No. 18-198
Lucio Celli v. New York City Department of Education, et al.
Response Waived
Tags: administrative-regulations cba civil-procedure civil-rights collective-bargaining contract-clause due-process grievance-process judicial-bias judiciary-act judiciary-act-of-1789 racial-animus standing taylor-law
Key Terms:
Arbitration SocialSecurity DueProcess FourthAmendment EmploymentDiscrimina LaborRelations
Arbitration SocialSecurity DueProcess FourthAmendment EmploymentDiscrimina LaborRelations
Latest Conference:
2018-10-12
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether a plaintiff should be allowed to plead facts related to a collective bargaining agreement and administrative regulations under §1981 and Title VII
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED Issue: The issue is not Fed. Rul. of Civ. Pro. 8(a); the issue is the plaintiff was not allowed to be the “master of the complaint” and his rights under §35 of the Judi, ciary Act of 1789. 1. Cole did not conduct Lucio’s evaluation! under 8J of the CBA and the United Federation of Teacher did not process his grievance under 8J. The allegation of Cole’s alleged racial animus is intertwined . with the CBA and the Taylor Law. Hon. Cogan stated (
Docket Entries
2018-10-15
Petition DENIED.
2018-09-26
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/12/2018.
2018-08-17
Waiver of right of respondents Richard Cole, Anne Barnard and NYC Department of Education, et al. to respond filed.
2018-01-29
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 13, 2018)
Attorneys
Lucio Celli
Lucio Celli — Petitioner
NYC Department of Education, et al.
MacKenzie Fillow — NYC Law Dept, Respondent