A Sell-Out, Chump Change, Insult of an Offer

STROOK Law firm

P.O. Box 9349

Dublin, OH 43017-4249

[email protected]

(212) 806-1245

January 9, 2022

Joshua Sohn Esq.,

Regarding “Settlement offer to resolve claim # 1010863”

Gulino vs. Board of Education:

I write to inform you that we reject the Board of Education of the School District of the City of NewYork’s ( the BOE ) offer to resolve the pending appeal of our case, and pay out the individual judgement set forth. ?

Don’t tell me that you could not have done better than the sell-out, chump change insult of an offer that you presented to my mother, and to the rest of the racial discrimination lawsuit class in the Gulino vs. Board of Education case.

Elsa Gulino would be rolling over in her grave upon learning of your betrayal to the black and hispanic teachers who entrusted you to protect and defend their right to work at their deserved level of compensation.?The New York City Board of Education had a two their salary system, which was based on race; and it effected and perpetuated this racially discriminatory policy through claims of teacher testing criteria.?Recognizing this, Elsa Gulino sued.?Ultimately, more than thirty years later; she will win.

I was a member of the Progressive Action Caucus of the United Federation of Teachers in the late 1980’s through the early 1990’s.?Our leaders; Marc Pessin & Michelle Macklin had such hope in you.?From what I can see, the Center for Constitutional Rights attorney Barbara Olshansky’s brilliant advocacy work was squandered by your manipulative suggestion that they accept this sell-out offer to the Elsa Gulino Federal Lawsuit class.?Many members of the class had worked their entire careers - thirty years - as public school teachers; earning half the salary of their white counterparts for having done exactly the same work. Hundreds of thousands of dollars are owed to them. ?

For a teacher who was ‘short changed’ by thirty thousand dollars on average for thirty years; true justice would mean a payment from the BOE of $900,000, plus interest. This calculation is for each teacher. { There are also pension related payments to compensate them for.?As pensions are based on salary and number of years worked; these should also be calculated for in figuring the full amount owed to these NYC public school teachers }.

For the record; my mother, (who had worked for the BOE for a period of six years) is now age 78.?She was offered $ 1,157 in taxable “compensation” as a settlement by the BOE through documents signed by you under the Stroock law firm.

I advised her to refuse the offer.?Patricia L. Williams has not accepted this, and will continue on with the case as it goes to the Court of Appeals; where the BOE continues to stall the inevitable justice that will come to the remaining members of the class action lawsuit.

She would like to assign me to be her ‘heir’ in this case.?The assignment of her rights and responsibilities as a member of the class in Gulino vs. Board of Education is hereby requested.?I will provide my own progeny assignment documents should you fail to provide them to us from your firm.

A reminder of what this was is all about is below. Title Seven will prevail in the end.

* Congress has established that it is "an unlawful employment practice for an employer ... to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). Title VII "proscribes not only overt discrimination but also practices that are fair in form, but discriminatory in operation." Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 431, 91 S.Ct. 849, 28 L.Ed.2d 158 (1971). That is, "Congress' primary purpose [in passing Title VII] was the prophylactic one of achieving equality of employment opportunities and removing barriers to such equality." Connecticut v. Teal, 457 U.S. 440, 449, 102 S.Ct. 2525, 73 L.Ed.2d 130 (1982) (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, a plaintiff need not show that an employer intended to discriminate to state a claim under Title VII. Rather, "[a] prima facie violation of [Title VII] may be established by statistical evidence showing that an employment practice has the effect of denying the members of one race equal access to employment opportunities." New York City Trans. Auth. v. Beazer, 440 U.S. 568, 584, 99 S.Ct. 1355, 59 L.Ed. 2d 587 (1979); see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(k).?

This letter constitutes an Affidavit of Natalie M. Williams regarding the Gulino vs City of New York Board of Education case with respect to my mother Patrica L. Williams

SWORN ONTO ME:

Sincerely, ?

________________

Natalie M. Williams

P.O. Box #6?

Utica, NY 13503

Notary Public

Date: _______________