filed

Document Text

March 31, 2017

Filing 79 ORDER: For the reasons set forth in the attached order, the Court hereby adopts Magistrate Judge Scanlon's December 28, 2016 Report and Recommendation 77 in its entirety as the opinion of this Court. Plaintiff's motion to vacate the sett lement agreement 66 is hereby denied in its entirety. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close this case accordingly. The Clerk of Court is further directed to mail a copy of this order to the pro se plaintiff. Ordered by Judge LaShann DeArcy Hall on 3/31/2017. (Valentin, Winnethka)

September 21, 2015

Filing 58 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Upon a careful clear error and de novo review of the record and Judge Scanlon's well-reasoned and thorough Report and Recommendation, the court denies plaintiff's and defendant's object ions, and affirms and adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety as the opinion of the court. Thus, for the reasons set forth in this Order and in Judge Scanlon's comprehensive R & R, the court grants defendant's motion for summa ry judgment with respect to plaintiff's FMLA interference claim, FMLA and ADA discrimination claims, ADA retaliation claim, hostile work environment claim, and constructive discharge claim. The court denies defendant's motion for summary j udgment with respect to plaintiff's FMLA retaliation claim. Moreover, the court deems as abandoned and dismisses any claims which may be based on the following allegations, which Judge Scanlon noted as abandoned in her R & R, and which neither party addressed in their summary judgment submissions or in their objections to the R & R: (1) plaintiff's allegedly unlawful denial of her opportunity to rescind her resignation; (2) an email that was removed from and a "log of assistance" that was placed in plaintiff's personnel file; (3) defendant's purported lack of response to plaintiff's letter to Human Resources concerning alleged discrimination; and (4) defendant's assignment of other teachers to help t each plaintiffs students. See, e.g., Codrington v. City of New York, No. 12-CV-01650, 2015 WL 893567, at *14 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2015) (deeming claims abandoned where plaintiff failed to address defendants arguments in her opposition); Carri llos v. Inc. Vill. of Hempstead, No. 11-CV-5775, 2015 WL 728244, at *17 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 20, 2015) (same). The parties shall confer and submit a joint status letter by October 2, 2015 on how they intend to proceed. Ordered by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 9/21/2015. (Tsay, Stephanie)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the New York Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Spaulding v. New York City Department of Education
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: New York City Department of Education
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Yvonne Spaulding
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?