Gulino v. Board of Education Litigation
www.gulinolitigation.com

Frequently Asked Questions

Helpful Hint: Using the general subject of your question may provide the best search results. For example, enter the word "exam" in the search box to find information about the LAST.

The Plaintiffs in this case are African-American and Latino individuals employed as New York City school teachers on or after June 29, 1995 who failed the Liberal Arts and Sciences Test ("LAST"), and as a result either lost or were denied a permanent teaching position.

The remaining Defendant in this case is the New York City Department of Education ("DOE"). The DOE is the employer of teachers in public schools in New York City. Defendant New York State Education Department ("SED") was dismissed from the case in 2006.

(back to top)

The LAST was an exam created and administered by SED to teacher candidates. The exam had eighty multiple choice questions, only sixty-four of which were scored, and an essay question intended to assess a candidate's reading comprehension, writing skills, and analytical ability. Test-takers were required to achieve a passing score on the LAST in order to receive state certification to teach in New York State public schools.

(back to top)

In November 1996, Plaintiffs filed suit against the DOE in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (case number 1:96-cv-8414). At that time, the DOE had begun to fill permanent teaching positions based on results of the LAST. Plaintiffs alleged, among other claims, that the DOE's use of the LAST violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because the test had an unlawful disparate impact on African-American and Latino test-takers and did not adequately determine who was or was not qualified for the job of a permanent teacher.

(back to top)

On December 5, 2012, the Court found that the DOE failed to establish that the LAST that was administered prior to February 14, 2004 was related to the job of teaching as required by federal law. The Court also found that as a result, the DOE had violated Title VII by requiring plaintiffs to pass the LAST in order to receive a teaching license. On June 5, 2014, the Court made a similar finding regarding the LAST administered on and after February 14, 2004-the exam was not job related and the DOE's use of the exam in making employment decisions violated Title VII. The plaintiffs' complaint in this case is not based on a theory of intentional discrimination. Rather, the plaintiffs have alleged, and the Court found, that the DOE was liable for making employment decisions based on the state's exam under a "disparate impact" theory of discrimination.

(back to top)

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits not only intentional discrimination, but also employment practices that appear to be fair in form but are discriminatory in operation. A facially neutral employment practice, such as a written examination, that disproportionately excludes individuals from employment opportunities on the basis of their membership in a protected group, such as a particular race or national origin, and cannot be shown to be related to job performance, violates Title VII. As the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has explained,

[An employer] can be found liable under Title VII if it uses a facially neutral practice that has the effect of disproportionately excluding members of a particular protected group. In such cases, which apply the disparate impact theory of discrimination, the individual alleging discrimination must prove . . . that the challenged practice has a substantial and significant adverse effect on a protected group. If the individual can make this demonstration, the employer will be liable for discrimination unless it can show that the practice in question is job-related and consistent with business necessity. It is the employer's burden to make this showing, and a failure to provide any justification for the practice will likely result in a finding of liability. Even if an employer can demonstrate that a practice is justified, moreover, the individual will be given an opportunity to prove that there are other available practices that would also serve the employer's purposes, but with less impact on the protected group.

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/foia/letters/2000/titlevii_disparate.html

These facially neutral practices include the use of some written tests by employers, which have, intentionally or not, screened out people of a particular race, national origin or sex who are in fact qualified. Although using written tests to screen applicants may present the appearance of objective, merit-based selection, written tests often do not actually identify applicants who will be successful at performing a particular job. If appropriate analysis finds a test to be a poor assessment of an applicant's ability to do a job, then the test stands in the way of identifying the best qualified candidates. As a result, it is in everyone's interest to find a better measure.

In Gulino v. Board of Education, the Court found that African-American and Latino teachers failed the LAST at a significantly higher rate than white teachers. The Court then found that the DOE's use of the LAST did not predict which applicants would be best able to teach, which means that the use of the LAST was not job related or consistent with business necessity. As a result, the Court found the DOE liable for disparate impact discrimination under Title VII.

(back to top)

Individuals who meet the class definition are eligible to seek lost wages, employment positions, and pension service credits lost or denied as a result of the DOE's discrimination. To determine whether you are eligible, you have to submit a claim form. Claim forms were mailed to potential claimants on September 30, 2014 and January 20, 2017. If you did not receive a claim form and failed the LAST, you may complete the claim form process online or download a copy here. Please continue to check this website often for updates.

(back to top)

No. Individual relief is available only to individuals who took and failed the LAST. Please note that in this case, the Court found that the Core Battery Exam did not violate Title VII.

(back to top)

No. As long as you failed the LAST and otherwise meet the remaining components of the class definition, you may be eligible for individual relief.

(back to top)

At the request of Plaintiffs' counsel, the New York State Education Department and the DOE provided Plaintiffs' counsel with a list of African-American and Latino individuals who were employed by the DOE and failed the LAST. This list contained potential claimants' names, addresses and dates for when they first failed the LAST.

(back to top)

Individuals who meet the class definition are eligible to seek lost wages, employment positions and seniority benefits lost or denied as a result of the DOE's discrimination.

(back to top)

All information submitted through this website will be maintained and utilized in accordance with applicable federal law, including the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C.A. § 552a, et seq. To the extent any information submitted is protected by the Privacy Act, that information would not be used or disclosed except as permitted under the Privacy Act. Your social security number will not be filed in any public document.

(back to top)

No, although the Consent Form (SSA-7050-F4) for the Social Security Earnings Information report, included with your claim form, states that there is a fee associated with receiving this report, the City of New York as the requester of the information will be responsible for making payment to the Social Security Administration. Claimants in this case will not be responsible for or required to make any payment for the gathering of information to be used in this matter. You must complete and return the Consent Form (SSA-7050-F4) to GCG in order to be eligible for monetary damages. Please click here, if you need another copy of this form.

(back to top)

No. If you first failed the LAST after June 1995, you can start your employment history on the date you first failed the LAST.

(back to top)

No, you are not too late. If you are interested in becoming certified through this class action, please contact Plaintiffs' counsel at 212-321-4330. However, the injunction which allows class members who failed the LAST for the first time before February 14, 2004 to become certified pursuant to pre-2004 requirements expires on November 23, 2018. At that point, the Court will no longer allow class members who failed the LAST before February 14, 2004 to become certified pursuant to the pre-2004 requirements, minus the LAST.

(back to top)

No, you are not too late. If you are interested in becoming certified through this class action, please contact Plaintiffs' counsel at 212-321-4330. However, the injunction which allows class members who failed the LAST for the first time after February 13, 2004 to become certified expires on December 28, 2020. At that point, the Court will no longer allow class members who failed the LAST after February 13, 2004 to become certified pursuant to the pre-2014 requirements, minus the LAST.

(back to top)

If you already communicated with Plaintiffs' counsel regarding certification, please follow up with them at 212-321-4330 about any additional coursework or exams you have completed. If you have forgotten what requirements you still needed to fulfill, please follow up with Plaintiffs' counsel as well. As a reminder, if you failed the LAST for the first time before February 14, 2004, the injunction which allows class members who failed the LAST for the first time before February 14, 2004 to become certified pursuant to pre-2004 requirements expires on November 23, 2018.

(back to top)

No, you can become certified through this case and collect monetary damages.

(back to top)