Lawsuits on the Issue of Reopening Schools Pop Up All Over the U.S.

Randi Weingarten

There will be many lawsuits filed in the near future. Many have been filed already, on what teacher unions throughout the U.S. believe are unsafe and politically motivated reopenings of schools. I see the argument on both sides as valid.

Teachers have just been declared "essential workers" by the Trump administration, thus they will be able to obtain masks when needed. Supposedly.

Parents don't know what to do. They want to get their children the education that is best for them, but of course do not want them to get ill with the coronavirus, the flu, or anything else. Their questions about safety measures are not being answered.

The problem here in New York City is that almost no one trusts the mayor, Bill de Blasio, or the Chancellor, Richard Carranza. Parents, teachers, educators, and staff all say that nothing these two men say or do is for the kids, parents, or teachers and may be untrue anyway.

Mayor Bill de Blasio demonstrates a non-contact thermal thermometer with
Schools Chancellor Richard Carranza ahead of school reopening.

Recently the news is bad for any positive outcome, as both the Mayor and Chancellor seem to be oblivious to the needs and statements by anyone but their closest friends:

As layoffs loom for city workers, NYC pays $163M to corporate consultancies
Carranza expands his DOE staff despite looming teacher shortage, layoffs

New York City’s school reopening plan: Anatomy of a crime

De Blasio sat on offer to provide free COVID-19 testing for students

All of this makes no sense unless you see that both de Blasio and Carranza are creating photo opportunities to spread their fake news so that their political friends can be paid what they are promised, in political favors/contracts, goods, or services.

Will the coming lawsuits win? No one knows. But in Florida, the teachers union won. Judge Charles Dobson ruled in favor of individual school districts deciding what is best as far as reopening schools:

School reopening lawsuit: Judge rules in favor of Florida teachers

TampaBay.com

By Jeffrey S. Solochek, August 24, 2020

The Florida Department of Education quickly appealed the ruling, which called the state's actions unconstitutional.

Time will tell what will happen next.

Betsy Combier

betsy.combier@gmail.com

Editor, ADVOCATZ.com

Editor, ADVOCATZ Blog

Editor, NYC Rubber Room Reporter
Editor, Parentadvocates.org
Editor, New York Court Corruption
Editor, National Public Voice
Editor, NYC Public Voice
Editor, Inside 3020-a Teacher Trials

Battle over COVID-19 school openings goes to the courts

BY JOHN KRUZEL - 08/30/20 10:30 AM EDT

Teachers unions are waging court fights across the country aimed at unwinding what they say are unsafe and politically motivated timetables for reopening schools that risk exposing personnel to the coronavirus pandemic.

State officials eager to ramp up brick-and-mortar operations are facing lawsuits from Florida to Texas to Iowa over reopening plans as well as access to the COVID-19 infection data needed to monitor the rate of spread within school communities. 

At the same time, lawsuits are flying from the opposite direction: Parents in several states, including New York, Massachusetts, and Oregon, dissatisfied with web-based teaching alternatives, are suing to force state officials to reopen physical schools sooner as courts are increasingly called upon to referee the fight over education in the age of coronavirus.

“A legal storm is brewing as safety and social distancing requirements for a physical return to school begin to take shape around the country,” Maria Ferguson, executive director of the Center on Education Policy at George Washington University, wrote on the education website The 74.

As millions of students prepare for the first day of school — whether in-person, remote, or a hybrid of the two — the fight over the reopening physical school buildings is likely to intensify.

The debate over in-person K-12 instruction planning is inseparably tied to the issues of child care needs and parents’ ability to return to the workforce to help revive the struggling economy, all of which is playing out against the backdrop of a fast-approaching November election in a country that has seen nearly 6 million cases and more than 181,000 deaths from COVID-19.

Perhaps the highest-profile legal battle is taking place in the courts of Florida, where Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis signed off last month on an emergency order over school reopenings.

Under the order, most Florida school districts would be required to hold in-person classes five days a week by the end of August or risk losing funding. President Trump, who counts DeSantis as a close ally, has also threatened to cut off federal funding for schools if they do not resume in-person learning this fall.

The Florida policy prompted a lawsuit from the Florida Education Association (FEA), a statewide teachers union, and several other plaintiffs in favor of a more cautious return to in-person teaching.

“Public schools are not designed for COVID safety, and indeed, the government has recognized that they are high-contact environments,” said Kendall Coffey, the lead plaintiff’s attorney in the Florida case, who likened prematurely opened schools to “disease factories” and called the Florida policy “financial bullying.”

“There are any number of issues, in terms of hallway sizes, the flow of students in and out of classrooms, ventilation, even how many students go into the bathroom,” he told The Hill. “There are many elements that are virtually impossible to guarantee when you're dealing with children in large amounts.”

On Aug. 24, a Florida judge ruled in favor of the union and temporarily halted the statewide order. In his decision, Judge Charles Dodson struck down the order’s unconstitutional provisions and blasted DeSantis for having “essentially ignored” the state's constitutional requirement that schools be operated safely.

“The districts have no meaningful alternative,” wrote Dodson, of Leon County. “If an individual school district chooses safety, that is, delaying the start of schools until it individually determines it is safe to do so for its county, it risks losing state funding, even though every student is being taught.”

A Florida appeals court agreed to temporarily halt Judge Dodson’s order from taking effect while DeSantis appeals.

The state contends that the benefit of in-person instruction outweighs the health risks associated with reopening brick-and-mortar schools. Some Florida school officials have also declined to disclose incidents of positive COVID-19 cases to school communities, citing the need for patient privacy. 

Attorneys for Florida have also argued in hearings that courts should not substitute their judgment for that of policymakers who have balanced all the equities and decided a prompt in-person reopening is the best policy.

Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), one of the largest teachers unions in the country, said Florida has its priorities backward.

“What their arguments show is that they don’t care about human life,” Weingarten told The Hill.

According to Weingarten, internal AFT polling in June showed that about 3 in 4 teachers said they would be comfortable returning to the classroom if guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) were implemented in schools.

But she predicts that attitudes among teachers have shifted dramatically in past months as the Trump administration has failed to adequately manage the virus to ensure schools can be reopened safely.

“We're polling right now,” she said. “And my hunch is that just like the public polls, it's totally flipped.”

The AFT is backing lawsuits in Florida, New Mexico, and Texas. Before schools can reopen safely — for what Weingarten calls “the biggest move indoors that the nation has done since March” — the group says local positivity rates should be below 3 percent and schools should have visibility into daily transmission rates. 

The union is also pushing for protocols that involve testing, contact tracing, and isolation and implement best practices from the CDC for things such as ventilation, cleaning, physical distancing, mask-wearing, and other safeguards.

As teachers unions make their case in court, parents in at least five states have filed lawsuits of their own to accelerate school reopenings.

A nonprofit litigation group called the Center for American Liberty, co-founded by lawyer and GOP official Harmeet Dhillon, is backing one such suit in California. Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom’s restrictions on in-person school openings in the Golden State will affect an estimated 80 percent of K-12 students.

“The effects of this ham-handed policy are as predictable as they are tragic,” the lawsuit filed in a federal court in California states. “Hundreds of thousands of students will essentially drop out of school, whether because they lack the technological resources to engage with ‘online learning’ or because their parents cannot assist them.”

The litigation raises concerns about everything from school closures exacerbating the achievement gap and disproportionately harming special needs students and those without convenient internet access to challenges over the constitutional validity of government health orders.

Weingarten, of AFT, said it’s important to remember that despite seemingly irreconcilable differences over the policy details, all parties want to see schools reopen as soon as it’s safe to do so.

“None of us believes that remote is a substitute,” she said. “It's a supplement.”

New York City Educators Need To Protest the Opening of Schools and Re-Starting 3020-a Hearings

A sign taped to the front door of an elementary school. | Rick Bowmer/AP Photo

From Editor Betsy Combier:

NEWS for all educators who are awaiting or in 3020-a arbitration:

We at Advocatz are in cases right now which are on hold due to the coronavirus.

We just received Notice that the UFT and the DOE ("NYC Department of Education") have signed an agreement to start hearings up again on May 18, 2020.

I fail to understand how the NEA and AFT - and especially Randi Weingarten my former boss - can ignore the dark side of NYC education, and that is the false claims and lies which bring good educators to their nightmarish career-changing hearings currently at 100 Gold Street, 3rd Floor. The hearing rooms are tiny, except for one corner room reserved for special meetings or hearings where the Respondent has requested an open and public hearing (do it!).

I have no information about what other legal teams are doing, but we are not proceeding under the current circumstances.

Betsy Combier, betsy.combier@gmail.com
Editor, ADVOCATZ.com
Editor, NYC Rubber Room Reporter
Editor, Parentadvocates.org
Editor, New York Court Corruption
Editor, National Public Voice
Editor, NYC Public Voice
Editor, Inside 3020-a Teacher Trials 

Teachers union: 'Scream bloody murder' if schools reopen against medical advice

Schools in most states have been ordered to stay closed the rest of the year or strongly urged to do so.

By NICOLE GAUDIANO, politico

04/28/2020 12:44 PM EDT

The nation's two biggest teachers unions say they would consider strikes or major protests if schools reopen without the proper safety measures in place or against the advice of medical experts — raising the possibility of yet more school disruptions.

American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten, previewing a reopening plan first with POLITICO, said funding is needed for a host of public health measures for schools, including personal protective equipment. Collective bargaining, strong enforcement of safety standards and protections from retaliation will be important for teachers and staff so they feel safe to speak up as schools try new approaches, she said.

If schools are reopened without proper safety measures, “you scream bloody murder,” Weingarten said. “And you do everything you can to ... use your public megaphones.”

Teachers are united after more than two years of strikes for more state funding and they have “tremendous power” as advocates for children's safety, said Lily Eskelsen García, president of the National Education Association. She didn’t rule out strikes if state leaders move prematurely on a reopening of schools, and she said she believes parents would protest too.

“You put all things on the table when it comes to student safety,” Eskelsen García said. "And ... I don't think we'll be alone."

Teachers are preparing for the possibility of staggered class times, temperature taking, physical distancing and other measures that will create an unrecognizable K-12 classroom experience for students when schools eventually reopen.

Governors in some states have already lifted some restrictions on small businesses like hair salons and elective surgeries. But the eventual reopening of schools will represent a major step, driving a return to normal life — or at least a new normal — perhaps unlike anything else. President Donald Trump said Monday that governors are preparing to reopen shuttered school systems, without citing specific states.

No large scale reopening is on the immediate horizon. Schools in most states have been ordered to stay closed the rest of the year or strongly urged to do so. Trump’s three-phased plan for reopening the economy calls for reopening schools, at governors’ discretion, after about a month of declines in cases along with other criteria. “You're seeing a lot of governors get out and they want to open it up,” the president said when asked for his advice to state leaders who are weighing an economic restart.

“Many are thinking about their school system. Not a long way to go in the school system right now for this season, for this year. But I think you'll see a lot of schools open up, even if it’s for a very short period of time,” Trump said.

Absent a vaccine, Weingarten said it’s important to proceed in a safe and coordinated way “so that people feel that they’re all in.” AFT’s plan is informed by countries that have cautiously reopened classrooms, including Denmark, Norway and Germany, she said.

The union in its reopening plan will encourage its affiliates to lobby districts for five conditions before opening schools: a decline in cases over 14 days; adequate testing, tracing and isolation; public health measures like temperature taking, cleaning protocols, personal protective equipment and physical distancing measures such as staggered school times; transparency and fidelity to safety measures and enforcement; and increased funding to implement the host of changes.

Already, AFT’s affiliate in New York City, United Federation of Teachers, laid down a marker, launching a petition calling for widespread testing, temperature checks, rigorous cleaning and protective gear in every school and exhaustive tracing procedures as conditions for reopening schools.

“In places where there's a strong commitment to worker voice, we're going to get that and in places where there isn't, we're going to have to use all sorts of other vehicles, or what's going to happen is the virus will reemerge,” Weingarten said.

Eskelsen García said NEA is connecting thousands of members so they can share ideas.

Some are raising questions about what it will take to reopen, such as how you social distance in overcrowded classrooms, she said. Do they use the gym or lunch room to spread out? Nearby buildings? Do they have or need protective gear?

Some say reopening will require a lot more time from teachers and support staff, but that can’t come free.

“There will probably be some instances where we will have to look at renegotiating contracts for teachers who may be asked to do some pretty heroic things to get those schools open,” she said.

State and local leaders have already butted heads with unions during the shift to remote learning. In California, disagreements cropped up over issues like grading and student access to computers. The Chicago Teachers Union clashed with Chicago Public Schools over its decision to send home third quarter report cards. In South Bend, Ind., the local NEA affiliate filed a complaint with the state accusing the South Bend Community School Corp. of unfair labor practices, the South Bend Tribune reported.

“The safety of students, teachers and staff is chiefs' top concern when deciding when and how to reopen school buildings. New precautions will be required to do so safely, and teachers will be an important partner in making those decisions," said Carolyn Phenicie, spokesperson for the Council of Chief State School Officers.

The UFT Retro Payment Mess

Mike Antonucci, a prolific writer now giving his opinions on 74 on wednesdays, asks:

"So while public-sector unions must prepare for the consequences of members leaving unions entirely, they must also prepare to operate in a world where members easily move from one union to another, or to a non-union association. How ready are they for an actual marketplace in labor representation?"

The Supreme Court may, in it's Janus ruling, force changes to the way that the UFT does business.

This is a good move, if it stops the UFT bigwigs' misuse of money seen by the rank and file.

Betsy Combier

betsy@advocatz.com

Editor, Advocatz

Editor, NYC Rubber Room Reporter
Editor, Parentadvocates.org
Editor, New York Court Corruption
Editor, National Public Voice
Editor, NYC Public Voice
Editor, Inside 3020-a Teacher Trials

NYC Teachers Union Sows Confusion as It Delivers Raises, Double Dips on Dues by MIKE ANTONUCCI, The 74

It won’t buy a river view, but many New York City teachers and other school staff will receive a hefty paycheck this week, part of the back wages they’re owed for two years when they worked without a contract while other municipal workers enjoyed raises.

They won’t entirely be made whole, however, because their union, the United Federation of Teachers, deducts dues from retroactive pay even though it took out their annual dues for these same years at the time — a practice that dissenting members in the UFT described as double-dipping.

“It looked like we got double-duesed,” said Mindy Rosier, a special education teacher in Harlem, after an earlier retroactive payment in October 2015. At that time, Rosier’s normal dues deduction per paycheck was $54.17; that amount jumped to $91.58 when she received her retro pay.

“It’s a big, huge contract; there should be a reminder that, by the way … this is what we’re going to do,’ ” said Rosier, who was part of a slate that unsuccessfully challenged UFT’s leadership in the 2016 election. “I think they depend on [members being unaware] because I think if people remember, they’re afraid people will make a stink.”

UFT dues are “flat,” meaning all teachers are charged the same amount rather than a percentage of their salary. (Members with different job titles, like guidance counselors or secretaries, pay different amounts than teachers but the same as others who share their title.) A small but active population of teacher-activist bloggers has complained for years that flat rates impose a disproportionate burden on younger, lower-earning peers, but deductions on back pay appear to be infrequently discussed and poorly understood.

One theme among the online commentariat at the time of the October 2015 retroactive payment was the UFT’s purported need to hoard funds in advance of an expected U.S. Supreme Court decision abolishing mandatory fees — a judicial possibility that is today considerably closer at hand and weighing on unions nationwide.

(The 74: Analysis – Janus Ruling Could Force Unions to Compete for Members)

“Perhaps part of the deal was that since UFT is taking a bigger slice of dues with these retro payments, they wanted to secure some future dues-paying in case many teachers bail if we become a Right to Work state. Slick,” said an anonymous but representative commenter on an NYC teacher blog at the time.

When asked by a teacher earlier this year if additional dues would be deducted from this October’s retroactive pay, a UFT phone representative identified a similar but more local reason for the UFT to bolster its reserves.

“I can’t say yes or no because it could be yes, it could be yes, it could be no, because it all depends on what the executives feel, you know,” he said. “They don’t want to go to the hassle and just say no and they might say yes, well, they need the money because a lot of stuff politically — we need to send money for whatever we need to, because we got to get ready for the next negotiation, right?”

This week’s additional wage boost — a 2 percent increase on 2009 and 2010 salaries — was negotiated as part of the UFT’s 2014 collective bargaining agreement. Mayor Bill de Blasio agreed to compensate UFT members for the difference between their actual earnings since 2009, when the last contract expired, and what they would have earned if given the same increases that went to members of most city unions.

The mayor’s spokeswoman, Freddi Goldstein, said this week, “This is between the union leadership and its members,” declining to comment further. The Department of Education did not respond to several requests for comment.

The payout will be the second of five spaced between 2015 and 2020 because the city couldn’t afford to pay the entire amount at once. Educators will receive between several hundred and several thousand dollars; exact figures for this round are unclear because the Department of Education’s payroll portal, which allows employees to view paychecks a few days early, was taken down Tuesday after displaying “incorrect deduction information” with regard to UFT charges, the union said. The deductions “appeared to have doubled. This information is incorrect,” according to the union.

Pay stubs from several teachers for the October 2015 retro payment show union deductions going up by as much as $37.27, a nearly 70 percent increase. During that period, the city’s payroll portal crashed — apparently from so much activity.

Finding correct information this year may not have been easy either. Multiple calls to dedicated UFT hotlines yielded confused and apparently incorrect explanations, according to a teacher who is also the UFT chapter leader at a school.

“Union dues has nothing to do with the retro payment,” one specialist told the teacher. She wrongly explained that dues are proportional to earnings. “Obviously, since you are only being paid part [of what you would have earned] in 2009 and 2011, not enough dues was taken out of your check at that time, do you follow me?” she said. “So when I’m looking here, I can see this is pro-rated of what you were owed, now what you owe, what you should have been paid in union dues 2009 to 2011. Did you understand my mumbo jumbo?”

The UFT says its approach is commonsensical. “Retro and lump sum payments are in effect wages,” spokesman Dick Riley said in a statement this week. “As such, the UFT has traditionally deducted dues from lump sum/retro payments, just as taxes, Social Security, and benefits are deducted.”

Riley said the annual flat-rate structure results in dues collections that are “slightly below the maximum possible” using the union’s formula for calculating deductions. “For computational simplicity, the UFT determined to collect dues on the lump sum payments on the basis of the approved .85 rate rather than the flat rate.”

“Computational simplicity” does not spring to mind when contemplating the union dues calculations; the annual fee is a product of internal decisions dating back to 1982 that tie it to the UFT’s second-highest level in the salary structure, know as 8B plus L20, the latter number indicating 20 years of service. The “maximum possible” rate would instead use the highest salary (8B plus L22) as the basis for dues. Currently, a new teacher with only a bachelor’s degree earns $45,530 and pays dues based on a percentage of $95,202, the maximum 20-year salary. Teachers with greater experience and education, whose salaries may exceed $95,202, also pay dues on that amount.

A small part of dues, which as of Wednesday were deducted in semi-monthly payments of $56.65, or $1,359.60 annually, goes to the UFT’s state and national affiliates.

It’s not clear why the Department of Education calculates retroactive dues based on a percentage of how much each member receives, rather than using the year-to-year flat rate. What is certain, according to current and former chapter chairs, is that apart from the small number who are politically engaged in union issues, teachers are largely unconcerned with the added-on dues.

“What they’re losing is an almost unnoticeable thing for individual teachers,” said Evan Stone, co-CEO of the teacher advocacy group Educators for Excellence. “I think the average teacher would say, ‘The union got me this money. It makes sense that I would pay the same dues that I paid on the rest.’ ”

The UFT did not respond to requests for the total amount of dues deducted from this week’s retroactive payment or from the 2015 payment. It’s also not clear what the union will take in from additional dues charged during the retroactive payments in 2018, 2019 and 2020 (there was no retroactive increase given in 2016). There are 120,000 active UFT members, “most” of whom, the union said, qualified for retroactive raises.

Three union hotline specialists assured a teacher in recent months that any news about dues relating to the October 2017 payment would be in New York Teacher, the UFT’s journal, which did not appear to happen. A seven-paragraph announcement before the 2015 payment said, “All payroll contributions and deductions will be updated.”

With neither chapter leaders nor UFT service reps able to explain dues obligations, at least one veteran union-watcher says the teachers union makes it too difficult to understand many of its money-related decisions.

“This is an organization that is super close to the mayor and super powerful in New York City politics,” said Bill Hammond, of the right-leaning Empire Center for Public Policy. “One of the reasons it’s powerful is that it has so much money to spend. They’re doing this kind of mysterious thing with dues when arguably they have no right to back dues at all. Why would they feel the need to do something like this?”

Reporter Mareesa Nicosia contributed to this report.

Disclosure: David Cantor served as press secretary for the New York City Department of Education from 2005 to 2010.

Janus v. AFSCME: Lawyers in Key Union Case Appeal to U.S. Supreme Court for 2017–18 Hearing

Everyone and his brother in the education policy world spent Tuesday morning watching Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos testify before the Senate Appropriations subcommittee. But while that D.C. showdown was streaming live, attorneys for the plaintiff in the case of Janus v. AFSCMEwere quietly making it official and filing for review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

It’s the latter story that will have broader ramifications. If, as widely expected, the court ultimately rules in favor of Mark Janus, it will put an end to the practice of public sector unions charging agency fees to non-members.

Since only four justices are required to grant a writ of certiorari, it is virtually certain the case will be accepted for the court’s next session, beginning in October. Barring unforeseen delays, oral arguments should be heard in the winter and a ruling issued by June 2018.

Janus works for the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services. In a statement, he explained why he brought his case: “To keep my job at the state, I have to pay monthly fees to the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, a public employee union that claims to ‘represent’ me,” Janus says. “I’m filing this case on behalf of all government employees who want to serve their community or their state without having to pay a union first.”

Government workers in 20 states, including public school teachers, are required to pay agency fees if they choose not to join the union. Should the U.S. Supreme Court rule in favor of Janus, teachers unions estimate they could lose between 20 percent and 40 percent of their membership in those states.

As I reported last week: The National Education Association has modified its proposed budget for 2017–18 to include an estimated loss of 20,000 full-time equivalent members. This seems accurate because even larger losses won’t be felt until the 2018–19 school year. The California Teachers Association’s executive director recently warned activists to be prepared for membership losses as high as 30 percent to 40 percent. Despite his alert, CTA does not seem to have made any adjustments to its own 2017–18 budget. The United Federation of Teachers’ New York City local estimates a 20 percent reduction in membership and feels it can safely cut $16 million, which is about 10 percent of the annual dues it collects. Read my full analysis of how unions are bracing for the fallout.

Circuit Judge Blocks Project Veritas' Muckraking Attempt to Attack the AFT

James O'Keefe

From Politico:
"Wayne County Circuit Judge Brian Sullivan issued the order Friday that blocks Project Veritas and a woman said to be working with the group, Marisa Jorge, from disclosing videos or other information gathered during an undercover operation carried out against the American Federation of Teachers office in Detroit. "

This may be precedent-setting. Let's see what happens with the First Amendment, wire and mail fraud.

Betsy Combier
betsy@advocatz.com

Editor, Advocatz

Editor, NYC Rubber Room Reporter
Editor, Parentadvocates.org
Editor, New York Court Corruption
Editor, National Public Voice
Editor, NYC Public Voice
Editor, Inside 3020-a Teacher Trials

Teachers union gets restraining order against O'Keefe video venture
By JOSH GERSTEIN, Politico, 09/29/2017 

The Michigan chapter of a major teachers union has obtained a temporary restraining order against

an organization run by conservative provocateur James O’Keefe.

Wayne County Circuit Judge Brian Sullivan issued the order Friday that blocks Project Veritas and a woman said to be working with the group, Marisa Jorge, from disclosing videos or other information gathered during an undercover operation carried out against the American Federation of Teachers office in Detroit.

AFT alleges that Jorge, using the name Marissa Perez, obtained an internship at AFT beginning in May of this year and that during the internship she often acted suspiciously.

Jorge “showed an interest in charter schools and in instances of educators who had supposedly engaged in ‘sexting'’ with students; there were no such instances,” the court complaint says. “Over the next three months Defendant engaged Plaintiff’s staff and regularly sought information which was beyond her assignment. … Defendant Jorge appeared at Plaintiff’s worksite wearing adornments which are capable of hiding a camera or recording device. She wore large pearls, large glasses and clothing with buttons capable of hiding a camera.”

AFT says that Jorge is actually a Liberty University graduate but that she posed as a University of Michigan student when seeking the internship. The union alleges that earlier this year Jorge tried to infiltrate DisruptJ20, a group opposed to President Donald Trump’s inauguration, but that she was identified and driven out.

Several of Jorge’s social media pages appear to have been abruptly taken down in recent days.

The restraining order issued Friday is unusual. It was granted at a hearing where Project Veritas’ attorneys were not present. The judge set another hearing for Oct. 10 to decide whether the order should be continued.

A spokesman for Project Veritas, Stephen Gordon, dismissed the significance of the lawsuit.

“James O’Keefe and Project Veritas have not been served with any court action in Michigan and we do not comment on investigations, real or imagined,” Gordon said via email. “Project Veritas has focused this year on investigating the mainstream media. I expect Politico to be as anxious to report on our findings in our upcoming investigative release aimed right at the heart of the establishment media complex as they are to bashing Project Veritas based on over-hyped press releases that don’t amount to anything of consequence.”

AFT President Randi Weingarten praised the judge’s order.

“James O’Keefe and his operatives will stop at nothing to smear their ideological opponents — deception, distortion and dirty tactics — all to advance a political agenda that undermines public school students, teachers and families,” she said in a statement. “We are grateful that the Michigan court has protected — at least for now — students, teachers and families in Michigan.”

O’Keefe has carried out a series of high-profile video operations against organizations like Planned Parenthood and ACORN, as well as news outlets, including NPR and CNN.

In 2010, O’Keefe was arrested for posing as a telephone repairman in order to gain access to an office of Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.). He eventually pleaded guilty to a federal misdemeanor, was fined $1,500 and was sentenced to probation.

The new suit seeks at least $50,000 in actual damages and $3 million in punitive damages.

O’Keefe and Project Veritas are already facing a $1 million lawsuit brought by liberal activists who say they were targeted by an O’Keefe-directed operation aimed at making them appear to be instigating violence at Trump presidential campaign rallies and events.

Josh Gerstein is a senior reporter for POLITICO.

Press Release

AFT Michigan Files Civil Complaint Against James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas, Alleging Illegal Surveillance

AFT President Randi Weingarten: These “operatives will stop at nothing to smear their ideological opponents—deception, distortion and dirty tactics—all to advance a political agenda that undermines public school students, teachers and families.”

For Release: 

Friday, September 29, 2017

Contact:

AFT Media Affairs

202/879-4458

press@aft.org

DETROIT—A circuit court judge has signed an emergency restraining order that prevents Project Veritas, a conservative hit group that uses deception and lies to attack its political opponents, from using illegally obtained information to smear Michigan children, teachers and families.

AFT Michigan on Thursday filed a civil complaint against Project Veritasand its operative Marisa Jorge for their fraudulent, unauthorized and unlawful surveillance of AFT Michigan staff, leaders and associates, and for gathering information from them. In response to the complaint, Judge Brian Sullivan of Michigan’s Third Judicial Circuit Court issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting Jorge, her agents and anyone acting in concert with her from releasing private and confidential information gathered from any unlawful surveillance.

It is believed to be the first time Project Veritas, founded by conservative activist James O’Keefe, has been subject to such an order in its near decade-long existence.

Jorge used fraud and deception under the alias "Marissa Perez" to secure an internship with AFT Michigan, ostensibly to obtain material Project Veritas could use in one of its infamously misleading hit videos, according to the complaint. Jorge falsely claimed to be a student at the University of Michigan interested in becoming a teacher when, in fact, she is a recent graduate of Liberty University and appears to be working for Project Veritas. The restraining order is against Jorge as well as “her agents, employees and those acting in concert,” which would include Project Veritas, also named in the complaint.

Project Veritas is funded by a constellation of conservative backers and has frequently targeted teachers unions. Indeed, O’Keefe recently vowed to use his puerile tactics in defense of embattled Education Secretary Betsy DeVos who, coincidentally, is from Michigan where this criminal infiltration occurred. Project Veritas has in the past received funding from the Trump Foundation.

O’Keefe has demonstrated his willingness to ignore both legal and ethical standards. Long before the Russian government propagated fake news and deceptive tactics to sway the 2016 presidential election, O’Keefe was assuming false identities and doctoring videos in his attempts to smear his ideological opponents.

AFT President Randi Weingarten says, “James O'Keefe and his operatives will stop at nothing to smear their ideological opponents—deception, distortion and dirty tactics—all to advance a political agenda that undermines public school students, teachers and families.

“When the rights of students are curtailed by our own secretary of education who has spent decades attacking, rather than supporting, public education, it is more important than ever to fight for the truth and for the promise of public education. We are grateful that the Michigan court has protected—at least for now—students, teachers and families in Michigan.”

View AFT Michigan’s complaint

View the temporary restraining order against Project Veritas and Marisa Jorge

The AFT represents 1.7 million pre-K through 12th-grade teachers; paraprofessionals and other school-related personnel; higher education faculty and professional staff; federal, state and local government employees; nurses and healthcare workers; and early childhood educators.