Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Carter v. City of Syracuse School District

United States District Court, N.D. New York

June 25, 2015

CORENE D. CARTER, also known as CORENE BROWN Plaintiff,
v.
THE CITY OF SYRACUSE SCHOOL DISTRICT, DANIEL LOWENGARD, JOHN DITTMAN, JILL STEWART, JOHN DOE(S) and JANE DOE(S), Defendants.

AJ BOSMAN, ESQ., DANIEL W. FLYNN, ESQ., BOSMAN LAW OFFICE, Rome, New York, Attorneys for Plaintiff.

ERIC J. WILSON, ESQ., MILES G. LAWLOR, ESQ., FERRARA, FIORENZA, LARRISON, BARRETT & REITZ, P.C., East Syracuse, New York, Attorneys for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

FREDERICK J. SCULLIN, Jr., District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

Currently before the Court are Defendants' motion for summary judgment, see Dkt. No. 86, and Plaintiff's motion to take the deposition of Benjamin Frazier, see Dkt. No. 100.

II. BACKGROUND

On March 18, 2013, this Court issued a Memorandum-Decision and Order, in which it granted in part and denied in part Defendants' motion to strike Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and ordering Plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint to include only the following causes of action:

(1) cause of action pursuant to New York State Human Rights Law ("HRL") against Defendants John Dittman and Jill Stewart;
(2) cause of action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Dittman, Stewart, and Daniel Lowengard; and
(3) cause of action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant School District.

See Dkt. No. 46, Memorandum-Decision and Order at 7.

As ordered, Plaintiff filed her Second Amended Complaint on April 17, 2013, alleging the following: (1) School District employees and officials interfered with her ability to teach her class, apparently sometimes while conducting evaluations that she deemed unwarranted and unfair; (2) employees and officials made racially discriminatory comments; (3) officials failed to properly respond to her complaints and indeed retaliated against her for making them; (4) she suffered psychiatric harm as a result of this treatment; and (5) there has been a pattern of similar discrimination within the School District. See Dkt. No. 47, Second Amended Complaint.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Defendants' motion for ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.