Home

It’s unfortunate we had to go this route, but justice has to be served. I didn’t take a $20,000+ cut in salary and send myself in to more student loan debt to be stopped in my tracks. Principal Linda Hill and her cronies came after the wrong parent/educator. On top of that, Department of Education officials seem to be assisting her in not only hiding her financial misconduct, but aiding in trying to destroy my young career as an educator.

I don’t think so. They were not ready for me.

My attorney, Bryan Glass Esq., and I filed a Federal lawsuit in June 2012 (see below). The Department of Education attempted to try and have the case dismissed on September 21, 2012. Federal Judge Renee Mauskopf, of the Eastern District, questioned NYC attorney Christopher Seacord and asked why should we dismiss the case so early without looking into the plaintiff’s claims? She basically told them she will not dismiss and will allow for full discovery. Forgive me as I’m trying to learn all the lawyerspeak and lingo. My understanding is that full discovery allows for all documents that pertain to me including deposing people whose testimony can back my claims. I made a rather lengthy list of DOE and non DOE employees who I believe hold the answers.

Even though Judge Mauskopf informed the city that she will not allow dismissal, the new NYC attorney, that took over the case, Jessica Giambrone, is still pushing forward with a Motion to Dismiss attempt.

Federal Complaint Portelos official

City’s Motion to Dismoss

City’s, NOM MTD Final

Bryan and I are putting together a response that describes adverse employment and explains how my allegations were of public concern. We are scheduled to go to for the initial conference on December 19, 2012. (Just 2 days before the Mayan’s predicted the world would end. I hope we can uncover some answers in time.)

U.S. District Court
Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:12-cv-03141-RRM-VMS

Portelos v. City of New York et al
Assigned to: Judge Roslynn R. Mauskopf
Referred to: Magistrate Judge Vera M. Scanlon
Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Date Filed: 06/22/2012
Jury Demand: Plaintiff
Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Plaintiff
Francesco Portelos represented by Bryan D. Glass 
Glass Krakower LLP
100 Church street, 8th Fl.
New York, NY 10007
212-537-6859
Fax: 845-510-2219
Email: bg@glasskrakower.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
V.
Defendant
City of New York represented by Christopher Aaron Seacord 
New York City Law Department
100 Church Street
New York, NY 10007
212-788-0866
Fax: 212-341-3934
Email: cseacord@law.nyc.gov
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
New York City Department of Education represented by Christopher Aaron Seacord 
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
Dennis Walcott
Chancellor of New York City Department of Education
represented by Christopher Aaron Seacord 
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
Linda Hill
Principal of I.S. 49, in her official and individual capacity

This guy went in to serve Principal Linda Hill sporting a DTOM shirt. Can’t make this stuff up.

Will keep you posted… thanks for your support.

 

Advertisements

8 thoughts on “PORTELOS v. DOE/PRINCIPAL HILL

  1. body{font-size:10pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;background-color:#ffffff;color:black;}p{margin:0px;}I salute your courage and wish you Godspeed.Patrick Walshchapter leaderPS/MS 149 

  2. I give you a great deal of credit and you are smart to go to the courts to hopefully find justice. Bryan may get busy if you are successful, other teachers may see how to hold abusive administrators in check. I would guess you are getting absolutely no assistance from the UFT in this matter.

  3. Pingback: DOE: Shut it, I said! | Protect Portelos

  4. This is the usual DOE pattern. You file suit , they respond with a 50H hearing and then a massive Motion to Dismiss. You go through Discovery and Depositions (your principal among others) and then file with the court saying you are ready for trial, they file the second and even grander sounding Motion to Dismiss. Good Luck
    At this point they don’t seem to know what to charge you with so may wind up sending you somewhere else to teach thus preserving their options to say, “Well, we had just cause to believe he might have done something wrong but when we realized there might have been some miscommunication we sent him back to the classroom. This proves we are operating in good faith.” (And thus strengthening their second MTD)

Comments are welcomed and can be anonymous. Comments have to be approved before being published.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s