New Jersey Judge Dismisses a Lawsuit Challenging State Rules Requiring School Districts to Base Teacher Layoffs on Seniority

74 co-founder and board member Campbell Brown

Campbell Brown loses another lawsuit aimed at ending the tenure protections of teachers. Her latest attempt involved stopping the "last in first out" excessing, where senior teachers stay and newbie teachers leave if there are layoffs.

See the Lawline episode on that with me, Attorney Bryan Glass (who asked for my participation for this show) and former DOE prosecutor Attorney Michael Mazzariello:

Lawline TV: Teachers Unions & the Last In First Out Rule

Enjoy.

Betsy Combier

betsy.combier@gmail.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

HG v. Harrington Legal Filings

5-4-17: Order Granting Defendant-Intervenors’ Motions to Dismiss the Complaint

4-12-17: Defendant-Intervenors’ Replies in Support of Motions to Dismiss

3-29-17: Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant-Intervenors’ Motions to Dismiss

3-22-17: Defendant Newark Public Schools’ Answer

3-13-17: State Defendants’ Answer

3-13-17: Defendant-Intervenors’ Motions to Dismiss

3-3-17: Superior Court’s Order Staying Discovery and Directing Negotiation of a Protective Order

2-23-17: (1) Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants NJEA and AFT’s Motions to Stay Discovery, and (2) Plaintiffs’ Reply to Defendants NJEA and AFT’s Oppositions to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Discovery from Newark Public Schools

2-8-17: AFT’s Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Discovery by Newark Public Schools, and AFT’s Motion to Stay Discovery, and in the Alternative, Motion for a Protective Order

2-8-17: NJEA’s letter motion opposing Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Discovery by Newark Public Schools

2-1-17: Superior Court’s Order Dismissing Motion to Hold Case in Abeyance and Establishing Schedule for Answers and Motion to Dismiss

1-31-17: New Jersey Supreme Court’s Order Denying State Defendants’ Abbott v. Burke Motion

1-30-17: Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Discovery by Newark Public Schools

1-27-17: Superior Court’s Order Staying all due dates during pendency of State’s Motion for Stay of HG v. Harrington Proceedings

1-26-17: State’s Motion to hold H.G. v. Harrington in Abeyance

12-22-16: Superior Court’s Order Granting Intervention by New Jersey Education Association

12-22-16: Order Granting Intervention by American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO, AFT New Jersey, and Newark Teachers Union

12-12-16: NJEA’s Reply to Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Motion to Intervene

12-12-16: AFT et. al.’s Reply to Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Motion to Intervene

12-7-16: Plaintiffs’ Opposition to NJEA’s Motion to Intervene

12-7-16: Plaintiffs’ Opposition to AFT, AFTNJ and NTU’s Motion to Intervene

11-15-16: NJEA Motion to Intervene in HG v. Harrington

11-15-16: AFT et. al. Motion to Intervene in HG v. Harrington

11-14-16: The Commissioner’s Brief in Opposition to Movants-Intervenors’ Motion to Intervene in Abbott v. Burke

11-3-16: Parents’ Motion to Intervene in Abbott v. Burke

• Related: State Motion to Re-Open Abbott v. Burke, September 2016

11-1-16: HG v. Harrington Legal Complaint

New Jersey Judge Tosses Parents’ Lawsuit Claiming Last In, First Out Layoff Rules Harm Students

New Jersey judge swiftly dismissed a lawsuit Wednesday that challenged state rules requiring school districts to base teacher layoffs on seniority regardless of performance in the classroom.

New Jersey Superior Court Judge Mary C. Jacobson told a Trenton courtroom that the plaintiffs had failed to establish how seniority-based layoff rules known as “last in, first out” were harming their children.

“I don’t see any link other than speculation and conjecture between the LIFO statute and the denial of a thorough and efficient education to these 12 children,” Jacobson said.

The lawsuit, HG v. Harrington, was filed in November on behalf of a dozen Newark students, claiming that “last in, first out” mandates governing teacher layoffs violate their right to a “thorough and efficient” and “equal” education system under the state Constitution.

The complaint was sponsored by The Partnership for Educational Justice, a national education reform nonprofit founded by 74 co-founder Campbell Brown. Named defendants include the New Jersey State Board of Education and Newark Public School District.

The American Federation of Teachers and the New Jersey Education Association, considered “intervening” defendants in the case, filed the motion to dismiss.

(Read: New Jersey Parents File Lawsuit to End First-In, Last-Out Layoffs)

The parent plaintiffs charged that children attending Newark Public Schools and other poverty-ridden districts are denied an equitable education because statutes requiring “quality-blind” layoffs force those districts to lay off effective teachers rather than ineffective ones, or to cut spending elsewhere in the budget rather than lay teachers off.

In recent years, Newark Public Schools avoided layoffs by refusing to assign ineffective educators to any job, placing them instead in the Educators Without Placement Sites (EWPS) pool.

Even without a job, those educators are still paid — a cost that ballooned from $6.4 million in the 2011–12 school year to $22.6 million in the 2013–14 school year. Newark Public Schools Superintendent Chris Cerf, who was appointed in 2015, has since transitioned hundreds of those unassigned educators back to the classroom. Newark Public Schools plans to spend about $8 million for an estimated 80 educators in the EWPS pool next school year, according to the district.  

Kathleen Reilly, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, called the EWPS pool a “work-around” that “diverts the district’s already limited resources” to pay the salaries of ineffective teachers.

But union lawyers argued that because Newark Public Schools has not laid off teachers recently or announced a plan to do so in the immediate future, the plaintiffs did not establish negative consequences of the rules.

“They don’t name a single program or resource or opportunity that any individual plaintiff has been denied and which has caused that individual plaintiff harm,” said Steve Weissman, a lawyer for the AFT. “There is absolutely no specificity here.”

Reilly said the plaintiffs might appeal the dismissal to the appellate court or replead the case.

“I don’t think these parents want us to move on” from the case, she told reporters after the hearing.

HG v. Harrington is the third lawsuit filed by the PEJ challenging teacher tenure protections. In 2014, the group filed Wright v. New York, which is currently before the state Supreme Court. Last year, the group filed Forslund v. Minnesota, but it was dismissed by a judge who said issues governing teacher layoffs should rest with state lawmakers. The plaintiffs in that case have since appealed the judge’s decision.

Editor’s Note: 74 co-founder and board member Campbell Brown founded the Partnership for Education Justice. The Walton Family Foundation partially funds The 74 and PEJ

Minnesota Anti-Tenure Lawsuit is Dismissed

I am biased when it comes to whether or not educators should continue to receive tenure.

I believe in tenure. 100%.

After dealing with charges prosecuted at 3020-a that are crazy, unfair, ridiculous, frivolous and factless for 14 years, and supporting teachers who are terrific in their classrooms and simply terminated because their representative, the lawyer, was no good or couldn't care less about the career trashed by the Department and their bulldozers, I believe that our children need to depend on us to protect their teachers from the whim of a manic-depressive principal.

Tenure for life doesn't exist, as we all know. Good teachers are terminated for no reason other than the politics of education, which doesn't look at how good a teacher is, but how expensive he/she is.

The spiel is that senior teachers, after a certain random amount of time, lose their ability to teach effectively.

This factless nonsense is supported by the absurd Danielson rubric, which is used to rate teachers so that biased administrators can see whatever they want to see and get rid of anyone they want to get rid of. If they want someone out of their schools, they see bad teaching/coaching/writing/etc, whatever. They see you not using your lesson plan, or they believe that you do not have the aim on the board reflect what is in your lesson plan....or god forbid, you didnt have a lesson plan.

You can be terminated for this nonsense.

Currently, the Courts agree with me and have not allowed tenure to end, although California's original judge in the Vergara case gave us tenure-supporters a scare.

The Appellate Court ruled against the decision, luckily.

And in Minnesota the anti-tenure proponent behind most of the lawsuits to end tenure,

Campbell Brown

Campbell Brown, also lost. I'm happy.

We need our teachers to feel secure and we must allow them to be creative with our kids, knowing that they don't have to be looking over their shoulder every minute.

Stop the movement to end tenure. It's hurting our kids, education, and our country's future.

Betsy Combier

Campbell Brown’s PEJ Is Having Trouble Connecting Test Scores with Tenure Laws

October 29, 2016

LINK

On October 26, 2016, the Minnesota teacher tenure lawsuit prodded by Campbell Brown’s Partnership for Educational Justice (PEJ) hit a roadblock when Ramsey County (MN) Judge Margaret Marrinan tossed out the PEJ-supported (instigated?) Forslund vs. Minnesota suit on the grounds that the suit “failed to establish a link between low academic achievement and the due process provided by the tenure laws,” as the Star Tribune reports.

PEJ has a library of the documents in the case, including the motions to dismiss the suit, and the plaintiffs’ opposition to the motions to dismiss, and the defendants’ responses to the plaintiffs’ opposition to the motions to dismiss. (Indeed, the legal back-and-forth is rather detailed, and costly, to be sure. I am still waiting for access to the PEJ tax form from 2014-15, which has been filed in June 2016 and which includes $4.7 million in revenue as of November 2015.)

The State of Minnesota was one entity that filed a motion to dismiss Forslund. In the State’s July 2016 reply in support of motion to dismiss, the State concisely captures the reason the Judge Marrinan dismissed the suit as reported in the Star Tribune (note that no record of Marrinan’s exact words is publicly available as of this writing):

Plaintiffs Lack Standing. The State Defendants demonstrated in their initial memorandum that Plaintiffs lacked standing because their First Amended Complaint failed to identify a concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent “injury-in-fact,” fairly traceable to the teacher tenure laws. … Plaintiffs reiteration of their generalized grievances set forth in the First Amended Complaint do not alter this conclusion.

Nor will this case remedy Plaintiffs’ alleged harms. … As Plaintiffs acknowledge, eliminating teacher tenure will not ensure Plaintiffs’ children never again receive a teacher they consider “ineffective.” … Furthermore, Plaintiffs also fail to address the causal deficiencies in their claims, including the fact that (1) it is speculative whether elimination of the teacher tenure laws would result in greater teacher “effectiveness” or higher district-wide test scores; and (2) that Minnesota Charter schools, which do not have tenure, are disproportionally represented among Minnesota’s lowest performing schools.

The reason for dismissal of the suit is straightforward: No established, direct connection between teacher tenure laws and those dastardly low test scores– with the low test scores of charter schools (which have non-tenured teachers) blasting the no-tenure, higher-test-score pseudo-argument.

Still, as PEJ offers in a press release that appears pretty well ignored in the mainstream media, an appeal is coming:

PEJ Statement in Response to the Granting of Motions to Dismiss Forslund v. Minnesota by the Ramsey County Court

October 26, 2016

Today, in response to the granting of defendants’ motions to dismiss Forslund v. Minnesota, challenging the state’s teacher tenure, dismissal, and layoff laws, Partnership for Educational Justice Executive Director Ralia Polechronis released the following statement:

“While the Minnesota courts have considered and ruled on many education cases in the past, this is the first time that they have been asked by parents to consider the constitutionality of teacher employment statutes. Under these circumstances, it’s no surprise that the battle for students’ rights will be hard fought.

The fact remains that far too many students in Minnesota, especially those from communities of color and low-income families, are not receiving the quality education to which they are entitled. The plaintiff families are preparing to appeal, and remain committed as ever to continue this fight until students’ rights are justly put above unfair job protections for chronically ineffective teachers.”

– Ralia Polechronis, Executive Director

Note that the press release does not directly confront Forslund vs. Minnesota’s lack of a directly-established connection between Minnesota’s teacher tenure laws and any specific, negative student outcome.

This appeal is already swirling around the bowl.

Mona Davids and Campbell Brown Throw Sand at Each Other in the Sandbox

**We apologize for only sending our press release today.  Unfortunately, we are not funded by secret fundersor anyone for that matter, so we do all our public relations, media outreach, communications, website etc. ourselves. We are all parent volunteers, not paid tens of thousands per month to do PR or pay for staff.** For Immediate Release September 17, 2014 Contacts: Mona Davids, (646) 872-7149 @MonaDavids, mona@nycparentsunion.org Sam Pirozzolo, (917) 533-3437 @SPirozzolo, sam@nycparentsunion.org PRESS RELEASE   “We Will Not Be Bullied!  Celebrity Campbell Brown Does Not Represent Us.” New York City Parents Union Statement Regarding Campbell Brown's Attempts To Sabotage Parent-Led Lawsuit Regarding Bad Education Law DAVIDS V. NEW YORK:  THE FACTS On July 3, 2014, the lawsuit Davids v. New York was filed by 11 New York City students against the State of New York, the New York State Board of Regents, the New York State Education Department, the City of New York and the New York City Department of Education. An extension of the ongoing efforts by parents to improve the quality of education in New York State, this lawsuit seeks to declare as unconstitutional certain provisions within New York State’s Education Law that deny students the “sound basic education,” considered a fundamental right under Article XI, §1 of the New York State Constitution. Davids v. New York was filed against the State of New York — not against teachers or any union — pursuant to this State’s constitutional obligation to ensure the availability of a sound basic education for all of its children.  Davids is about modernizing the teaching profession and ensuring that our education system is performance-based and not quality-blind.  Above all, this lawsuit is an affirmation of the importance of teachers to the quality of students’ education and it is a challenge for all of us to do things differently to make sure our students are getting all of the resources they need to succeed.  New books and desks are not enough; there must be a highly motivated, highly effective teacher in each classroom every day. Unlike California -- where Vergara v. California challenged that state’s “Last In First Out” (LIFO) provisions, dismissal provisions and tenure provisions -- we are challenging only New York’s state’s LIFO and dismissal statutes.  Davids v. New York will force essential changes in bad law.  We are not challenging the tenure law in New York due to the recent amendments of the law that require school districts to consider classroom performance as a factor in granting permanent employment.  The fact that New York State now considers “teacher quality” as a component of its tenure decisions is a critical distinction when comparing New York’s education laws with California’s. New York City’s parents chose to take action on behalf of their children and on their own terms, independent of other organizations and agendas.  During a similar period of time, Ms. Campbell Brown, a media celebrity involved specifically with anti-union crusades also decided to pursue legal action.  Her case is titled Wright v. New York.  Ms. Brown’s primary interest was and remains the elimination of tenure for teachers.  The New York City Parents Union’s lawsuit,Davids v. New York, was announced, filed with the court and served prior to Ms. Brown’s filing of her lawsuit and the announcement thereof. On August 7, 2014, New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, representing all government agency defendants, filed a motion to consolidate Wright v. New York with Davids v. New York, resulting in a single case.  Mr. Schneiderman also requested that the case be tried in Richmond County -- the Borough of Staten Island -- and that the consolidated case remain titled as Davids v. New York.  Despite the different focus of Brown’s case, the Davids plaintiffs agreed to the consolidation and also agreed to the United Federation of Teachers' motion to intervene on behalf of their union’s members. CELEBRITY CAMPBELL BROWN:  THE OUTRAGE In contrast to the Davids plaintiffs spirit of cooperation, however, celebrity Campbell Brown has engaged in a deliberate and methodical effort to undermine the strength ofDavids v. New York and sabotage the efforts of real parents to improve their children’s education.  Ms. Brown has decided that having her name in the headlines is a top priority and, aided and abetted by others, she has used the threat of “economic sanctions” in an attempt to reduce financial support for Davids v. New York and the efforts of the New York City Parents Union. On August 14, the NYCPU met with Randy Mastro, Esq., a partner with the law firm Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, which was providing legal representation to the Davids v. New York plaintiffs.  At this meeting, the plaintiffs were advised by Mr. Mastro that Campbell Brown and her supporters were waging a bullying campaign behind the scenes to undermine and sabotage Davids v. New York, including the threat of clients leaving Gibson Dunn as well as threats to funders of Students Matter, an education advocacy organization that organized the Vergara lawsuit, and threats conveyed to RALLY, a public relations company working with theDavids plaintiffs.  The appalling extreme and sensitive nature of this situation has led involved parties to deny the threats and generate creative reasons for changing their relationships withDavids v. New York. After refusing to go “on the record” addressing or denying these allegations to reporters, and only after agreeing to deny our allegations “off the record,” Ms. Brown finally responded “on the record” in an email to former California State Senator Gloria Romero, the sponsor of the California Parent Empowerment Law and also a columnist for the Orange County Register. On August 28, 2014, after learning that Ms. Romero had confirmation of Ms. Brown's bullying from a credible Students Matter source, Campbell Brown denied our allegations in an email to Ms. Romero and proceeded to instruct Gibson Dunn, our attorneys, to respond to Ms. Romero with a statement. A mere 12 minutes later, Gibson Dunn -- our law firm with whom we had a retainer agreement – proceeded to violate attorney-client privilege by following Ms. Brown's instructions and sending Gloria Romero an email that called our allegations absurd included a statement that Gibson Dunn would no longer be representing the student and parent plaintiffs in Davids v. New York.  This email and statement was sent hours before attorney Randy Mastro actually notified us – his clients -- in a short email that Gibson Dunn would no longer be representing us. CELEBRITY CAMPBELL BROWN:  THE VERY INCONVENIENT TRUTH It was beyond disappointing to be confronted by a bully posing as an ally.  In New York City, we say “No” to bullies.  As real parents with our children’s futures on the line, we will not be bullied!  Celebrity Campbell Brown has chosen to use intimidation as hermodus operandi.  Celebrity Campbell Brown’s ego does not deserve our praise, nor does her obsession with teacher tenure.  Celebrity Campbell Brown does not represent us parents – and she will not stop our children and us from proceeding with Davids v. New York.  Celebrity Campbell Brown is not the saviour of New York’s children from low-income families or black and brown children … and she has no right to represent herself as such when she chooses to use money and connections to trample on the rights of those children and their families. Unlike Ms. Brown's lawsuit, Davids v. New York has been organized by independent, grassroots parents with a long history of advocating on both a legislative and judicial level for our children.  The parents of the student plaintiffs are members of the New York City Parents Union, a parent-led organization dedicated to ensuring that every child receives equal access to a high-quality and affordable public education.  The New York City Parents Union and its members are also plaintiffs in two ongoing school funding lawsuits – actions pursued to ensure that New York's public school children receive all the school funding they are entitled to under the law per the important Campaign for Fiscal Equity court decision. Through this lawsuit, we seek to create an opportunity for education stakeholders — students, parents, teachers, legislators, and organized labor — to create a better review system that elevates teacher quality, raises the prestige of the teaching profession as a whole, and promotes access to a sound education for all students.    # # #   September 11, 2014 Press Conference videos of Davids v. New York parent plaintiffs speaking out against Campbell Brown's bullying, undermining and attempted hijacking of our independent, grassroots, parent led lawsuit. Click the pictures to watch the videos.  Jacqueline Colson - click here to learn more about Jacqueline.      Sam Pirozzolo - click here to learn more about Sam.        Mona Davids - click here to learn more about Mona. .   WWW.DAVIDSvNY.ORG        WWW.NYCPARENTSUNION.ORG

Copyright © 2014 New York City Parents Union, All rights reserved.  You are receiving this email because you are a parent/guardian who cares about educating all children.  Our mailing address is:  New York City Parents Union 225 Broadway Suite 1902 New York, NY 10007 Add us to your address book unsubscribe from this list | update subscription preferences   In Teacher-Tenure Battles, a War for Public Opinion Can Obscure the Nuances By Stephen Sawchuk on August 5, 2014 7:42 PM LINK Whoopi Goldberg is the latest celebrity to weigh in on the topic of teacher tenure, fueling what seems to be increasing national attention to the topic. Her comments appear to be prompted by a lawsuit organized by former news anchorCampbell Brown against New York state's tenure and dismissal rules. Fresh off her appearance on "The Colbert Report," Brown has been making the early-morning talk-show rounds. (Not to be outdone, the American Federation of Teachers' Randi Weingarten fought back Tuesday on the MSNBC program "Morning Joe.") At this rate, teacher tenure may exceed the Common Core State Standards as an education policy lightning rod, even as a possible wedge issue in the midterm and 2016 elections. One thing's for sure: There's a war out there to win public opinion on the merits, or demerits, of tenure laws. Advocates like Brown are focusing on broad-brush arguments that tenure rules make it too difficult to get rid of poor teachers. Unions, alternatively, posit that tenure protects teachers from reprisals, and that attacks on tenure are really attacks on organized labor and public education. (The AFT sent back-to-back missives this week urging its allies to tweet and post to Facebook stories to that effect.)  Given the conventional wisdom that perception is nine-tenths of the reality in political warfare, this back and forth makes sense. But it's worth taking the time to remember that tenure laws—which prevent teachers from being dismissed without cause, typically established in a hearing—are actually complex, obscure, and context-specific. State legal codes on tenure go on for pages and pages, spelling out in detail such matters as the reasons constituting just cause for firing, the timeline for filing charges and hearing cases, the type of evidence that can be presented at hearings, the appeals process, and so on and so forth.  For cases of dismissal for incompetence, the picture is further complicated by disagreementsabout what constitutes an effective teacher and how to measure one. And, as with all laws, they can be implemented well or poorly. My point is that there's a lot here in the weeds to examine. We'll do our best here at Education Week to keep you above the fray and understanding these nuances .

Is Campbell Brown a Bully?

I have a question: how does Campbell Brown have standing to bring a lawsuit against tenure for public school teachers/employees?

How many of her children attended public school in NYC?

Just askin'.

Betsy Combier

Campbell Brown

Law firm supporting New York Parents Union quits, parents blame bullying by Campbell Brown’s education reform group

by Eclectablog on AUGUST 30, 2014 in EDUCATION, TEACHERS

LINK

In early June, a decision in the California court case Vergara v. California deemed the state’s teacher tenure laws to be unconstitutional because they deny children access to a quality education. The decision has sparked similar cases around the country. In New York, the parents group New York City Parents Union (NYCPU), headed by Mona Davids, filed the first of these lawsuits in early July. In Davids v. State of New York, et al., eleven students, all children of members of the New York City Parents Union, are plaintiffs. The complaint (pdf) asks the court to issue permanent injunctions against the New York statutes involving “Last In, First Out” (LIFO) layoff rules and dismissal rules for teachers found to be ineffective. UnlikeVergara, Davids does not go after tenure rules which protect teachers who have worked for a pre-specified period of time from being fired for non-educational reasons.

Mona Davids has been, and still is, involved in a variety of lawsuits challenging the funding of schools and the release of student and parent data to a private corporation among other issues and she has fought against lack of parental oversight in charter schools in New York. I spoke to Davids and NYCPU Vice-President Sam Pirozzolo at length this past week to prepare this piece.

Mona Davids

According to Davids and Pirozzolo, the week before the lawsuit was filed, NYCPU was contacted by Campbell Brown, the former CNN anchor. Brown has left her journalism career to become a staunch and well-funded advocate of education reform. With Michelle Rhee leaving her position as CEO of StudentsFirst, Campbell, through her group Partnership for Educational Justice (PEJ), appears poised to take up Rhee’s torch and establish herself as the face of education reform. Her type of education reform echoes Rhee’s model with a strong focus on blaming teachers for poor performing schools and a disdain for teachers unions and teacher tenure laws, in particular.

When Brown contacted Davids and Pirozzolo, she told them she wanted to work with them and set up a meeting. On his way to the meeting Pirozzolo learned that Brown’s group had cancelled. They attempted to reschedule but soon learned that Brown was coming to New York City and seemed to have no interest in talking with them. Fearful that Brown was attempting to preempt their forthcoming lawsuit, they hurriedly found an attorney, Jonathan Tribiano, and filed their suit on the July 3rd. Pirozzolo paid the $250 filing fee out of his own pocket. He told me that they chose to file in Staten Island because they felt they would have a better chance of getting a sympathetic Republican judge than if they filed in Albany. Due to the hurried nature of their filing, they knew they would have to file an amended suit before too long.

Sam Pirozzolo

After they filed, they heard once again from Campbell Brown who congratulated them as “brave parents” who were standing up for students and once again offering to help. Davids and Pirozzolo gladly accepted. However, Brown called them back a short time later and told them she didn’t have any money to support them. Instead, she offered to put them in touch with her attorney so that he could explain to them how bad their lawsuit was. Davids and Pirozzolo already knew their complaint needed to be improved and on July 24th, they filed an amended complaint.

Four days later Campbell filed her own lawsuit in Albany. In a tearful press conference, she said called the plaintiffs “incredibly brave”, saying she was “just proud to be holding [their] coats.”

On August 6th, Students Matter, the California group founded by millionaire David Welch which bankrolled the Vergara case, announced they would be supporting the plaintiffs in the Davids case. The legal representation would be taken over by the law firm Gibson Dunn with attorneys Randy Mastro, former Deputy Mayor of New York City, and Theodore Boutrous, lead counsel for the plaintiffs in the Vergara suit, in charge.

The next day, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman filed a motion asking that the court combine the cases in Staten Island due to their similarities. All parties agreed to this and next week, on September 3rd, there will be a hearing to formalize the consolidation.

After that, however, Davids and Pirozzolo told me “all hell broke loose.” Gibson Dunn attorney Mastro recently asked them to come to his office telling them he had “shocking news”. Mastro, they said, told them that Campbell Brown had contacted some of his other clients and those clients were now threatening to pull their business from his firm if they didn’t drop the Davids suit. In the meantime, their original attorney, Jonathan Tribiana had become “cagey” and wouldn’t answer their questions. Mastro assured them that there were plenty of other firms that would be willing to take on their case pro bono and that Gibson and Dunn would help them find someone.

Thursday night, less than an hour before I spoke with Davids and Pirozzolo, Gibson Dunn “fired” their clients. Because of this, they are currently without representation as they head into next Tuesday’s hearing. Students Matter, the California group bankrolling the lawsuit, is also pulling out.

Davids and Pirozzolo tell me that the players involved will not acknowledge any of this in public. The various players have said variously that Gibson Dunn was quitting their case because of a conflict of interest due to the other lawsuits that Davids is currently involved in or that it was because of “bad behavior” by Davids and Pirozzolo. None of the players are willing to go on the record to say that Campbell Brown acted like a playground bully, threatening everyone who supported them to isolate them and leave them without resources so that she and her group could take over their suit once it was consolidated with hers. Indeed, since they were fired, PEJ has reached out to them to “craft a productive path forward”, one that surely involves the case being handled by Brown’s PEJ attorneys with the shots being called by them.

Davids and Pirozzolo have found themselves both opponents of and allies with the New York teachers union United Federation of Teachers (UFT), at various times. And though their complaint doesn’t go after teacher tenure laws, they are still at odds with the UFT over the other elements of their suit (you can read their FAQ about it HERE.)

However, they now appear to share a common enemy: Campbell Brown.

Brown has long championed transparency and disclosure in her position as an anchor at CNN. However, now that she’s the one receiving the money, she has gone silent. On an appearance on the Colbert Report, she told Steven Colbert that she would not reveal her funders because if she did, people “are going to go after people who are funding us.” Inhis op-ed in Salon magazine, Gabriel Arana lays it out plainly:

If the pearl-clutching millionaires behind Campbell Brown’s lawsuit are too emotionally fragile to withstand any sort of public scrutiny, they have no business wading into a debate whose outcome will affect millions of students.

Brown’s secrecy about her funders is especially unconscionable given her background as a journalist. Her organization claims it wants to encourage debate about public education. But if anything, the Partnership’s lack of transparency only makes open dialogue more difficult. Without knowing who is behind the effort to get rid of teacher tenure, it’s difficult to tell if they are acting in the best interests of students or whether they are among the for-profit education entrepreneurs looking to cash in on the privatization of public education, which has become a multibillion-dollar industry.

From Davids’ and Pirozzolo’s perspective, they are the true grassroots activists and they are being silenced by a high-profile, well-funded celebrity. “We can fight with the unions but still find ways to work together,” Davids told me. “We piss off the unions all the time but we also piss off the education reformers. In this situation, the giants are fighting and we’re being pushed to the sidelines.”

I asked her why she thought Brown was doing this after initially offering to help. “She want to be the next Michelle Rhee,” Davids said. “This is all about her. When she did this, we had to get over the shock that she would to this to the parents and the students.”

Davids and Pirozzolo tell me they will continue on with their suit with or without the support of Students Matter and Gibson Dunn. “How can Campbell Brown go in front of cameras to talk about a lawsuit named ‘Davids’?,” Davids asked rhetorically. “This is our suit and we will keep fighting.”

There are reasonable people on both sides of the issues at stake with these lawsuits. However, if what Davids and Pirozzolo claim is true, it appears that Campbell Brown is using the court case to launch her new career as an education reformer. And, when when inconvenient parents got in the way of that, she used her influence and money from unknown sources to try to isolate and squash them. Rather than “holding their coats”, Brown appears to want to hold all of the power.

For their part, the New York City Parents Union is doing everything they can to make sure the world knows that Campbell Brown has bullied them and does not speak for them, sending out tweets like this one:

"Campbell Brown does not speak for #DAVIDSvNY  We are INDEPENDENT, GRASSROOTS PUBLIC SCHOOL PARENTS who can speak & advocate for OUR children"

The hearing to combine Brown’s complaint with theirs is on Wednesday. I will follow up as this story develops.

[CC Brown photo credit: Asa Mathat/Fortune MPW | Flickr, Pirozzolo and Davids photos courtesy of NYC Parents Union]