Top Manhattan Court Reporter Sues to Get His State Job Back
The lawsuit provides an unusual look into the office politics and economics of the official record-keepers at some of the busiest courthouses in New York.
August 13, 2019 at 02:25 PM
4 minute read
The former top stenographer for Manhattan civil courts says he was wrongly fired, claiming in a new suit against the New York state court system that some of his alleged misconduct had been authorized by Manhattan’s chief clerk.
John Phelps oversaw a team of roughly 60 people who create the official records of trials, arguments and other matters at four state courthouses, said his lawsuit, filed Friday in Manhattan Supreme Court. Phelps’ suit against the New York State Unified Court System is seeking reinstatement to his job as a court reporter.
Phelps filed several exhibits with his lawsuit, including a judicial hearing officer’s decision over his termination, providing an unusually detailed look into a little-heeded but important corner of the legal industry and the economics of court reporters.
According to the court documents, some colleagues testified in Phelps’ defense and spoke highly of him, but other witnesses said he did little actual supervising and took home tens of thousands of dollars per year by disregarding the part of his job description that said he should only “rarely” transcribe proceedings.
According to the judicial hearing officer’s decision, Phelps was chronically late, delegated much of his administrative work to a “deputy” and picked plum reporting jobs for himself. He also “borrowed” thousands of dollars from an account meant to buy gifts for judges and his staff and pleaded guilty to misdemeanor petty theft in connection with his use of that money.
“As one who has devoted over half a century to public service, it is not easy to recommend the termination of employment of another public servant,” wrote Joseph Fisch, a retired judge who heard the court system’s case against Phelps. “But I cannot faithfully discharge my responsibility … by failing to take notice of the portrait of respondent that emerged after the evidence presented to me.”
Fisch wrote that Phelps was a “bully” who threatened to fire employees who crossed him. In addition, according to Fisch, Phelps “brazenly proclaimed his unqualified disdain for non-lucrative reporting work,” by saying, “I don’t do pro se” when he learned a party was self-represented and less likely to order a transcript.
Other reporters testified that Phelps nabbed referee cases, where a transcript order is thought to be more likely, and caused major strife in the office one day in 2017 when he took a “daily” case—where the pay is higher—before other court reporters got a crack at it.
Phelps argued that he had a clean record in his two decades as a court reporter, saying in his lawsuit that the court system crossed a line by firing him. He produced an email from early in his tenure as principal court reporter where John Werner, the recently retired chief clerk of the Manhattan Supreme Court Civil Term, told him it would be “no problem” for him to work with referees or take daily assignments from judges.
And Phelps said he reimbursed the gift account or shelled out from his own pocket to buy gifts that used to be paid by the fund. He said he pleaded to petty larceny and took a sentence of 10 days’ community service and some $2,500 in restitution to avoid a felony charge.
Douglas Catalano of Clifton Budd & DeMaria, who represents Phelps, said, “the relevant facts are set forth in the petition and affidavit.”
Lucian Chalfen, a spokesman for the Office of Court Administration, said the office hadn’t been served yet, “but [we] will respond accordingly when we are.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllWhy Is It Becoming More Difficult for Businesses to Mandate Arbitration of Employment Disputes?
6 minute readMore Big Law Firms Rush to Match Associate Bonuses, While Some Offer Potential for Even More
Trending Stories
- 1AI: An Enhancement, Not a Replacement for Attorneys
- 2Fowler White Burnett Opens Jacksonville Office Focused on Transportation Practice
- 3Auditor Finds 'Significant Deficiency' in FTC Accounting to Tune of $7M
- 4'A Mockery' of Deposition Rules: Walgreens Wins Sanctions Dispute Over Corporate Witness Allegedly Unfamiliar With Company
- 5Call for Nominations: TLI's Pennsylvania Legal Awards 2025
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250