Judge Blocks Parents' Second Lawsuit Against Newton Teachers Post-Strike

Parents' Lawsuit Over Educator Strike Dismissed

A recent ruling by a judge has dismissed the second class-action lawsuit filed by parents of students from Newton Public Schools. These parents claimed that an 11-day educator strike in February 2024 caused significant harm to their children and families, leading them to a point of desperation. The lawsuit sought $25 million on behalf of the students, arguing that the strike negatively impacted their education and family life.

The parents involved in the case include Lital Asher-Dotan, Dmitriy Sokolovskiy, Dan Eshet, Barbara Cipriani, and Ronit Inbar. They accused the union leaders of the Newton Teachers Association, the Massachusetts Teachers Association, the National Education Association, and the UAW (United Auto Workers) of knowing that the strike was illegal but still supporting it publicly. Their legal argument centered on the idea that those who break the law should be held accountable for any damage they cause.

However, Judge Christopher Barry-Smith ruled that the unions did not engage in threatening, intimidating, or coercing behavior during the strike. He also stated that students are not third-party beneficiaries of the educators’ collective bargaining agreement. This decision effectively ended the parents’ attempt to hold the unions legally responsible for the impact of the strike on students.

Barry-Smith emphasized that the process of collective bargaining between municipalities and public employees is inherently complex and challenging. He noted that the interests of parents and students must be represented through elected and appointed officials rather than through direct legal action. The judge further argued that introducing parental and student interests into this process via a lawsuit would undermine the relationship between public employers and employees.

This is not the first time the parents have attempted to sue over the strike. Earlier, they filed a similar class-action lawsuit immediately after the strike, but it was dismissed as "moot" because the case had already concluded. The parents then refiled the lawsuit as a separate action. However, the latest ruling has once again rejected their claims.

Another key point raised by the judge was the lack of any reference to parents or other third parties in the Commonwealth Employee Relations Board’s enforcement of the law prohibiting strikes. This board is responsible for ensuring compliance with Section 9A of Massachusetts state law, which bars public employees, including teachers, from striking.

The attorneys representing the parents, Ilya Feoktistov and Daniel Suhr, have a history of pursuing legal action against teacher unions. They were also involved in a lawsuit against the Beverly Teachers Association following a 12-day strike last fall. Suhr previously attempted to sue the Chicago Teachers Union over their 2022 strike, although that effort was unsuccessful.

Suhr has expressed his belief that when teachers go on illegal strikes, they prioritize their own demands over the needs of their students. He argues that such actions set a poor example for young students who look up to their teachers.

Despite the dismissal of the current lawsuit, the parents continue to seek justice for what they believe is a violation of their children's educational rights. Their case highlights the ongoing tension between labor rights and the responsibilities of public employees to their students and communities.