United States Government Publishing Office publisher pbl distributor dst United States United States District Court Eastern District of New York author aut Government Organization text government publication eng USCOURTS Judicial Publications judicial 2021-05-12 Administrative Office of the United States Courts 2017-08-18 monographic deposited born digital JU 4.15 https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-nyed-2_11-cv-05964 P0b002ee1adf329a6 DGPO 2021-05-12 2021-05-12 USCOURTS-nyed-2_11-cv-05964 machine generated eng fdlp USCOURTS USCOURTS-nyed-2_11-cv-05964 District nyed 2nd New York 2351 2:11-cv-05964 Central Islip civil 442 Civil Rights Employment 42:1983 Civil Rights Act 2:11-cv-05964 https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-nyed-2_11-cv-05964 JU 4.15 2:11-cv-05964;11-5964 United States District Court Eastern District of New York 2nd Circuit Central Islip U.S. Courts author aut Betsy Benedith Benedith Betsy Plaintiff Sherwyn Besson Besson Sherwyn Plaintiff James Brown Brown James Defendant James Hunderfund Hunderfund James Defendant Malverne Union Free School District Malverne Union Free School District Defendant Rosalinda Ricca Ricca Rosalinda Defendant Vincent Romano Romano Vincent Defendant Kenneth Smith Smith Kenneth Plaintiff USCOURTS USCOURTS-nyed-2_11-cv-05964 District nyed 2nd New York 2351 2:11-cv-05964 Central Islip civil 442 Civil Rights Employment 42:1983 Civil Rights Act New York 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 0 2014-08-15 D09002ee1ae0219fc https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-nyed-2_11-cv-05964/USCOURTS-nyed-2_11-cv-05964-0 nyed-2_11-cv-05964_0.pdf https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-nyed-2_11-cv-05964/USCOURTS-nyed-2_11-cv-05964-0 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nyed-2_11-cv-05964/pdf/USCOURTS-nyed-2_11-cv-05964-0.pdf USCOURTS 2:11-cv-05964; Benedith et al v. Malverne Union Free School District et al; United States District Court Eastern District of New York New York USCOURTS-nyed-2_11-cv-05964-0 0 2014-08-15 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 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) 1 2017-08-18 D09002ee1ae0219fd https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-nyed-2_11-cv-05964/USCOURTS-nyed-2_11-cv-05964-1 nyed-2_11-cv-05964_1.pdf https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-nyed-2_11-cv-05964/USCOURTS-nyed-2_11-cv-05964-1 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nyed-2_11-cv-05964/pdf/USCOURTS-nyed-2_11-cv-05964-1.pdf USCOURTS 2:11-cv-05964; Benedith et al v. Malverne Union Free School District et al; United States District Court Eastern District of New York New York USCOURTS-nyed-2_11-cv-05964-1 1 2017-08-18 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)