ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL ...

intervene during an altercation by two community members in the school that happened in
Herbert’s presence. (5) Dixon pointed out each of the prior incidents and harkened back to the
disciplinary letter regarding her interactions with a special education student near the end of the
2006-2007 school year. In the final letter, Dixon notified Herbert that she would be rating her
performance as unsatisfactory for the year. Subsequently, Herbert’s administrative contract was
terminated, and she was demoted to a teaching position.
Herbert sought review as prescribed in the Educational Policy prescribed by New York
City School District. Her review ended with the Chancellor’s Committee supporting her contract
termination and demotion. Her next proceeding was dismissed. Herbert then sought remediation
at the district court level in a lawsuit alleging discrimination on the basis of gender and
pregnancy under Title VII and state and city human rights laws, retaliation, and violation of
whistleblower provisions. The defendants requested summary judgment.
Issues: (1) Did Dixon and the city discriminate against Herbert for her pregnancy? (2)
Was Herbert’s demotion for her pregnancy or for her poor performance as an administrator? (3)
Did Dixon and the city retaliate against Herbert and violate whistleblower provisions of New
York state law?
Holding: The court held that Herbert did establish a prima facie case of discrimination
and that her demotion raised issues of fact that the action was pre-textual. The court also held
that the defendants did not violate any state whistleblower statutes.
Reasoning: First, in case of demotion, all that Herbert had to demonstrate was that she
was qualified for the position. This was clearly done by her certifications held and her prior
satisfactory performance ratings. Moreover, Herbert was a member of a protected class based on
gender and her state of pregnancy. The court classified this demotion as an adverse employment
269