Firing Teacher for Refusing Instructions Not to Call Police About Alleged Assault by Student May Violate State Law

From Friday's decision by Judge Ronnie Abrams in Samuels v. Urban Assembly Charter School for Computer Science (S.D.N.Y.), Samuels' allegations:

On June 9, 2022, one of Samuels' students "threw a hard ball that hit Samuels in the head, causing a concussion." Upon being struck, Samuels immediately reported the incident and her injuries to Defendants. Although Noah [the school's founding principal] "instructed Samuels to not give the police any information about the student who had assaulted her," she nonetheless began reporting the incident to the police. Samuels asserts that Noah then physically confronted her, "approach[ing] her within a few inches of her face … and angrily ask[ing] if she really wanted to get a kid involved in the criminal justice system." In response to Noah's alleged "attempt[ ] to prevent her from reporting the incident," Samuels "objected" and continued to report the incident to the police officers present. Soon after, Samuels left Urban Assembly in an ambulance and the school "disabled her school email and system access."

After being transported to the emergency room, Samuels was allegedly "diagnosed with a head injury, neck pain, and concussion." Her symptoms included blurred vision, which prevented her from "read[ing] from her phone or computer screen" and restricted her ability "to operate a car or navigate public transportation." For example, Samuels was "unable to drive herself to the hospital for a PET scan the day following her injuries." She also says that she experienced "severe, persistent head and neck pain," which "impacted her ability to bend her neck and rotate her head," including "even minor head and neck movements." Her head and neck pain also "impacted her ability to sleep, … read, concentrate, and think."

A day later, on June 10, 2022, Noah messaged Samuels: "I [h]ope your head is feeling better. I assume you're not coming in so you can recuperate." Samuels responded as follows: "After being as[s]aulted on campus I sought medical care, and was discharged this evening to recuperate. Please see the attached physician letter excusing me from work for ten days. This includes not being able to participate in tomorrow's Algebra 1 Regents Prep session." The email included an attached doctor's note from Malcolm Johnson MD, stating that "Melissa Samuels was seen and treated in our emergency department on 6/10/2022. Please excuse the absence. She may return to work on 6/21/2022. If you have any questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to call."

The next morning, on June 11, 2022, Noah sent Samuels a reply email:

You were not assaulted. [A student] accidently hit you with a nerf ball while he was throwing it at [another student] in a raucous classroom…. [I]t was an accident, it was a nerf ball, and he is a child in a school. It's one thing for him to face consequences or for you to ask to be moved out of the advisory. It's entirely another to make what I believe is a bad faith assault claim…. Your account was temporarily disabled because I was sincerely afraid that you were sharing a student's personal information without parental consent or cause[.] … I'm not sure why you are doing this, but if it's just to avoid coming to work, let's please talk…. I suggest a virtual meeting to come to a shared understanding about next steps[.] … In the unlikely event you are unable to meet until the 21st, please plan on meeting in my office at 8:15.

The next day, on June 12, 2022, Noah emailed Samuels again:

After further review of your doctor's note and consultation with our school's counsel, I will need further documentation to excuse your absence beyond Friday[.] … [B]eyond Friday, the note doesn't contain any indication of your condition and your request for an accommodation that involves not working at all for 10 days doesn't appear to be supported by the note (which, again, lacks a diagnosis or any details). I remain open to discussing the matter with you directly via phone or video chat so we can actually come to some shared understanding about what happened and what happens next. But, in the absence of such a conversation and further documentation, this week will have to be considered unpaid[.]

Four days later, on June 16, 2022, "while Noah knew Samuels remained on medical leave recuperating from injuries," Defendants terminated Samuels' employment….

Samuels sued, alleging that defendants discriminated against her based on disability (stemming from her alleged injury) and failed to accommodate her disability, and the court allowed the claim to go forward. But the court also allowed Samuels to go forward with her claim of retaliation for the call to the police:

Samuels was allowed to proceed with her disability discrimination (and failure to accommodate) claim, but also with her state "whistleblower claim, alleging that Defendants unlawfully retaliated against her because she filed a police report and objected to Noah's instructions to 'not give the police any information about the student who had assaulted her'":

The NYLL [New York Labor Law] forbids employers from "tak[ing] any retaliatory action against an employee … because such employee … discloses, or threatens to disclose to a supervisor or to a public body an activity, policy or practice of the employer that the employee reasonably believes is in violation of law, rule or regulation." The statute also proscribes retaliation because an employee "objects to, or refuses to participate in any such activity, policy or practice." …

Samuels asserts that, after reporting her injury to Defendants, Noah "instructed [her] to not give the police any information about the student who had assaulted her." When she began reporting the alleged assault to the police, she says Noah "angrily asked if she really wanted to get a kid involved in the criminal justice system." Samuels maintains that she understood Noah's actions to be an "attempt[ ] to prevent her from reporting the incident to the police," and that she "objected" to this attempt by continuing to "report[ ] the incident to the police officers present," Samuels now argues that she has stated a NYLL retaliation claim because she "objected to … Defendants' attempts to prevent her from filing a police report … under the reasonable belief that Defendants' attempts to prevent her from filing a police report was in violation of [a] law, rule, or regulation." …

Samuels plausibly alleges that she participated in an activity protected under the statute. To be sure, Samuels does not assert that she "disclose[d] … to a public body an activity, policy or practice of the employer." As Defendants rightly note, Samuels reported a student's conduct to the police, and she does not aver that she reported any unlawful conduct by Urban Assembly or Noah.

Nevertheless, § 740 independently proscribes retaliation against an employee because that employee "objects to, or refuses to participate in any … activity, policy or practice" that "the employee reasonably believes is in violation of law, rule or regulation." Samuels identifies a specific activity, namely that Defendants "attempted to prevent" her from filing a police report about an Urban Assembly student and forbade her from "giv[ing] the police any information" about that student. Samuels, moreover, plausibly alleges that she "object[ed] to, or refuse[d] to participate in" Defendants' activity, because she reported the assault to the police even after Noah "instructed [her]" not to do so….