Courts in this Circuit have established that "a teacher's communications made within internal school channels about . . . the treatment of the teacher's students" fall within the teacher's official duties and do not constitute protected speech under the First Amendment. Smith v. City of New York, 130 F. Supp. 3d 819, 832 (S.D.N.Y. 2015), aff'd, 664 F. App'x 45 (2d Cir. 2016); see also Picinich v. N.Y. Dep't of Educ., No. 16 Civ. 844 (CBA) (LB), 2016 WL 11265651, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 14, 2016) (finding that plaintiff speaking out against "grading policies" — plaintiff alleges he was asked to change students' grades — to the principal and other supervisors was "made in the course of his official duties as a teacher"), report and recommendation adopted, No. 16 Civ. 844 (CBA) (LB), 2017 WL 1079976 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2017); Adams, 752 F. Supp. 2d at 430 ("Plaintiffs' cannot plausibly establish that . . . complaining about a principal's falsification of student grades or attendance records" to the Office of Special Investigations "is not 'part-and-parcel' of their concerns as school teachers."). This Court finds the reasoning of those opinions persuasive and similarly finds that Arroyo's complaints of grading fraud, made within internal school channels, are "part-and-parcel" of her concerns as a school teacher and therefore cannot constitute protected speech under the First Amendment.
But if a party "makes only conclusory or general objections, or simply relitigates his original arguments, the Court reviews the [R&R] only for clear error." Picinich v. N.Y. Dep't of Educ., No. 16-CV-844 (CBA), 2017 WL 1079976, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2017). Because Nagessar proceeds pro se, her objections "are 'generally accorded leniency' and should be construed 'to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest.'"
But if a party "makes only conclusory or general objections, or simply relitigates his original arguments, the Court reviews the [R&R] only for clear error." Picinich v. N.Y. Dep't of Educ., No. 16-CV-844 (CBA), 2017 WL 1079976, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2017). On October 31, 2017, RKIC timely objected to the R&R. (D.E. # 53.)