August 15, 2014

work environment on the basis of race in violation of § 1981, § 1983, the Equal Protection clause, and the NYSHRL against Brown; (2) the claims for a hostile work environment on the basis of race in violation of § 1981, § 1983, and the Equal Protection Clause against the District; (3) the claims for race discrimination based on Smiths denial of tenure and termination of employment under § 1981, § 1983, and the Equal Protection clause against Hunderfund. As to Besson, the Court denies the Defendants motions for summary judgment as to (1) the claims for First Amendment retaliation under § 1983 against Brown; (2) the claims for race discrimination under § 1981, § 1983, and the Equal Protection clause against Hunderfund; (3) the claims for First Amendment retaliation under § 1983 against Hunderfund; (4) the claims for race discrimination under § 1981, § 1983, and the Equal Protection, and the NYSHRL against Romano; (5) the claims for race discrimination based under § 1981, § 1983, and the Equal Protection clause against the District; and (6) the claims for First Amendment retaliation under § 1983 against the District. As to Smith, the Court denies the Defendants motions for summary judgment as to (1) the claims for race discrimination under § 1981, § 1983, and the Equal Protection clause against Hunderfund; (2) the claims for race discrimination under § 1981, § 1983, and the Equal Protection clause against Ricca; (3) the claims for race discrimination under § 1981, § 1983, the Equal Protection clause, and the NYSHRL against Romano; and (4) the claims for race discrimination under § 1981, § 1983, and the Equal Protection clause against the District. The Court also grants that part of the motions to sever and/or for separate trials pursuant to Rules 20 and 42 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Court orders that the Plaintiffs will receive separate trials against those Defendants for which causes of action survive. The first named Plaintiff, Betsy Benedith, shall proceed under the current docket number, and each of the other plaintiffs is granted until September 15, 2014 to file a separate action - with a new complaint consistent with this order on the Defendants motions for summary judgment - to be assigned to this Court. In the event one or both of the other plaintiffs file a separate action, the Clerk of the Court is directed to link the new docket number back to the current docket number for viewing older docket entries in the case. So Ordered by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 8/15/2014. (Coleman, Laurie) Modified on 8/15/2014 to correct a typographical error. (Coleman, Laurie).MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER - In sum, the Court grants in part and denies in part the Defendants 31 motions for summary judgment. As to Benedith, the Court denies the Defendants motions for summary judgment as to (1) the claims for a hostile

August 18, 2017

ORDER: SO ORDERED that the Court adopts the payment schedule proposed by defendants and amends the order taxing costs against plaintiff to read: Costs Taxed in amount of $7,713.86 against Plaintiff, in favor of Defendants, and included in the Judgment. Plaintiff, together with Sherwyn Besson and Kenneth Smith, is jointly and severally liable for costs associated with the depositions of Betsy Benedith, Sherwyn Besson, and Kenneth Smith, totaling $6,495.80. Plaintiff is independently liable for costs associated with the deposition of Karen Orchowski, the classroom enlargement, and docketing fees, totaling $1,128.06. Cost of copies disallowed because counsel has not shown that originals were not available, as required by Local Rule 54.1(c)(5). Cost of depositions admitted in evidence disallowed because the record does not reflect any depositions that were admitted into evidence. 28 U.S.C. § 1923(a). Additionally, the Court establishes the following payment schedule: Plaintiff is directed to pay half of the total owed by September 5, 2017. Plaintiff is further directed to pay the second half of the total owed by December 5, 2017.The Clerk is respectfully directed to enter judgment consistent with this order.Furthermore, the Clerk is respectfully directed to terminate defendants motion at 94, having been rendered moot by later proceedings in this case. Ordered by Judge Joan M. Azrack on 8/18/2017. (Florio, Lisa)