|
59. In September 2007 Defendants Weingarten and UFT took no legal action after they received the EEOC right to sue letter to protect Plaintiffs and others from the ongoing age discrimination. See Exhibit 9.
60. In September 2007 Defendant Combier solicited Defendants Weingarten and UFT to hire her and appoint her as their representative.
61. In October 2007 the situation with the Plaintiffs and other tenured DOE staff became embarrassing for Defendants Weingarten and UFT, and Defendants Bloomberg, City, Klein, DOE. Weingarten and UFT sought to mollify and/or mislead the public into thinking that something was going to be done to protect Plaintiffs or other tenured DOE staff.
62. In October 2007 Defendants Weingarten and UFT appointed a “Rubber Room Task Force” with Defendant Combier as Defendant UFT’s official representative. See Exhibits 20 & 21.
63. As explained below, Defendants Weingarten and UFT had no intention to allow its “Rubber Room Task Force” to take any meaningful action on behalf of Plaintiffs or other tenured DOE staff.
64. The October 2007 appointment of the UFT “Rubber Room Task Force” by Defendants Weingarten and UFT was nothing more than a public relations move that was supported by Defendants Bloomberg, City, Klein and DOE.
65. In November 2007 Defendants Weingarten and UFT and/or Combier claimed to have evidence related to (i) violations of Plaintiffs’ and other DOE staff’s constitutional , due process and contractual rights, (ii) harassment and hostile work environment, (iii) age discrimination, (iv) contract violations, (v) abuses in the NYC public School System, and (vi) dangerous conditions and improper use of Rubber Room. Defendants Weingarten and UFT and/or Combier took no action.
66. It became apparent that Defendants Weingarten, UFT and/or Combier were not acting in the best interests of Plaintifss and were doing nothing more than using public relations “gimmicks” to try to make it appear as if they were actually taking action to protect Plaintiffs and other DOE staff, when they took no legal action and failed to act, as Plaintiffs and other DOE staff were forced to remain in the Rubber Rooms and forced into 3020(a) hearings or post-hearing processes that violated their due process, constitutional and contractual rights.
67. Defendants Weingarten, UFT and Combier put their personal interests ahead of the interests of the Plaintiffs to whom they owed duties and on whose behalf they claimed they were taking action to protect Plaintiffs’rights.
68. After Defendants Weingarten, UFT, Combier or the so called “Rubber Room Task Force” failed to take any action to protect DOE staff, Plaintiff Teachers4Action was formed and sought to take the actions to protect Plaintiffs and tenured DOE staff.
69.
On January 15, 2008, Plaintiff Teachers4Action notified
Defendants Bloomberg, City, Klein, DOE, Weingarten and UFT of their demands
that Defendant DOE comply with Plaintiffs’ constitutional and contractual
rights. See Exhibit 11. The notification was circulated to the media
and area politicians, who had previously been asked for assistance. See
Exhibit 12. 70.
In response to Plaintiff Lewenstein’s January 15, 2008
notification on behalf of Teachers4Action and its members, Defendants
Bloomberg, City, Klein, DOE, and UFT retaliated against Plaintiff
Teachers4Action and its members. Defendant DOE reassigned Plaintiff
Lewenstein to the Rubber Room on that day with new allegations of verbal
abuse [of students]. Defendant Weingarten wrote a letter on that day
to the media and area politicians refuting Teachers4Action’s allegations and
stating that Defendant UFT is in negotiations with Defendant DOE to resolve
the Rubber Room problem. See Exhibits 13, 14, & 17. 71.
On January 21, 2008, Plaintiffs Teachers4Action and
Florian Lewenstein filed the instant lawsuit. 72.
Immediately after the filing, Defendants Bloomberg,
City, Klein, DOE, Weingarten, UFT and Combier, jointly and/or individually
looked for ways to interfere with Plaintiffs’ability to prosecute this
action. 73.
As an example of Defendants’interference with
Plaintiffs’rights and Plaintiffs’ rights to prosecute this action Defendant
DOE, through its agent Lorraine Haynes, further restricted Plaintiffs’
ability to speak with one another, meet and associate with one another, to
respond to the increased inquiries by other tenured DOE staff who sought to
join Plaintiff Teachers4Action and to prepare their claims in this case. See
Exhibit 15 & 16. 74.
At all times relevant hereto, Defendants Weingarten and
UFT remained silent and did nothing to support Plaintiffs’rights to stop the
violation of their rights and the unlawful use of the Rubber Rooms. 75.
On February 8, 2008, Defendant UFT’s Representative
Defendant Combier attended the Court Conference at which it was announced by
Plaintiffs that Defendant UFT would be made a party to this litigation. After
the hearing and continuing to the present, Defendant Combier sought to
intimidate and/or threaten Plaintiffs and their attorney, and to interfere
with the Plaintiffs’ rights to prosecute this lawsuit with representation of
their choosing. 76.
Defendants Weingarten, UFT and Combier sought to
interfere with Plaintiffs’ claims and sought to use one website, over which
Defendant Combier had control or with which she could guarantee placement,
other publications, emails and phone calls, to promote the interests of
Defendants Weingarten, UFT and Combier a the expense of Plaintiffs’ claims. 77.
Defendants Weingarten, UFT and Combier’s actions were
and continue to be prejudicial to Plaintiffs’ claims, violated their duty of
fair representation and demonstrated a conflict of interest between them and
the Plaintiffs. 78.
In addition to the above referenced direct actions by
Defendant DOE, Defendants Weingarten, Combier and UFT have retaliated against
Plaintiffs by telling them that if they continue to be part of this
complaint, they would be in serious trouble, could lose their jobs, and the
lawyers who were appointed and are paid by Defendant UFT will not represent
Plaintiffs in the NYS Education Law §
3020(a) hearings.
|