and other records of his special education students,” Compl. ¶ 70 (emphasis added), and that when Mpoy refused, “Presswood enlisted two other teachers at Ludlow to falsify the records of Plaintiff’s special education students,” id. ¶ 72 (emphasis added). In his brief, Mpoy makes the same allegations and describes them in the same way. See Mpoy Br. 7 (stating that “Presswood instructed Mpoy to fabricate acceptable performance results” for his students, and that when he refused, “Presswood enlisted two other teachers to ... conduct! ] sham assessments of Mr. Mpoy’s students” (emphasis added)). In context, then, Press-wood’s complaint to Rhee on this subject was made “pursuant to his official duties.” Cf. Adams v. N.Y. State Educ. Dep’t, 752 F.Supp.2d 420, 429-30 (S.D.N.Y.2010) (<HOLDING>), aff'd sub nom. Ebewo v. Fairman, 460
holding that it did not violate the defendants right to remain silent when the prosecutor questioned her about inconsistencies between her pretrial statements to authorities and her defense at trial holding that the plaintiffs second complaint did not relate back to her first complaint because her second complaint was not an amendment to her first complaint but rather a separate filing holding that threatening employee to mind her own business investigating her videotaping her without her permission and forcing her to take polygraph could not be considered adverse employment actions because they had no effect on conditions of employment holding that a teachers complaint to school authorities that her principal had instructed her to make improper changes in her own students grades was unprotected because it was made pursuant to her official duties holding that a plaintiff who pled in her complaint that her law firm actively misled her in support of her request for application of the discovery rule had sufficiently pled the application of the doctrine