A bit of backstory, from a 2019 N.Y. Daily News story (by Michael Elsen-Rooney & Stephen Rex Brown):
A white principal and four black teachers at a Bronx middle school have filed dueling lawsuits accusing the other of racism as fallout continues over allegations that the embattled administrator barred Black History Month lessons.
Former Bronx Intermediate School 224 Principal Patricia Catania, who is white, grabbed headlines in 2018 when the Daily News reported on accusations she prohibited English teacher Mercedes Liriano from teaching lessons on the Harlem Renaissance and confiscated a student's poster on African-American musical genius Lena Horne.
Amid the furor, Catania sued Liriano, two other black teachers at the school and two teachers union employees, alleging they'd waged a "maligning, malevolent, and racist campaign" to oust Catania as principal because she was successfully cracking down on under-performing educators….
"We can Malcolm X her, by any means necessary we will get her out. Change through violence," UFT rep William Woodruff allegedly said in January 2017.
In Catania v. United Fed'n of Teachers, decided Monday by Judge Gregory Woods (S.D.N.Y.), the judge rejected much of plaintiff's claims, but allowed some to go forward; recall that all the factual allegations described below are just allegations at this point—the court simply held that plaintiff had plausibly alleged enough to allow the case to proceed:
Plaintiff Patricia Catania was the principal of Middle School 224, a public school in New York City. Ms. Catania is white. She alleges that the defendants—a labor union and a number of its officers—conspired with a group of the school's teachers to get Ms. Catania fired and replaced with a Black principal.
To implement this conspiracy, the defendants created what Ms. Catania claims to be the false narrative that Ms. Catania wanted to prevent teachers at the school from teaching Black history. The conspirators publicized that narrative, led protests against Ms. Catania, and lodged false complaints against her with the Department of Education. This conduct provoked a wave of negative publicity and harassment. Ms. Catania ultimately believed she faced a choice between resigning or facing disciplinary action for allegedly pretextual violations, so she resigned from her position.
Ms. Catania commenced this action against the labor union and its representatives … for conspiring with public school teachers to constructively discharge her in violation of her rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court already dismissed Plaintiff's Free Speech and her Due Process claims with prejudice. After the Court granted Plaintiff leave to replead her Equal Protection claim, Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint. Because Plaintiff alleges facts sufficient to raise a minimal inference that Woodruff [a UFT representative] and the UFT … had discriminatory intent, Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's only remaining claim, her Equal Protection claim, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART….
Plaintiff plausibly alleges that Woodruff and the UFT discriminated against her on the basis of her race…. The Third Amended Complaint alleges facts sufficient to plausibly plead a minimal inference of Woodruff's discriminatory motivation: that he targeted Plaintiff and attempted to remove her from her position because she is white. The Court refers to the Prior MTD Opinion at 26–28 for analysis of why Plaintiff's previous allegations relating to discriminatory intent either are conclusory or cannot be imputed to Defendants and the alleged conspiracy…. [But] Plaintiff's new allegations regarding Woodruff's conduct during the protest rallies and regarding his Malcolm X comment plausibly support a minimal inference of his discriminatory intent….
Plaintiff's allegation that Woodruff encouraged protestors to shout "white racist b**ch" and "white devil," among other things, supports an inference of Woodruff's discriminatory intent….
A minimal inference of discriminatory intent can be drawn from Woodruff's statement during the January 17, 2017 meeting that he wanted to "Malcolm X" Plaintiff shortly after she started working at MS 224. Given Malcolm X's complex legacy, the Court cannot say as a matter of law that no reasonable inference could be drawn that Woodruff was referencing what Plaintiff calls "notions of Black Supremacy and Black separatism." And if Woodruff was indeed "indicating that people of color at [MS 224] needed to be separated from Catania because of her White/Caucasian race," then this is sufficient to raise a minimal inference that Woodruff's actions were taken on the basis of Plaintiff's race….
The Third Amended Complaint [also] plausibly alleges that Woodruff acted jointly with the MS 224 Teachers, who themselves were acting under color of state law, and therefore that Woodruff's conduct was state action.
First, Plaintiff plausibly alleges that Woodruff conspired with the MS 224 Teachers to defame Plaintiff and get her removed from her position on account of her race. Plaintiff alleges that Woodruff held meetings with the MS 224 Teachers, during which they agreed to take steps to get plaintiff removed, such as filing grievances. Defendants then took steps jointly with the MS 224 Teachers toward achieving their goal. The MS 224 Teachers filed numerous false and unsubstantiated complaints against Plaintiff with the DOE and with the UFT as directed by Woodruff. Woodruff and the UFT organized press conferences and rallies at which various MS 224 Teachers made false and derogatory statements about Plaintiff, again at Woodruff's direction.
Crucially, the MS 224 Teachers heard Woodruff's comments about wanting to "Malcolm X" Plaintiff, from which a reasonable inference may be drawn that they were "knowingly furthering the discriminatory intent" in carrying out Woodruff's plans. At the very least, a plausible inference can be drawn that Liriano [one of the MS 224 Teachers], who explicitly stated that she wanted to replace Plaintiff with a black principal, was intentionally engaged in discriminating against Plaintiff on the basis of her race. Woodruff and the MS 224 Teachers are therefore alleged to have conspired and acted in concert to violate Plaintiff's constitutional rights.
Second, Plaintiff plausibly alleges that the MS 224 Teachers were acting under color of state law in engaging in the conspiracy…. Educators who are public employees act under color of state law when they "misuse [their] authority" over their students…. The MS 224 Teachers were not merely protesting in the ambit of their personal pursuits as private citizens; they were using their authority as teachers to harass and defame Plaintiff. They lodged formal workplace complaints through the DOE, through the UFT, and directly to Superintendent Alvarez, even though the complaints were "false and unsubstantiated."
Multiple MS 224 Teachers made derogatory comments about Plaintiff directly to students, over whom they had authority, in classroom settings. Ms. Liriano even "caused forty students … to opt out of a certain exam" in order to "reflect badly" on Plaintiff. These formal DOE complaint processes and the influence over students were only available to the MS 224 Teachers by virtue of "the position[s] given to [them] by the State." In stoking resentment toward Plaintiff, see, e.g., TAC ¶ 291 ("[D]uring an official observation from a DOE deputy superintendent, inside a classroom in the school, a student called Catania a 'racist, white b**ch' in front of said deputy superintendent."), and in discouraging students from taking exams for reasons unrelated to their educational development, the MS 224 Teachers misused that influence over their students. Therefore, the MS 224 Teachers' conduct constituted state action for purposes of Plaintiff's § 1983 claim….
UPDATE 7/18/2025, 5:01 pm: The UFT passed along this statement, from spokesperson Alison Gendar:
The UFT will not be silenced or intimidated by baseless lawsuits. The court has already rejected the majority of false accusations made in this case, and we are confident these final ones will be dismissed as well. The UFT stands with its members and staff.
The post Principal's Race Discrimination Lawsuit Over "We Can Malcolm X Her" Allegations Can Go Forward appeared first on Reason.com.
