Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—S.D.N.Y.: Former NYC principal advances Equal Protection, discrimination claims against union, (Jul 16, 2025)

By Cathleen Calhoun, J.D.

Protest rally actions and encouragement of reporting purportedly false narratives were among the allegations surrounding the case.

A former principal’s claims of violations of the Equal Protection Clause and discrimination by the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) and its representative for allegedly conspiring to have her removed because of her race moved forward since a motion to dismiss was denied in part and granted in part. The former principal brought the action against the labor union and its representatives under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985. A federal district court in New York found that the former principal alleged facts sufficient to raise a minimal inference that one union representative and the UFT, but not individual teachers or other union representatives, had discriminatory intent (Catania v. United Federation of Teachers, No. 1:21-cv-1257-GHW (S.D. N.Y. July 14, 2025)).

Allegations. The former principal worked at a New York City public school as acting principal and then principal beginning in 2016 before resigning in 2019. She resigned since she believed that if she did not resign, she would face discipline, including possible removal as principal and reassignment as an assistant principal in the same district, based on the allegedly pretextual violations that her Superintendent had added to her personnel file. Before her resignation, she alleged that the labor union and a number of its officers conspired with a group of the school’s teachers to get her fired and replaced with a Black principal. To implement this conspiracy, they allegedly created a false narrative that she wanted to prevent teachers at the school from teaching Black history, publicized that narrative, led protests against her, and lodged false complaints against her with the Department of Education (DOE), provoking a wave of negative publicity and harassment.

In 2019, the former principal reached a separate state court settlement that released her claims against the DOE, including the teachers at the school where she was principal.

Equal protection. The court found that the former principal adequately stated a claim that one union representative and the UFT violated her Equal Protection rights under color of state law. Even though the union representative and the UFT were nominally private parties, the former principal adequately plead “joint action” by pleading the existence of a Section 1983 conspiracy.

Discrimination based on race. The former principal’s amended complaint also alleged facts sufficient to plausibly plead a minimal inference of a union representative’s discriminatory motivation: that he targeted the former principal and attempted to remove her from her position because she is white. Her new allegations regarding the union representative’s conduct during protest rallies and regarding his comment during a meeting that “We can Malcolm X her, by any means necessary we will get her out…” plausibly supported a minimal inference of his discriminatory intent. Also, the allegation that the union representative encouraged protestors to shout “white racist b**ch” and “white devil,” among other things, supported an inference of the one union representative’s discriminatory intent.

However, the court did not find such discrimination from the UFT. The court wrote, “all Plaintiff has come up with is a vague and conclusory allegation that unspecified statements were made that, according to Plaintiff, could be understood to evince discriminatory intent.”

Color of state law. The amended complaint also plausibly alleged that the union representative acted jointly with the teachers at the school, who themselves were acting under color of state law, and, as a result, the union representative’s conduct was state action. The court noted that the formal DOE complaint processes and the influence over students were only available to the teachers by virtue of “the position[s] given to [them] by the State.” Therefore, the teachers’ conduct constituted state action for purposes of the Section 1983 claim.

Section 1985 claim. Under the same analysis by the court as to the other claims, the former teacher’s allegations also satisfied the elements of a Section 1985 claim with respect to the UFT and the union representative: The former principal plausibly pled a successful conspiracy between the union representative and the school’s teachers to remove her from her position on the basis of her race, in violation of her Equal Protection rights. However, the former teacher failed to allege that individual teachers had the necessary discriminatory intent to state a Section 1985 claim against them.

Holding. The motion to dismiss the former principal’s Third Amended Complaint was granted in part and denied in part. Her Section 1983 claim for a violation of her Equal Protection rights and her Section 1985 claim were dismissed as to three union representatives with prejudice. The former principal adequately pleaded a Section 1983 claim for a violation of her Equal Protection rights and a Section 1985 claim against the UFT and one of its representatives.

The case is No. 1:21-cv-1257-GHW.

Judge: Woods, G.

Attorneys: Anthony Vincent Gentile (The Gentile Law Firm) for Patricia Catania. Meaghean Claire Murphy (Thompson Coburn) for United Federation of Teachers.

Companies: United Federation of Teachers

Cases: Discrimination RaceDiscrimination CoverageLiability IndividualRights Labor UnionsMembers PublicEmployees NewYorkNews