The UFT Solidarity led lawsuit to widen the number of UFTers who can receive accommodations to work remotely has been passed on by three NY judges. All three have found reasons not to rule. This is is rather unusual as far as I can tell.
Judge 1 is Dakota Ramseur who seemed quite reasonable on the first day of arguments that I listened to. She issued a Temporary Restraining Order allowing the plaintiffs to work remotely until she could see a full presentation from the attorneys. A few days later during the oral arguments that I also monitored, she sounded like a completely different person questioning the attorney for the teachers, Bryan Glass, in a very hostile way.
To get herself out of having to make a decision on the merits, on September 17 Judge Ramseur used a technicality to say she only heard cases against the city and the Department of Education was not legally an official city agency. Glass had sued both the City of New York and the Department of Education. She changed it to only be against the DOE and passed it on to another judge.
Judge 2 got the case next and recused herself so fast that she clearly did not want to touch it. Judge 3 is the Honorable Carol. R Edmead. She received this "You can have it, I don't want it" case and held a hearing yesterday with the lawyers. She then issued one of the strangest decisions I have ever seen when she wrote:
This Court holds that it may not overturn the September 18, 2020 Order which was issued by a court of concurrent jurisdiction.
But Your Honor, Judge Ramseur didn't issue a ruling on the merits; she just passed it along. Are you overturning her passing it to you?
Bryan Glass and Lydia Howrilka are livid. Is there a judge out there who will rule on the merits of the Department of Education's arbitrary and capricious accommodation policy? Glass will refile with a different judge and see if number 4 will finally rule on the merits.
Ask yourself this question:
Why do the judges in Manhattan want nothing to do with this case?
Why is it such a hot potato?
There are over 30 plaintiffs as far as I know. There are many UFTers who are ready to fight for their right to a reasonable accommodation to work from home which is where every UFTer who desires should be working from during the pandemic.
Ask yourself why the uft hasn't gotten involved or assisted. Why make dues payers pay for a lawyer when uft must provide one?
ReplyDeleteCould it possibly be that they don't want to leave this open to more plaintiffs in the future ? Or they do not want to rule against the other decision?
ReplyDeleteWhat other decision?
ReplyDeleteThe first decision, (the first case) that allowed the other teachers to stay home and do remote. Maybe they would rule against the past decision ?
ReplyDeleteThe first judge lifted the TRO when she transferred the case. I did say temporarily but apparently wasn't that clear.
ReplyDeleteOh so the teachers might have to go back into the building? Oh Thank you for clearing that up.
ReplyDeleteAnd who was judge number two? And why did this case suddenly drop from public view? To whom are these judges beholden? This merits some explanation. And since when is the DOE not a city agency??? BOE disappeared some time ago...
ReplyDeleteSounds like teachers are not receiving equal protection under the law? Why??? Do we need an Educators Lives Matter movement here???
James, can you please post the full decisions of the three different judges? Normally, the way to challenge the decision of a lower court judge is to file an appeal.
ReplyDeleteI'm not seeing what there is to appeal. There was no ruling made in any of the three courts.
DeleteI got them as PDFs. Judge 2 didn't decide anything. Email me and I will find them.
ReplyDeleteEileen Rakower was the second judge.
ReplyDeleteJames, if the decisions are public records, can't you share them with your entire readership?
ReplyDeletePost them on Scribd or somewhere if you don't want to post them on this blog.
Why don't you look for them yourself if they are a matter of public record?
ReplyDeleteFound all of them including today’s memorandum decision.
DeleteI have two kids who are learning from home. They are number one priority. Then, individual UFTers want my help. Blogging is an unpaid job. I really need more time to post everything people want. Sorry.
ReplyDeleteThat's completely understandable. I have two myself. Good luck with your kids!
DeleteFound it after clicking a series of links. There was a lengthier memorandum decision dated today.
DeleteWe can post on the UFT Solidarity page
ReplyDeleteExcess should not happen after first five days of school.
ReplyDeleteSurprised? The courts don't like dealing with NYC DOE cases.
ReplyDeleteThe case survived motion to dismiss so some judge has to rule on it. That is why they passed it along not be on record forever and become politically unpopular subject. Judges for some time in NY are carrier politicians not bacons of the law. Somebody will rule on the case but it will take time and eventually ruling will not matter much anymore.
ReplyDelete