throbber
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/01/2023 09:18 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1
`
`INDEX NO. 153909/2023
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/01/2023
`
`SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
`COUNTY OF
`NEW YORK
`
`JENNIFER CARREÓN AMBERT,
`
`Index No.
`
`Plaintiff(s),
`
`-against-
`THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
`
`Summons
`
`Defendant(s).
`
`Date Index No. Purchased:
`
`To the above named Defendant(s)
`THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
`52 Chambers Street
`New York, New York 10007
`You are hereby summoned to answer the complaint in this action and to serve
`a copy of your answer, or, if the complaint is not served with this summons, to serve
`a notice of appearance, on the Plaintiff's attorney within 20 days after the service of
`this summons, exclusive of the day of service (or within 30 days after the service is
`complete if this summons is not personally delivered to you within the State of New
`York); and in case of your failure to appear or answer, judgment will be taken against
`you by default for the relief demanded in the complaint.
`
`The basis of venue is
`Defendant's headquarters
`which is
`New York County
`
`,
`
`Dated:
`
`New York, NY
`
`April 25, 2023
`
`
`
`Schwartz Perry & Heller, LLPwarrrrrrrtz Ptzttttttttt erry & Helleleeeeeeee er,
`by__________________________
`____________________________________________ _________________________
`
`Brian Helleran Heller
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`3 Park Avenue, Suite 2700
`New York, NY 10016
`(212) 889-6565
`bheller@sphlegal.com
`
`1 of 10
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/01/2023 09:18 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1
`
`INDEX NO. 153909/2023
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/01/2023
`
`SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
`COUNTY OF NEW YORK
`--------------------------------------------------------------------------X
`JENNIFER CARREÓN AMBERT,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-against-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`--------------------------------------------------------------------------X
`
`
`
`
`
`Index No.:
`
`
`VERIFIED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Jennifer Carreón Ambert, as and for her Verified Complaint, all upon information
`
`and belief, respectfully alleges as follows:
`
`IDENTITY OF THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`At all relevant times mentioned herein, Plaintiff Jennifer Carreón Ambert
`
`(“Carreón”) was employed by Defendant the New York City Department of Education (“DOE”).
`
`2.
`
`At all relevant times mentioned herein, the DOE was and is a New York City
`
`governmental agency responsible for the administration of New York City’s public-school system.
`
`3.
`
`Carreón filed a notice of claim against the DOE on August 17, 2023 the DOE took
`
`a deposition of Carreón pursuant to §50-h of the General Municipal Law on December 21, 2022,
`
`so that all administrative prerequisites of Education Law §3813 have been satisfied.
`
`BACKGROUND RELEVANT TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
`
`4.
`
`Carreón commenced her employment with the DOE as a Third Grade Teacher in
`
`or around June 2002.
`
`5.
`
`At all relevant times, Carreón was fully qualified for her position, as confirmed by
`
`her education and the numerous promotions she received.
`
`
`
`2 of 10
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/01/2023 09:18 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1
`
`INDEX NO. 153909/2023
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/01/2023
`
`6.
`
`During the many years of her employment, Carreón was promoted to Model
`
`Teacher, Assistant Principal, Principal, Director of New Principal Support, Director of Teaching
`
`& Learning and then Acting Superintendent.
`
`7.
`
`In or around February 2019, Carreón was formally named Superintendent of
`
`District 27, which was the largest school district in Queens.
`
`8.
`
`By all measures, Carreón succeeded as Superintendent, improving the services that
`
`the DOE offered to their students, including continuing to succeed during the COVID-19
`
`pandemic.
`
`9.
`
`Carreón received positive feedback from very senior DOE officials, including then-
`
`Chancellor Richard Carranza, First Deputy Chancellor Cheryl Watson-Harris, Executive
`
`Superintendent Dr. Andre Spencer and his successor, Dr. Mauriciere De Govia, as well as
`
`Chancellor Meisha Porter.
`
`10.
`
`In June 2021, Carreón received a rating of “Highly Effective,” confirming her
`
`positive contribution to the DOE.
`
`11.
`
`In December 2021, First Deputy Chancellor Donald Conyers raved about the
`
`impact of Carreón’s tenure as Superintendent, especially in the Rockaways.
`
`12.
`
`Carreón was one of only three Asian American Superintendents, out of a total of
`
`45 individuals serving as Superintendent throughout the DOE.
`
`13.
`
`On or about January 1, 2022, David C. Banks (“Banks”) became the Chancellor of
`
`the DOE.
`
`14.
`
`At or around the end of February 2022, Banks announced that individuals in the
`
`role of Superintendent would have to re-apply for their position and, if selected, they would have
`
`an increase in responsibilities.
`
`
`
`2
`
`3 of 10
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/01/2023 09:18 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1
`
`INDEX NO. 153909/2023
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/01/2023
`
`15.
`
`The posting for the Superintendent positions were released at or around the end of
`
`March 2022, and Carreón applied.
`
`16.
`
`On or about April 19, 2022, Carreón had an interview with Deputy Chancellor for
`
`School Leadership, Dr. Desmond Blackburn (“Dr. Blackburn”).
`
`17.
`
`During that interview, Carreón presented a 20-minute PowerPoint describing the
`
`successes that she had achieved thus far and the advancements that she would be able to obtain,
`
`and Carreón received very positive feedback from Blackburn.
`
`18.
`
`Carreón became aware that there were two other candidates for Superintendent,
`
`David Norment (“Norment”), who had served as Carreón’s Deputy Superintendent, and Shirley
`
`Wheeler-Massey.
`
`19.
`
`Despite Carreón’s clear qualifications, she was not selected for the Superintendent
`
`position.
`
`20.
`
`Instead, Blackburn advised Carreón on June 27, 2022 that Norment had been
`
`selected as Superintendent, even though he was clearly not as experienced as Carreón, as
`
`confirmed by the fact that he had been Carreón’s Deputy.
`
`21.
`
`The DOE could not provide a legitimate reason for why Norment was selected over
`
`Carreón, as Blackburn told Carreón only that “the Chancellor decided to go in a different direction
`
`in [Carreón’s] district.”
`
`22.
`
`The real reason why Norment was selected over Carreón was because he was an
`
`African American man, and she was an Asian American woman.
`
`23.
`
`The DOE, in addition to its own preference to place African American men in high-
`
`level positions, acceded to the discriminatory push by certain members of the community to select
`
`Norment solely because of his race, as confirmed by social media posts that stated words to the
`
`
`
`3
`
`4 of 10
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/01/2023 09:18 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1
`
`INDEX NO. 153909/2023
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/01/2023
`
`effect of, “Vote the Brother In.”
`
`24.
`
`Additionally, Lisa Johnson Cooper, the President of the Community Education
`
`Council for District 27, who was on the panel making recommendations for Superintendent
`
`position, told Carreón that she felt the process was becoming “racist.”
`
`25.
`
`Since Banks began as Chancellor, the DOE has more African American
`
`Superintendents than previously, while still having only three Asian American Superintendents.
`
`26.
`
`Carreón was told that she could either retire or accept a lower role within the DOE,
`
`and that if she stayed, she would not receive the increased compensation that was assigned to the
`
`new Superintendent position.
`
`27.
`
`Carreón subsequently learned that, during the onboarding for the appointed
`
`Superintendents during the week of July 11, 2022, the Chancellor’s team openly commented to
`
`the room, “Look around the room, what do you notice? There’s a black male at every table,”
`
`confirming that race and gender played a role in hiring decisions at the DOE.
`
`28.
`
`As a result of the DOE’s discriminatory conduct, Carreón has been caused to suffer
`
`injuries resulting in financial loss, emotional anguish and suffering, and has been humiliated,
`
`demeaned and otherwise degraded because of the DOE’s outrageous conduct in violation of
`
`Carreón’s human rights, all of which impacted her well-being and the quality of her life.
`
`AS FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION ON BEHALF
`OF CARREÓN AGAINST THE DOE FOR RACE
`DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF §8-107(1)(a)
`OF THE NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW
`
`29.
`
`Carreón repeats, re-alleges and incorporates in full paragraphs 1 through 28 of this
`
`Complaint as though fully set forth at length herein.
`
`30.
`
`At the time Carreón was subjected to the discriminatory conduct described herein,
`
`she was in a protected class under the New York City Human Rights Law because of her race,
`
`
`
`4
`
`5 of 10
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/01/2023 09:18 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1
`
`INDEX NO. 153909/2023
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/01/2023
`
`which is Asian.
`
`31.
`
`Throughout the time of her employment with the DOE, Carreón was fully qualified
`
`for her position and was in a position to continue working in that capacity.
`
`32.
`
`The DOE treated Carreón less well because of her race and took adverse
`
`employment action against her by refusing to assign her to the Superintendent position she already
`
`held because of her Asian national origin, as confirmed by the fact that an African American male
`
`received her role, even though he was her Deputy and less experienced than her.
`
`33.
`
`The circumstances surrounding the DOE’s treatment termination of Carreón,
`
`including the DOE’s preference for African American men to be in Superintendent roles, the fact
`
`that one of the individuals on the panel who made the recommendations for Superintendent felt
`
`the process was becoming “racist,” and the public desire to “Vote the Brother In,” give rise to a
`
`very real inference that the actual basis for the DOE’s actions against Carreón were motivated by
`
`race discrimination.
`
`34.
`
`The aforementioned acts of the DOE constitute unlawful discrimination against
`
`Carreón in violation of Chapter I, Title 8 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York, §8-
`
`107(1)(a) (referred to herein as “the New York City Human Rights Law”), which provides, inter
`
`alia that:
`
`It shall be unlawful discriminatory practice . . .[f]or an employer or
`an employee or agent thereof, because of the actual or perceived . .
`. race . . . of any person . . . to discharge from employment such
`person or to discriminate against such person in compensation or in
`terms, conditions or privileges of employment.
`
`As a result of the DOE’s violation of the New York City Human Rights Law §8-
`
`35.
`
`107(1)(a), the DOE is liable to Carreón pursuant to §8-502(a) of said statute for “damages,
`
`including punitive damages,” and pursuant to §8-502(f) of the statute for “costs and reasonable
`
`
`
`5
`
`6 of 10
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/01/2023 09:18 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1
`
`INDEX NO. 153909/2023
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/01/2023
`
`attorney’s fees,” as provided for under the law.
`
`36.
`
`Carreón has been caused to suffer injuries resulting in financial loss, emotional
`
`anguish and suffering, and has been humiliated, demeaned and otherwise degraded because of the
`
`DOE’s outrageous conduct in violation of Carreón’s human rights, all of which has impacted her
`
`well-being and the quality of her life.
`
`37.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of the DOE’s discriminatory conduct complained
`
`of herein, Carreón has suffered damages, injuries and losses, both actual and prospective, which
`
`include the emotional pain and suffering she has been caused to suffer and continues to suffer, all
`
`of which Carreón alleges to be in the amount of Ten Million Dollars ($10,000,000).
`
`38.
`
`Carreón, therefore, seeks judgment against the DOE on this First Cause of Action,
`
`including, among other things, for compensatory damages in the sum of Ten Million Dollars
`
`($10,000,000), together with costs, pre-judgment interest and reasonable attorney’s fees on this
`
`Cause of Action.
`
`AS FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION ON BEHALF
`OF CARREÓN AGAINST THE DOE FOR GENDER
`DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF §8-107(1)(a)
`OF THE NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW
`
`39.
`
`Carreón repeats, re-alleges and incorporates in full paragraphs 1 through 38 of this
`
`Complaint as though fully set forth at length herein.
`
`40.
`
`At the time Carreón was subjected to the discriminatory conduct described herein,
`
`she was in a protected class under the New York City Human Rights Law because of her gender.
`
`41.
`
`Throughout the time of her employment with the DOE, Carreón was fully qualified
`
`for her position and was in a position to continue working in that capacity.
`
`42.
`
`The DOE treated Carreón less well because of her gender and took adverse
`
`employment action against her by refusing to assign her to the Superintendent position she already
`
`
`
`6
`
`7 of 10
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/01/2023 09:18 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1
`
`INDEX NO. 153909/2023
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/01/2023
`
`held because of her gender, as confirmed by the fact that an African American male received her
`
`role, even though he was her Deputy and less experienced than her.
`
`43.
`
`The circumstances surrounding the DOE’s treatment termination of Carreón,
`
`including the DOE’s preference for African American men to be in Superintendent roles and the
`
`public desire to “Vote the Brother In,” give rise to a very real inference that the actual basis for the
`
`DOE’s actions against Carreón were motivated by gender discrimination.
`
`44.
`
`The aforementioned acts of the DOE constitute unlawful discrimination against
`
`Carreón in violation of Chapter I, Title 8 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York, §8-
`
`107(1)(a) (referred to herein as “the New York City Human Rights Law”), which provides, inter
`
`alia that:
`
`It shall be unlawful discriminatory practice . . .[f]or an employer or
`an employee or agent thereof, because of the actual or perceived . .
`. gender . . . of any person . . . to discharge from employment such
`person or to discriminate against such person in compensation or in
`terms, conditions or privileges of employment.
`
`As a result of the DOE’s violation of the New York City Human Rights Law §8-
`
`45.
`
`107(1)(a), the DOE is liable to Carreón pursuant to §8-502(a) of said statute for “damages,
`
`including punitive damages,” and pursuant to §8-502(f) of the statute for “costs and reasonable
`
`attorney’s fees,” as provided for under the law.
`
`46.
`
`Carreón has been caused to suffer injuries resulting in financial loss, emotional
`
`anguish and suffering, and has been humiliated, demeaned and otherwise degraded because of the
`
`DOE’s outrageous conduct in violation of Carreón’s human rights, all of which has impacted her
`
`well-being and the quality of her life.
`
`47.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of the DOE’s discriminatory conduct complained
`
`of herein, Carreón has suffered damages, injuries and losses, both actual and prospective, which
`
`
`
`7
`
`8 of 10
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/01/2023 09:18 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1
`
`INDEX NO. 153909/2023
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/01/2023
`
`include the emotional pain and suffering she has been caused to suffer and continues to suffer, all
`
`of which Carreón alleges to be in the amount of Ten Million Dollars ($10,000,000).
`
`48.
`
`Carreón, therefore, seeks judgment against the DOE on this Second Cause of
`
`Action, including, among other things, for compensatory damages in the sum of Ten Million
`
`Dollars ($10,000,000), together with costs, pre-judgment interest and reasonable attorney’s fees
`
`on this Cause of Action.
`
`
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant on the First Cause of
`
`Action in the sum of Ten Million Dollars ($10,000,000) in compensatory damages; on the Second
`
`Cause of Action in the additional sum of Ten Million Dollars ($10,000,000) in compensatory
`
`damages; so that Plaintiff seeks a total of Twenty Million Dollars ($20,000,000), plus, for each
`
`Cause of Action, attorney’s fees, pre-judgment interest and the costs of this action as is permitted
`
`under the law; and for such other and further relief that the Court deems just and proper.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SCHWARTZ PERRY & HELLER, LLP
`ys for Plaintifffff
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`__________________________________
`By:______________________________
`BRIAN HELLE
`
`BRIAN HELLER
`
`DAVIDA S. PERRY
`
`3 Park Avenue, Suite 2700
`
`New York, NY 10016
`
`(212) 889-6565
`
`8
`
`9 of 10
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/01/2023 09:18 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1
`
`INDEX NO. 153909/2023
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/01/2023
`
`SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
`COUNTY OF NEW YORK
`--------------------------------------
`JENNIFER CARRE6N AMBERT,
`
`- - - -X
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`-against-
`
`THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
`
`Defendant.
`-----------------------------------------------------------X
`
`STATE OF NEW YORK
`
`COUNTY OF QUEENS
`
`)
`)ss.
`)
`
`Index No.:
`
`VERIFICATION
`
`JENNIFER CARRE6N AMBERT, being duly sworn, says:
`
`I am the Plaintiff in the within action; I have read the foregoing Complaint and know the
`
`contents thereof; the same is true to my knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be
`
`alleged on infom1ation and belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true.
`
`NOTAR
`
`9
`
`10 of 10
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket