ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL ...

Flores evidence amounted to little more than an ambiguous remark by Von Kleist explaining that
further military deployments would be difficult on the school district. The court also disagreed
with Flores’ defamation claim reasoning that his evidence was inadmissible hearsay. The court
also found Flores’ false light claim to be in keeping with his defamation claim--based on
inadmissible hearsay.
Finally, the court denied Flores’ request for injunctive relief and restoration to his
principal position because all his claims--with the exception of due process--had failed. Flores
sued the board in their individual capacities rather than their official ones, and § 1983 does not
provide injunctive relief against state officials sued only in their individual capacities.
Disposition: Summary judgment was granted in part and denied in part.
Citation: Herbert v. City of New York, 748 F.Supp.2e 225, (2010 U.S. Dist.).
Key Facts: Danielle Herbert began her educational career in 1999. By 2005, Herbert was
serving as an assistant principal at Public School 149 (P.S. 149). The Special Commissioner of
Investigation (SCI) received complaints in December 2006 about several issues at P.S. 149. One
of those complaints was about an unnamed, female assistant principal at the school who was
having an affair with a custodian. The complaint related inappropriate behavior being exhibited
in front of the students of the school. Principal of P.S. 149, Shanequia Dixon, interviewed
Herbert about the situation once she was informed by the SCI. Herbert denied having any
relationship with a custodian named Errol Garvey.
Nearing the end of the 2006-2007 school year, Dixon issued two letters of directive to
Herbert, one of which concerned her supervision of teacher instruction and the other which
concerned her interaction with a special education student that had garnered parental complaints.
267