NY State Commissioner Betty Rosa Suggests Remote Schooling For Children and Their Relatives With Health Issues

Education Commissioner Betty Rosa wrote in a Thursday memo that districts
 “may work with students and families to offer remote options if it is deemed to be
 in the best educational interest of the student.”

Children with special needs have accommodations on their Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) which are funded by the state and federal governments. Having been a parent advocate for 22 years and a parent to four children all of whom graduated from the NYCDOE (one with an IEP), and after winning almost $1 million for parents to attend private schools or programs at Impartial Hearings, I can give an informed opinion on the Department's latest false statement that these students possibly will be staying home and doing remote schooling.

The fact is, the Department wants/needs/spends the federal and state funds, and must monitor these funds closely, for audits and accountability purposes.

I and many other advocates for parents of children with disabilities know very well the fraud going on in NYC public schools in the area of giving the proper services to the kids who need them. Take ICT classes, for instance. ICT classes are supposed to have two teachers in the core subjects: one certified in special education and the other certified to teach general education students. Many principals give the ICT classes only one teacher, or one teacher and a substitute/paraprofessional. It's cheaper to do this. Also, when a parent gets let's say OT (Occupational Therapy) on their child's IEP and their child is supposed to get 3X30 (three sessions/week for 30 minutes) I tell the parent to have the therapist jot down a note of how their child did after each session, or ask the child every day what happened in school. Parents can keep track of missing dates of therapy.

But most parents don't do this, so principals, always mindful of keeping the school budget in the black (not over-spending available funds), may take away one or two days/week of the therapy and give the child one OT session/week, while telling the therapist not let the parents know. This is a business model of special education where the child comes last.

Children don't matter.

We posted this in 2008: DOE Violates Special Ed Law

What happens if the parent finds out? The principal is "horrified", and disciplines the OT person with a letter-to-file, discontinuance, or 3020-a charges. Then it is up to the OT person to defend his/her work, his/her schedule, career, character and life.

There are many, many stories that are the same, with the common denominator being "how much can I get away with"?

In the NYC DOE you can get away with a lot, considering there is no accountability nor investigators to uncover the truth. I have written about this many times before:
NYC Public Advocate Letitia James Sues The NYC Department of Education for Denying Special Education Children Their Services and Accommodations

Manhattan US Attorney Preet Bharara Scolds the NYC Department of Education For Not Making Schools Accessible To Disabled Children

The only way this might work is to give each parent of a child with an IEP the money for remote schooling, so the parent can use it as they see fit, with proper monitoring.

NYC fights family of disabled Bronx student over pandemic school ‘age-out’ policy by Michael Elsen-Rooney, NY Daily News, July 31, 2021

Ivelisse Ramirez (left) and her daughter, Maria Torres. (Wes Parnell/for New York Daily News)

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

DOE mulling remote schooling options for kids in special circumstances

Julia Marsh and Selim Algar, NY POST, July 31, 2021

City officials are considering a remote schooling option for kids with immunocompromised relatives, a source told The Post Friday.

The Department of Education previously said that students who themselves are vulnerable could learn from home — but the city may now extend that offer to kids with family members at elevated risk, the City Hall source said.

News of the proposal drew skepticism from some educators. A Bed-Stuy middle school teacher warned that expanding remote learning eligibility could complicate the resumption of classes in September.

“It’s going to be difficult to know where to draw the line,” she said. “I can see that becoming a headache for principals if it’s not handled properly or clearly.”

Meanwhile, state Education Commissioner Betty Rosa wrote in a Thursday memo that districts “may work with students and families to offer remote options if it is deemed to be in the best educational interest of the student.”

She also urged administrators to “consider the value of online capacity developed in response to the pandemic” in crafting their curriculums this year.

Rosa stressed, however, that state officials “will not require schools that are open for full-time, in-person instruction to provide online or remote instruction” to students.

Some families and teachers union factions have called for the retention of a remote learning option for the upcoming school year.

Asserting that screen learning is inferior to in-person instruction and isolates kids, others have demanded an unrestrained return to classrooms.

Mayor Bill de Blasio has been adamant in proclaiming the end of widespread remote classes — but the emergence of the Delta variant has induced fresh parental jitters about the upcoming year.

“While the nature and extent of COVID-19 and its variants are still dynamic, it is essential that schools receive whatever guidance the Governor and the DOH intend to offer about the 2021-2022 school year as soon as possible …,” Rosa wrote in her letter to superintendents.

Parents and staffers have also been at odds over City Hall’s requirement of masks inside DOE schools in the fall.

Citing ongoing coronavirus concerns, some have backed the mandate and argued that the pandemic remains a threat inside classrooms.

Others have resisted the push, countering that COVID-19 cases in city schools were minimal last year and that masks hinder learning and socialization.

The DOE insisted Friday that the remote format introduced last year was completely defunct.

“As we announced in May, we will welcome back all students in September and there will not be a remote option,” said spokesperson Katie O’Hanlon. “Our home instruction program, which benefits a small number of children who are medically unable to attend school, will continue as it did pre-pandemic and as always, we will work with families to tailor the instruction based on the medical needs of each child.”

Backers include City Council education chair Mark Treyger, who said the “DOE should offer a fall remote option for kids not of vaccination age” earlier this month.

NYC Department of Education Admits That More Than 48,000 Students With Disabilities Are Not Getting The Services They Need

As a very successful Parent Advocate, I see kids in the NYC Department of Education pushed out, neglected, and denied a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) all the time, and it is so unfair to these children.

Preet Bharara

I posted former U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara's letter to NYC DOE General Counsel Courtenaye Jackson-Chase on my website Parentadvocates.org and on this blog.

When I am hired to do an Impartial Hearing to obtain funding from the NYC DOE for private school, the Department usually loses, because they cannot prove that they tried to give the child his/her services, and in many cases cannot account for the missing federal funding, either. These are crimes.

Almost as disturbing is that the NYC DOE does not inform the parents of children with Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) that they have the right to request funding at an Impartial Hearing!

So many children graduate without proper support and without an appropriate education. Shame.

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

48,000 Students With Disabilities Not Getting Help They Need, DOE Admits
By Amy Zimmer | November 2, 2017 2:23pm

MANHATTAN — The Department of Education admitted Wednesday that more than 48,000 of its special needs students did not get the legally required help they were entitled during the past school year.

But at least it was not as bad as it was the year before.

A new DOE report detailing demographic data of students with disabilities showed that approximately 27 percent of the roughly 193,000 students with disabilities were in schools that were not fully meeting their needs — like counseling for behavior disorders, speech therapy for language delays, occupational therapy for motor delays or visual services for vision impairments — mandated by their Individualized Education Program (IEPs.)

That was down from a year ago when 41 percent of students who were only getting partial or none of their services, according to the report.

“The fact remains that over 25 percent of students with disabilities — nearly 50,000 students — are still going without all of the special education services they are entitled to receive under law,” Kim Sweet, executive director of Advocates for Children of New York, said in a statement. “NYC has a lot of work to do.”

Watchdogs are concerned that without getting their mandated support services, many children with disabilities are unable to meet their academic and developmental goals. Only 10 percent of students with disabilities passed the state English exam given to the city’s third through eighth graders least year, Sweet pointed out.

Under federal law, the city must ensure that students with disabilities are in the "least restrictive" environment possible, which means that neighborhood schools must accommodate these children rather than shunting them off elsewhere. But these schools don't always have the staff and other resources to provide kids what they need.

Roughly 19 percent of the city's 1.1 million students have IEPs.

A middle schooler with an IEP mandating a seat in a mixed math class of disabled and non-disabled students co-taught by a special education teacher and general education teacher, for instance, might instead be placed in a general ed class for the subject.

Staten Island’s District 31 had the most students with IEPs, at more than 15,400, followed Manhattan’s District 2 (which includes TriBeCa, Greenwich Village, Gramercy and the Upper East Side) and the Bronx’s District 10 (which includes Riverdale, Fordham, Belmont and Kingsbridge).

Lori Podvesker, of the advocacy group INCLUDEnyc, was not surprised to see Staten Island’s high number of students with special needs.

“It’s incredibly insular. It’s not necessarily what you know, but who you know,” she said, adding that families in the borough have strong political clout. “They have some fantastic parent advocates out there,” she said.

Certain districts have a tougher time meeting the needs of students, she added, because of such problems as a shortage of bilingual therapists.

“The poorer the district is, the more likely the need for bilingual therapists. And that’s not happening.”

The DOE’s report conceded the dearth of special needs educators.

“One core challenge is a shortage of qualified teachers for certain license areas, notably bilingual special education teachers and secondary special education teachers,” the report said. “The DOE is actively seeking to address this challenge through large scale and targeted efforts to expand our special education pipeline, engagement with union partners, and work with the New York State Education Department to revisit policies and identify new strategies to increase the availability of appropriately trained and certified teachers.”

The DOE also has long had problems tracking IEPs through its custom-made program Special Education Student Education System (SESIS), which led to a lawsuit from the Public Advocate’s office.

The city is now investing $16.2 million to improve the system over the next several years.

Preet Bharara Sued The NYC Department of Education in June 2016 For Discriminating Against Black Teachers At Pan American International High School

From the Complaint:

"In August 2012, Superintendent Mendez selected Minerva Zanca as Pan American’s new principal. During the 2012-2013 school year, Pan American employed 27 teachers, three of whom were black. Throughout that school year, Principal Zanca purposely targeted John Flanagan and Heather Hightower, two untenured black teachers, for unsatisfactory lesson ratings. According to Assistant Principal Anthony Riccardo, Principal Zanca decided to give Mr. Flanagan and Ms. Hightower unsatisfactory ratings before she had seen the lesson she was supposed to evaluate."

Good work, Mr. Bharara!

Betsy Combier
 betsy.combier@gmail.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

Principal Minerva Zanca

Manhattan U.S. Attorney Sues New York City Department Of Education For Discrimination And Retaliation At Pan American International High School

LINK

Lawsuit Alleges That the Department Discriminated Against Black Teachers Who Worked at the School and Retaliated Against an Assistant Principal Who Spoke Out Against the Discrimination

Preet Bharara, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced today that the United States has filed a lawsuit against the NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (the “DOE”) for engaging in a pattern and practice of discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII. The Government alleges that during the 2012-2013 school year, the DOE permitted Principal Minerva Zanca and Superintendent Juan Mendez to discriminate against every black teacher at Pan American International High School (“Pan American”) and retaliate against an assistant principal who spoke out against the discrimination.

Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said: “It is nearly unthinkable that, in this day and age, one of the largest and most diverse school districts in the United States would allow racial discrimination and retaliation to flourish. Yet that is what we allege happened at Pan American International High School. Federal civil rights laws prohibit this misconduct. This suit seeks to remedy the violations that occurred at Pan American and ensure that the New York City Department of Education protects its employees’ civil rights in the future.”

As alleged in the Complaint filed in Manhattan federal court:

In August 2012, Superintendent Mendez selected Minerva Zanca as Pan American’s new principal. During the 2012-2013 school year, Pan American employed 27 teachers, three of whom were black. Throughout that school year, Principal Zanca purposely targeted John Flanagan and Heather Hightower, two untenured black teachers, for unsatisfactory lesson ratings. According to Assistant Principal Anthony Riccardo, Principal Zanca decided to give Mr. Flanagan and Ms. Hightower unsatisfactory ratings before she had seen the lesson she was supposed to evaluate.

In connection with her reviews of Mr. Flanagan and Ms. Hightower, Principal Zanca made derogatory racial comments to Assistant Principal Riccardo. Specifically, Principal Zanca stated that Hightower “looked like a gorilla in a sweater,” asked whether Assistant Principal Riccardo had seen Flanagan’s “big lips quivering” during a meeting, complained that she could “never” have “fucking nappy hair” like Hightower, and stated that she had difficulty not laughing at Flanagan because he reminded her of a Tropicana commercial where a black man “with those same lips” danced down a supermarket aisle.

Principal Zanca also discriminated against Lisa-Erika James, a tenured black teacher, by cutting the highly successful theater program Ms. James oversaw. On multiple occasions during the 2012-2013 school year, Principal Zanca attempted to cancel student productions. First, she refused to pay for expenses associated with a production. When money for the production was obtained from other sources, Principal Zanca then claimed that the school could not pay overtime wages for more than five hours of rehearsal per week. Pan American in fact had sufficient money to pay for more rehearsal, and Principal Zanca simply reallocated that money to other projects. Ultimately, the second student production of the 2012-2013 school year was cancelled.

During the spring of 2013, when Assistant Principal Riccardo refused to give an unsatisfactory rating to a lesson taught by Ms. Hightower, Principal Zanca yelled at Assistant Principal Riccardo, accused him of “sabotaging her plan,” and called school security to have him removed from the building. Subsequently, Principal Zanca initiated two complaints against Assistant Principal Riccardo with the DOE’s internal investigatory offices. Those offices determined that Principal Zanca’s allegations did not warrant any charges against Assistant Principal Riccardo. In June of 2013, Principal Zanca gave Assistant Principal Riccardo, Mr. Flanagan, and Ms. Hightower annual performance ratings of “unsatisfactory.”

The allegations that Principal Zanca engaged in discrimination and retaliation were brought to the attention of Superintendent Mendez, but the DOE did not take any disciplinary action against Principal Zanca. Even after the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission found reasonable cause to believe that the DOE had discriminated and retaliated against James, Riccardo, and Hightower, Principal Zanca was allowed to remain in charge of Pan American. Neither Ms. Hightower, Mr. Flanagan, Ms. James, nor Mr. Riccardo worked at Pan American after the 2012-2013 school year.

Title VII authorizes the Department of Justice to commence an action in the United States District Court against the DOE to remedy discrimination and retaliation for opposing discrimination. The Complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as compensatory damages on behalf of Mr. Flanagan, Ms. James, Ms. Hightower, and Assistant Principal Riccardo.

In October of 2013, Mr. Flanagan filed a lawsuit against the DOE, Principal Zanca, Superintendent Mendez, and others. That suit was docketed as Flanagan v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ. et al., No. 13 Civ. 8456. On August 21, 2015, Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV recommended the denial of Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Mr. Flanagan’s Title VII claims for discrimination and retaliation. The DOE has not objected to Judge Francis’s recommendation, and the deadline for doing so has expired. The United States anticipates moving to intervene in Flanagan and to consolidate that case with its own.

The case is being handled by the Office’s Civil Rights Unit. Assistant U.S. Attorney Caleb Hayes-Deats is in charge of the case.

Complaint:

PREET BHARARA
United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York By: CALEB HAYES-DEATS
Assistant United States Attorney 86 Chambers Street, Third Floor New York, New York 10007 Telephone: (212) 637-2699
Fax: (212) 637-2686
caleb.hayes-deats@usdoj.gov

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

16 Civ. 4291

Complaint

Plaintiff the United States of America (the “United States”), by and through its attorney, Preet Bharara, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, alleges upon information and belief as follows:
INTRODUCTION

1. The United States brings this civil action to enforce Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., as amended (“Title VII”). As set forth more fully below, the United States alleges in this action that Defendant the New York City Department of Education has engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination and retaliation based on race in the hiring, retention, and employment conditions of teachers at Pan American International High School (“Pan American”).

JURISDICTION & VENUE

2. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-6(b) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 & 1345.
3. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), the Southern District of New York is the proper venue for this matter because Defendant is located in this District.
PARTIES

4. Plaintiff is the United States of America.

5. Defendant the New York City Department of Education (the “DOE”) is a person within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(a), and an employer within the meaning of 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000e(b).

PATTERN OR PRACTICE OF DISCRIMINATION

6. The DOE oversees approximately 1,800 schools and 1.1 million students, making it one of the largest school districts in the United States.
7. The DOE has nearly 135,000 full-time employees.
8. Pan American is located at 45-10 94th Street, Queens, NY 11373, and serves between 300 and 400 students.
9. Defendant is responsible for establishing the terms, conditions, and other practices that bear upon the employment of teachers at Pan American.
10. During the 2012–2013 school year, Pan American employed approximately twenty-seven teachers, eight of whom were untenured.
11. Three of Pan American’s twenty-seven teachers were black. Two of those teachers, John Flanagan and Heather Hightower, were untenured. The third, Lisa-Erika James, was tenured.
12. Anthony Riccardo was the Assistant Principal at Pan American during the 2011– 2012 and 2012–2013 school years.
13. Prior to the 2012–2013 school year, James, Flanagan, Hightower, and Riccardo had consistently received satisfactory performance reviews at Pan American and other schools where they had taught.
14. Following the 2011–2012 school year, Pan American’s principal moved to another position within the DOE.
15. In August of 2012, Minerva Zanca became Pan American’s principal.
16. Juan Mendez, the superintendent of high schools for District 28, selected Ms. Zanca for that position.
17. Under DOE policy, if an untenured teacher receives a rating of unsatisfactory for a school year, that teacher may be discontinued from their employment with the DOE.
18. In the fall of 2012, Principal Zanca explained to Assistant Principal Riccardo that the best method for discontinuing a teacher was to give them multiple unsatisfactory ratings following lesson reviews. According to Principal Zanca, teachers cannot grieve unsatisfactory ratings for lessons, and consistently giving them such ratings will create a record that justifies an unsatisfactory rating for the entire school year.
19. During the fall of 2012, Principal Zanca and Assistant Principal Riccardo reviewed several of Flanagan’s and Hightower’s lessons and rated them unsatisfactory. According to Assistant Principal Riccardo, while other teachers also received unsatisfactory lesson ratings, Flanagan’s and Hightower’s reviews were distinguished by the fact that Principal Zanca would inform him that she intended to give an unsatisfactory rating before she had seen the lesson in question.
20. After one lesson review, Principal Zanca, Assistant Principal Riccardo, and Hightower spoke and agreed that, because Assistant Principal Riccardo had previously taught Hightower’s subject, he would meet with her to help her improve future lessons. Following this conversation, Principal Zanca privately told Assistant Principal Riccardo that he had “better not make [Hightower] a better teacher.”
21. Beginning in December of 2012, Principal Zanca began to make derogatory racial comments to Assistant Principal Riccardo about Hightower and Flanagan. Specifically, Principal Zanca (1) stated that Hightower “looked like a gorilla in a sweater,” (2) asked whether Assistant Principal Riccardo had seen Flanagan’s “big lips quivering” during a meeting, (3) complained that she could “never” have “fucking nappy hair” like Hightower, and (4) stated that she had difficulty not laughing at Flanagan because he reminded her of a Tropicana commercial where a black man “with those same lips” danced down a supermarket aisle.
22. Throughout the winter and spring of 2013, Principal Zanca continued to give both Flanagan and Hightower additional unsatisfactory lesson ratings.
23. James taught Pan American’s theater courses. During the 2011–2012 school year, James oversaw two students productions.
24. Pan American scheduled its first student theater production of the 2012–2013 school year for February of 2013. On the day the students were scheduled to perform the production, Principal Zanca’s assistant called James and informed her that Principal Zanca would not pay for certain costs associated with the production and that James needed to cancel the production. When James attempted to speak to Principal Zanca about this decision, Principal Zanca refused. Ultimately, James agreed to pay the costs out of her own pocket, and the production was not cancelled.
25. Subsequently, Principal Zanca informed James that Pan American could not pay the overtime wages required to allow theater students to rehearse for more than five hours per week. As a result of the reduction in rehearsal hours, the second student production of the 2012– 2013 school year was cancelled. Pan American in fact had sufficient money to pay the overtime wages required for more rehearsal time, and Principal Zanca used additional money that had been budgeted for the theater program to buy Smart Boards.
26. Later during the spring of 2013, Assistant Principal Riccardo refused to give an unsatisfactory rating to a lesson of Hightower’s that he had reviewed. Principal Zanca yelled at Assistant Principal Riccardo, accused him of “sabotaging her plan,” and called school security to have him removed from the building.
27. Principal Zanca initiated two complaints against Assistant Principal Riccardo with the DOE’s internal investigatory offices. Those offices determined that Principal Zanca’s allegations did not warrant any charges against Assistant Principal Riccardo.
28. On May 8, 2013, when Assistant Principal Riccardo was absent, Principal Zanca arranged to have Eduardo Medrano, an assistant principal at another high school, review a lesson taught by Flanagan. Assistant Principal Medrano did not review any lesson by any other teacher at Pan American during the 2012–2013 school year. Assistant Principal Medrano rated Flanagan’s May 8, 2013, lesson unsatisfactory.
29. On June 3, 2013, Flanagan filed a complaint regarding Principal Zanca with the DOE’s Office of Equal Opportunity (“OEO”).
30. Later in June of 2013, Principal Zanca gave unsatisfactory ratings to Hightower and Flanagan for the 2012–2013 school year. No other untenured teacher at Pan American received an unsatisfactory rating for the 2012–2013 school year.
31. Also during June of 2013, Principal Zanca refused to offer James a position as a teacher in Pan American’s summer program even though James had a right to such a position as a full-time, tenured teacher at Pan American.
32. On June 24, 2013, Assistant Principal Riccardo issued a written statement recounting Principal Zanca’s mistreatment of Hightower, Flanagan, and James, including the derogatory racial comments Principal Zanca made regarding Hightower and Flanagan.
33. On June 25, 2013, Principal Zanca rated Assistant Principal Riccardo’s performance during the 2012–2013 school year as unsatisfactory.
34. In late June of 2013, James, Hightower, and Riccardo filed complaints regarding Principal Zanca with OEO.
35. On June 26, 2013, Flanagan sent a letter to Superintendent Mendez responding to his unsatisfactory rating for the 2012–2013 school year and alleging that Principal Zanca had discriminated against him based on his race.
36. On July 1, 2013, a DOE employee signed to indicate receipt of Flanagan’s June 26, 2013, letter to Superintendent Mendez.
37. During late June and early July of 2013, various media outlets reported on Principal Zanca’s mistreatment of Hightower, Flanagan, and James.
38. On July 3, 2013, before OEO had opened its investigation, Superintendent Mendez wrote in an email to other high-ranking DOE officials that Assistant Principal Riccardo’s allegations were “unfounded” and that Assistant Principal Riccardo was “attempting to retaliate for receiving an unsatisfactory rating and discontinuance.” According to Superintendent Mendez, Principal Zanca “deserves our support.”
39. On July 8, 2013, while OEO’s investigation was ongoing, Superintendent Mendez wrote an email to OEO’s Executive Director. In that email, Superintendent Mendez stated that the allegations that Principal Zanca engaged in racial discrimination “are manufactured and untrue.” Superintendent Mendez also stated, “If you need further details, feel free to contact me.”
40. On July 17, 2013, Superintendent Mendez discontinued Flanagan’s employment with the DOE without considering Flanagan’s June 26, 2013, letter.
41. In late July or early August of 2013, James, Riccardo, and Hightower filed timely charges against the DOE with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). Flanagan filed a timely EEOC charge against the DOE in August or September of 2013.
42. After learning of the EEOC charges filed against the DOE by James, Riccardo, Hightower, and Flanagan, OEO administratively closed its investigation without issuing any findings.
43. In August of 2013, Assistant Principal Riccardo met with Superintendent Mendez and discussed his allegations against Principal Zanca. Superintendent Mendez agreed to change Assistant Principal Riccardo’s performance rating for the 2012–2013 school year to satisfactory on the condition that Assistant Principal Riccardo resign from his position, agree not to seek appointment as a teacher, and waive all claims against the DOE or its employees “arising out of the unique and particular facts of this matter.”
44. In October of 2013, Flanagan filed a lawsuit against the DOE, Principal Zanca, Superintendent Mendez, and others. That suit was docketed as Flanagan v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ. et al., No. 13 Civ. 8456 (LAK) (JCF).
45. On February 4, 2014, the EEOC stopped processing Flanagan’s complaint and issued a right-to-sue letter.
46. Under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5, the EEOC investigated the charges filed by James, Riccardo, and Hightower and, on May 9, 2014, found reasonable cause to believe that the DOE had discriminated and retaliated against James, Riccardo, and Hightower. The EEOC attempted unsuccessfully to achieve through conciliation a voluntary resolution of the matters, and subsequently referred the charges to the United States Department of Justice.
47. Neither Hightower, nor Flanagan, nor James, nor Riccardo worked at Pan American after the 2012–2013 school year.
48. Principal Zanca remained in charge of Pan American during the 2013–2014 and 2014–2015 school years. The DOE did not take any disciplinary action against Principal Zanca based on her conduct towards Flanagan, James, Hightower, and Riccardo.
49. Superintendent Mendez remains the superintendent of high schools for District

Conditions Precedent to Suit

50. All conditions precedent to the filing of this suit have been satisfied.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Pattern or Practice of Discrimination)

51. The allegations in paragraphs one through fifty are repeated and realleged as though set forth fully herein.
52. The acts, omissions, policies, and practices described in paragraphs six through forty-nine above constitute a pattern or practice of employment discrimination on the basis of race in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1) and retaliation in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e- 3(a). This pattern or practice denies black teachers the full exercise of the rights secured by Title VII. Unless enjoined by the Court, the DOE will continue to engage in practices that are the
same as or similar to those that are alleged in this Complaint.

VII. Unless enjoined by the Court, the DOE will continue to engage in practices that are the same as or similar to those that are alleged in this Complaint.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Discrimination Against Flanagan)

53. The allegations in paragraphs one through fifty are repeated and realleged as though set forth fully herein.
54. The DOE violated 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1) by discriminating against Flanagan on the basis of race.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Retaliation Against Flanagan)

55. The allegations in paragraphs one through fifty are repeated and realleged as though set forth fully herein.
56. The DOE violated 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) by retaliating against Flanagan for engaging in protected action, including but not limited to filing a complaint with the DOE’s OEO on June 3, 2013.

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Retaliation Against Riccardo)

57. The allegations in paragraphs one through fifty are repeated and realleged as though set forth fully herein.
58. The DOE violated 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) by retaliating against Riccardo for engaging in protected action, including but not limited to refusing to give Hightower an unsatisfactory rating in the Spring of 2013 and issuing a written statement on June 24, 2013, that recounted Principal Zanca’s mistreatment of Hightower, Flanagan, and James.

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Discrimination Against Hightower)

59. The allegations in paragraphs one through fifty are repeated and realleged as though set forth fully herein.
60. The DOE violated 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1) by discriminating against Hightower on the basis of race.

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Discrimination Against James)

61. The allegations in paragraphs one through fifty are repeated and realleged as though set forth fully herein.
62. The DOE violated 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1) by discriminating against James on the basis of race.
WHEREFORE, the United States demands judgment:

(a) declaring that the DOE engaged in a pattern and practice of discrimination based on race in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1) and retaliation in violation of 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000e-3(a);

(b) enjoining the DOE from engaging in discriminatory and retaliatory employment practices in violation of Title VII;
(c) ordering the DOE to take such other steps as may be necessary to prevent and remedy employment discrimination and the patterns or practices of discrimination in employment identified above;
(d) ordering the DOE to provide remedial relief, including but not limited to sufficient damages to compensate Flanagan, Hightower, James, and Riccardo and make them

whole for the losses they have suffered as a result of the discrimination and retaliation alleged in this Complaint; and
(e) granting the United States its costs, disbursements, and such further relief against defendant as the Court may deem just and proper.

Dated: June 9, 2016
New York, New York

PREET BHARARA
United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York Attorney for Plaintiff

By: /s/ Caleb Hayes-Deats
CALEB HAYES-DEATS
Assistant United States Attorney 86 Chambers Street, Third Floor New York, New York 10007 Telephone: (212) 637-2699
Fax: (212) 637-2686
caleb.hayes-deats@usdoj.gov

Manhattan US Attorney Preet Bharara Scolds the NYC Department of Education For Not Making Schools Accessible To Disabled Children

Preet Bharara

Preet Bharara calls out city school system in scathing letter

By Jay Goldberg and Yoav Gonen, 

December 21, 2015 | 5:43pm

LINK

After taking down dirty Albany politicians Sheldon Silver and Dean Skelos, Preet Bharara has set his sights on the city’s Department of Education.

The Manhattan US Attorney fired off a letter to the Education Department’s general counsel Monday, calling out the city’s school system for still failing — some 25 years after passage of the American With Disabilities Act — to make most elementary school buildings fully accessible to disabled children.

Bharara demands a response that will provide an “outline and timeline of corrective actions that will remedy this unacceptable state of affairs.”

“Our investigation revealed that … the City is still not fully compliant, and children with disabilities and their families are being denied the right to equal access to a public school education,” Bharara said in a statement.

In his damning 14-page letter, he wrote, “Based on the City’s own statistics

and characterizations of its schools, 83% of public elementary schools are not ‘fully accessible’ to people with disabilities and six of the City’s school 

districts … do not have a single school that is ‘fully accessible’ to people with disabilities.”

Continuing to blast the troubling situation, the letter, which came after a two-year probe, added that “children with disabilities are frequently denied the experience that many of their peers take for granted…. Instead, starting in kindergarten, these children are often forced unnecessarily to travel outside of their neighborhoods to schools where there are no familiar faces.”

Bharara also wrote that “the costs of this situation are acutely illustrated, when 

a parent so wants a child … in the local zoned school that the parent is willing 

to go to the child’s school several times a day to literally carry the child up and down stairs.”

In response, the Education Department said that its most recent capital plan earmarked $100 million to accessibility projects.

“Our goal is to ensure that all our students have access to a high-quality education, and a student’s disability should never get in the way of their access to a great school,” said spokesman Harry Hartfield. “We are reviewing the United States Attorney’s letter and remain committed to increasing the accessibility of our school buildings.”

Kim Sweet, executive director of Advocates for Children, said the access-problem for the disabled at the city’s elementary schools has been around for too long.

“It’s exciting to see the US Attorney take action,” Sweet said. “It’s been an issue for a long time.”

Most New York City Elementary Schools Are Violating Disabilities Act, Investigation Finds

Benjamin Weiser, New York Times

LINK

A two-year federal investigation has concluded that 83 percent of New York City’s public elementary schools are not “fully accessible” to children with disabilities, in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act. 

 In a blistering letter to the Education Department’s top lawyer on Monday, the office of Preet Bharara, the United States attorney for the Southern District of New York, said that the investigation also showed that sixschool districts, which serve more than 50,000 elementary students, did not have a single school that is fully accessible.

“Nowhere is it more important to tear down the barriers to equal access than with respect to the education of our children,” Mr. Bharara’s office said. “But today, in New York City, 25 years after passage of the A.D.A., children with physical disabilities still do not have equal access to this most fundamental of rights.”

Mr. Bharara, in a brief statement, said his office had asked the city for a response to the findings, “including an outline and timeline of corrective actions that will remedy this unacceptable state of affairs.”

The 14-page letter gives the city 30 days to provide a response. The investigation had not been previously disclosed publicly.

Harry Hartfield, a spokesman for the Education Department, said the department was reviewing the letter and remained “committed to increasing the accessibility of our school buildings.”

Mr. Hartfield said that the department had been cooperating with the investigation, and that as part of its most recent capital plan, it had set aside $100 million for accessibility projects.

“Our goal is to ensure that all our students have access to a high-quality education, and a student’s disability should never get in the way of their access to a great school,” Mr. Hartfield said.

In the letter, which was addressed to the department’s general counsel, Courtenaye Jackson-Chase, the government said the disabilities law reflected a “comprehensive mandate” to eliminate what had become pervasive discrimination against people with disabilities, which denied them equal access to “critically important government services and programs.”

“Our investigation found that New York City’s elementary schools still are not ‘readily accessible to and usable by’ individuals with disabilities,” Mr. Bharara’s office wrote, “a population which includes not only students, but teachers and family members as well.”

The letter described the effect the violations had on families. Mr. Bharara’s office said that it had spoken with one family that had gone to what the prosecutors called “extreme measures” to keep a daughter enrolled in her local school, rather than subject her to a lengthy commute to the closest “accessible” school.

“A parent of this elementary school child was forced to travel to the school multiple times a day, every school day, in order to carry her child up and down stairs to her classroom, to the cafeteria, and to other areas of the school in which classes and programs were held,” the government wrote.

The alternative for children with mobility impairments was for the students to spend significant time traveling to a school that could accommodate their physical disabilities, the letter said.

“Requiring elementary students with disabilities to travel extensively at the beginning and end of each school day — a condition which is not imposed upon their peers — can impose particularly onerous physical demands on these children,” the government wrote.

The city had also not complied with the requirements of the disabilities law as to alterations made in schools since 1992, when the law went into effect, the letter noted.

In what it described as the most “glaring example of the city’s failure,” the letter cited the construction of an addition to a school in Queens in 2000 that was “riddled with inaccessible features,” like an elevator that was not the proper width, and noncompliant door knobs, bathroom “grab bars,” drinking fountains, sinks and faucets. The school also lacked visual alarms in classrooms, as required.

“The city’s failure to consider the needs of individuals with disabilities when upgrading and renovating its existing facilities is inexcusable,” the government said in the letter, which was signed by two senior lawyers in the office’s civil rights unit, Lara K. Eshkenazi and Jeannette A. Vargas.

Mr. Bharara’s letter was accompanied by a 73-page submission that offered a detailed list of violations in 11 schools across the boroughs, 10 of which the city had designated as “not accessible” and one it described as “functionally accessible.”

But the school designated as “functionally accessible” lacked “certain crucial accessible features,” the letter said, “raising a serious question as to the accuracy of the city’s categorizations.”

In each of the 11 schools, the report said, the investigation identified alterations made after 1992 that were not compliant with the A.D.A., including fire alarm systems, door hardware, toilet partitions, cafeteria seating, main office counters, library furniture and playground areas.

In its letter, Mr. Bharara’s office included four pages of what it said were the “minimum actions necessary” to remedy the violations. As an initial matter, the letter said, the city must develop a comprehensive plan to survey all elementary schools and recommend a systemwide remediation plan to address the lack of accessibility.

“The city should make it a priority to increase the accessibility of the first floors of school buildings and the rooms used by all students, teachers, parents or other visitors to the schools,” the letter said.

 Continue reading the main story

RECENT COMMENTS

bronxteacher

 9 hours ago

Bravo! A first step in this tragic story. I hope he moves his focus to the countless violations occurring every day for our high school age...

RG

 12 hours ago

As Americans we are unwilling to commit adequate resources to education, most students are underserved and the truly talented and gifted...

Lyn

 15 hours ago

My daughter attends a special ed school and yet she can't access the cafeteria or playground - basically the best places to interact with...

·         SEE ALL COMMENTS

Nelson Ruiz Pleads Guilty in Fraud Scheme in Which He Stole $2.7 Million From The NYC DOE

From Betsy Combier:

In other words, the NYC DOE has no one overseeing anything.

Pennsylvania Man Pleads Guilty In Manhattan Federal Court To Bribing New York City Department Of Education Employee In Furtherance Of $2.7 Million Fraud
Preet Bharara, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that NELSON RUIZ pled guilty today to defrauding the New York City Department of Education (“DOE”) out of approximately $2.7 million and to bribing a DOE employee in furtherance of the fraud scheme. RUIZ pled guilty in Manhattan federal court before U.S. District Judge John G. Koeltl.
           

Preet Bharara

Pennsylvania Man Pleads Guilty In Manhattan Federal Court To Bribing New York City Department Of Education Employee In Furtherance Of $2.7 Million Fraud
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Monday, December 17, 2012

Fraud Scheme Was Based on False Billing for Services to Special Needs Students That Were Never Provided

LINK

Preet Bharara, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that NELSON RUIZ pled guilty today to defrauding the New York City Department of Education (“DOE”) out of approximately $2.7 million and to bribing a DOE employee in furtherance of the fraud scheme. RUIZ pled guilty in Manhattan federal court before U.S. District Judge John G. Koeltl.

Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said: “In stealing scarce and precious education resources intended for children with special needs, Nelson Ruiz did an extreme disservice to both the DOE and the children who really do need extra help. We have no tolerance for those who defraud the government and who bribe public officials in furtherance of their schemes.”

According to the Complaint, the Information, the plea agreement, and statements made in court:

From 2008 through June 2012, RUIZ used six companies that he controlled (the “RUIZ Companies”) to bill the DOE approximately $2.7 million for sign language interpretation services. According to the DOE billing forms that RUIZ submitted, the sign language interpretation services were provided between 2008 and June 2012 to 11 New York City public schoolchildren – all of whom had varying special needs, including cognitive, developmental, academic, and language delays (the “11 Students”) – at their schools.

None of the sign language interpretation services for which the DOE paid the RUIZ Companies were ever provided to any of the students. In fact, none of the students actually needed the services that the RUIZ Companies claimed to have provided and for which he received approximately $2.7 million. For example, during the 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 academic years, at least three of the 11 Students were not even enrolled in a DOE school. In addition, from July 2010 through May 2012, RUIZ falsely certified on 75 DOE billing forms that he had provided approximately $200,000 worth of sign language interpreting services to one of the 11 Students, even though that student never received any such services during that period and had not been a New York City public school student since 2009.

Ruiz used students’ personal information, submitted fraudulent DOE applications and billing forms, forged the signatures of at least two students’ parents and seven DOE officials – one of whom had died prior to the date of her forged signature, and another who had retired six years prior to the date of her forged signature.

As part of this scheme, RUIZ also paid hundreds of dollars each month to an employee of the DOE to whom he submitted the fraudulent billing forms for the 11 Students. RUIZ paid these bribes in exchange for the DOE employee’s assistance in, among other things, expediting the processing of and payment to RUIZ for the fraudulent sign language interpretation bills.


RUIZ, 35, of Shohola, Pennsylvania, pled guilty today to one count of mail fraud and one count of bribery concerning programs receiving federal funds. He faces a maximum term of 20 years in prison on the fraud count and a maximum term of 10 years in prison on the bribery count. In addition, RUIZ has agreed to forfeit to the United States a total of $2,720,860, representing the proceeds of the crime, including approximately $275,000 that the Government seized from the RUIZ Companies’ bank accounts at the time of RUIZ’s arrest. RUIZ is scheduled to be sentenced by Judge Koeltl on March 22, 2013 at 10 a.m.

Mr. Bharara praised the investigative work of the New York City Department of Investigation and the Special Commissioner of Investigation for the New York City School District.

This case is being prosecuted by the Office’s Public Corruption Unit. Assistant United States Attorneys Paul Krieger and Alvin Bragg are in charge of the prosecution. Assistant United States Attorney Andrew Goldstein is in charge of the forfeiture aspects of the case.

Here is another case:

Former Consultant To The New York City Department Of Education Sentenced In Manhattan Federal Court To 37 Months In Prison For $1.7 Million Fraud Scheme

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

 LINK

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

Preet Bharara, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that WILLARD LANHAM, a/k/a “Ross Lanham,” a former consultant to the New York City Department of Education (“DOE”), was sentenced today in Manhattan federal court to 37 months in prison for illegally obtaining $1.7 million in DOE funds that were intended to provide Internet access to New York City Public Schools. LANHAM directed the funds to “Lanham Enterprises,” a company he owned and controlled, but performed no work to justify receipt of the funds. He was convicted in March 2012 of one count of theft concerning a program receiving federal funds and three counts of mail fraud after a six-day jury trial. LANHAM was sentenced by United States District Judge George B. Daniels.

Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said: “The Department of Education entrusted Willard Lanham with the vitally important task of helping young students get connected to the Internet – thereby connecting them to the world around them and the infinite resources that can be found online. Instead, Lanham chose to steal precious dollars from DOE to help underwrite his lifestyle, and he will now pay for his crimes.”

According to the Complaint, Information, and the evidence at trial:

From 2002 through October 2008, LANHAM was a consultant to DOE, responsible for managing multiple major initiatives, including Project Connect, a large-scale cabling, integration, and wireless deployment project designed to provide Internet access to all New York City public school classrooms. During his tenure as a consultant to the DOE, LANHAM was involved in all aspects of managing Project Connect and two other DOE initiatives, responsible for providing oversight and supervision of the various contractors and subcontractors engaged on the projects. Between 2002 and 2008, LANHAM was paid an annual salary of approximately $200,000, for a total of approximately $1.4 million in compensation, all of which was billed to, and ultimately paid for by, DOE.

Without authority, LANHAM unlawfully converted an additional $1.7 million in DOE funds that was intended to be used for Project Connect for his own personal use. He accomplished this in two ways. First, LANHAM orchestrated the hiring of outside consultants (the “LANHAM Consultants”), including his own brother, to work for him on a DOE project that he oversaw, and arranged for Lanham Enterprises to pay these consultants directly. LANHAM also billed a Project Connect subcontractor for work performed by the LANHAM Consultants, which was unrelated to the work the subcontractor was performing for DOE. He billed for the work at a much higher rate than what he had actually paid the LANHAM Consultants, and then pocketed the difference.

Second, LANHAM instructed a subcontractor working on DOE projects he managed to pay a LANHAM Consultant, and to bill Lanham Enterprises for approximately the same amount. LANHAM then used his company to charge another subcontractor a greatly inflated amount for the same work and again pocketed the difference. In both of these circumstances, Lanham Enterprises contributed nothing of value to the work that the LANHAM Consultants performed, other than to submit significantly marked-up invoices for the work that was ultimately paid for by DOE.

In addition, LANHAM affirmatively misled DOE along with the contractors and subcontractors he was responsible for overseeing. For example, LANHAM told certain individuals at DOE that DOE was not paying for the LANHAM Consultants, and that they were being paid for by a DOE contractor.

LANHAM used some of the proceeds from the scheme to fund a lavish lifestyle that included purchasing luxury cars, and purchasing and developing significant real estate holdings on Long Island.

*                      *                      *

In addition to the prison term, Judge Daniels sentenced LANHAM, 58, of East Northport, New York, to three years of supervised release and ordered him to pay a $100 special assessment fee. Judge Daniels also ordered Lanham to forfeit $1,727,112.00, and to pay $1,727,112.00 in restitution to the DOE.

Mr. Bharara praised the outstanding investigative work of the New York City Department of Investigation and the Special Commissioner of Investigation for the New York City School District.

This case is being handled by the Office's Public Corruption Unit. Assistant United States Attorneys Brian A. Jacobs and Alvin Bragg are in charge of the prosecution.

12-279

Cougar’s ex-husband Willard (Ross) Lanham,  who stole $1.7 million from DOE, sentenced to three years in prison 

Manhattan Federal Court Judge George Daniels also slammed city's DOE, saying it was a 'crime waiting to happen'

William Kanham

 

Comments (10)

BY ROBERT GEARTY / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2012, 5:33 PM

The computer consultant who stole $1.7 million while linking city schools to the Internet was sentenced Tuesday to three years in prison.

Willard (Ross) Lanham was motivated by "pure greed" and took advantage of a "bureaucratic mess" to rob from the city Department of Education through an inflated billing scheme, Manhattan Federal Court Judge George Daniels said.

Before sentencing Lanham, 58, on theft and fraud charges, Daniels also whacked the city’s DOE.

“There was absolutely no checks and balances, no procedure to identify and prevent the overbilling that went undetected at DOE,” Daniels said. “It was a crime waiting to happen.”

He added: "It was total chaos. There is no other way to describe it. It gave Mr. Lanham the opportunity to take advantage of that chaos."

In an email, a Department of Education spokeswoman countered that, "Since we first suspected and reported this fraud, we have instituted more stringent oversight and provided additional training to ensure that this doesn’t happen again.”

At the time of Lanham's arrest, it made news as much for details of the crime as for his ex-wife’s blog.

In it, Laura Lanham descibed herself online as the “Yummy Mommy,” who dumped her husband and chronicled her life chasing younger men as a cougar at Long Island nightclubs.

Lanham insisted Tuesday he was totally innocent.

He told the judge he saved the DOE $27 million after he was hired to connect 573 schools and their 28,000 students to the Internet as part of the much-touted "Project Connect."

Lanham called it “disheartening” to have his efforts described as theft.

A jury in March found that from 2002 to 2008, Lanham's company paid three consultants, including his brother, $35 to $75 an hour. He then submitted inflated bills, which the DOE paid out at $200 to $250 an hour

.

During that time, Lanham made $200,000 a year on top of what he stole, court records show.

Prosecutors said Lanham used the money to fund a lavish lifestyle that included the purchase of luxury automobiles — a Corvette and a Porsche — and real estate, including a $1.1 million home in East Northport, L.I.

.

Yet Lanham's attorney Stephen Preziosi said his client is broke, and that his house is in foreclosure.

Daniels gave him until Dec. 7 to begin serving his sentence, and ordered him to pay $1.7 million in restitution to the DOE.

Preziosi said Lanham needed the extra time to be a parental figure for his 16-year-old daughter because the girl could not count on her mother, Lanham's ex-wife.

Lanham and his wife Laura divorced this year after a bitter three-year battle that became public when he was arrested last year.