Ok v. New York City Department of Education, 1:18-cv-00392

Ok, a former Flushing High School teacher, sued NYC DOE, Principal Tyee Chin, and Asst. Principal Luis Aguirre Amaya under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and NY Civil Service Law § 75‑b alleging retaliation after reporting Chin for alleged fraud/misconduct. Plaintiff also pleaded state common‑law claims for defamation/libel (IIED was later withdrawn).
Plaintiff alleges he complained to DOE officials, the Special Commissioner of Investigations (SCI), and the Office of Special Investigations (OSI) about a Chin policy allegedly forcing teachers to advance students and about threats to teachers for negative survey responses; he provided memos and audio evidence to investigators.
After Chin allegedly learned of Ok’s complaints, Ok received disciplinary letters and negative teacher evaluations; charges later were brought that led to a § 3020‑a disciplinary hearing under the collective‑bargaining disciplinary procedure.
Defendants moved to dismiss defamation/libel and First Amendment claims and sought dismissal or a stay of the § 75‑b and related claims pending the § 3020‑a hearing.
The court dismissed the defamation/libel claims (Chin and Amaya) for failure to allege actionable false statements or special damages, denied dismissal of the § 1983 First Amendment retaliation claims, but stayed the remaining claims pending resolution of the § 3020‑a proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Defamation/libel against Chin	Chin’s email statements harmed Ok’s reputation and were actionable	Statements were opinion/non‑actionable; no special damages alleged	Dismissed — statements were non‑actionable opinion and no special damages pleaded
Defamation/libel against Amaya	(No specific defamatory statements identified by Ok)	No defamatory statements alleged by Ok	Dismissed — complaint fails to identify any statements by Amaya
First Amendment retaliation (§ 1983) — protected speech/public concern	Ok spoke as a citizen to DOE/SCI/OSI about grading policy and threats, addressing matters of public concern	Speech was within job duties or not protected; no causal link to adverse actions	Not dismissed — plaintiff plausibly alleged speech outside ordinary duties, public concern, and causation sufficient at Rule 12(b)(6) stage
Civil Service Law § 75‑b / exhaustion and stay pending § 3020‑a	Argues federal case should proceed; some alleged retaliation may fall outside § 3020‑a scope	Charges are subject to collectively negotiated procedure; § 3020‑a will address key factual issues and must be exhausted	Stayed — § 75‑b claims require exhaustion and the court stayed the remaining claims pending the § 3020‑a hearing because the issues are factually intertwined and could have preclusive effect

Celle v. Filipino Reporter Enters. Inc., 209 F.3d 163 (2d Cir.) (opinion/non‑actionable statements rule)
Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006) (public‑employee speech made pursuant to official duties is not protected)
Lane v. Franks, 134 S. Ct. 2369 (2014) (clarifies Garcetti: focus on whether the speech itself is ordinarily within job duties; outlines citizen/public concern test)
Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability under § 1983 requires an official policy or custom)
Thai v. Cayre Group, Ltd., 726 F. Supp. 2d 323 (S.D.N.Y.) (elements for defamation under New York law and requirement to plead special damages with particularity)
Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983) (public‑concern inquiry: content, form, and context)
Burkybile v. Board of Educ., 411 F.3d 306 (2d Cir.) (preclusive effect of § 3020‑a hearing findings)