A Queens teacher alleges that administrators changed an Advanced Placement student’s failing grade without her consent and retaliated after she reported the matter, raising questions about academic integrity, teacher speech, grading authority, and whistleblower protections.
Editorial Note
This article discusses allegations contained in an active federal lawsuit. The claims have not been proven in court, and the defendants have not yet filed their full response. New York City Public Schools declined to comment publicly on the pending litigation.
This article is intended for educational and informational purposes and does not provide legal advice. New To Education does not endorse the plaintiff, the defendants, the school, the teachers’ union, or any legal position discussed below.
A New York City teacher says her decision to fail an Advanced Placement student led to much more than a disagreement over a grade.
Susan Muzafar, an English teacher at Information Technology High School in Queens, alleges that an administrator changed the student’s failing grade to a passing mark without her knowledge or consent. She says school leaders then retaliated after she began asking questions and reported concerns about grading practices, student placement, and academic standards.
Muzafar filed a federal lawsuit against the New York City Department of Education and individual school officials on May 1, 2026. The case, Muzafar v. New York City Department of Education, remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. As of July 15, the defendants had not yet submitted their full response to the complaint.
The lawsuit raises difficult questions for teachers, administrators, students, and parents. Who has the final authority over a student’s grade? What must a principal do before changing it? When does a teacher’s internal complaint become protected whistleblowing or First Amendment speech? And what happens to the credibility of a school when graduation or course-passing statistics may not accurately represent student learning?
What the Teacher Alleges Happened
Muzafar teaches English at Information Technology High School in Long Island City, Queens. According to her complaint, she planned to give an unnamed student, identified as M.H., a failing grade in an Advanced Placement English Literature course at the end of the 2024–2025 school year.
The lawsuit alleges that the student had failed to complete assignments satisfactorily and had low averages across several categories of coursework. Muzafar says she offered the student an additional end-of-year opportunity to complete work, but the student still did not meet her requirements for a passing grade.
She then entered a failing grade into the school’s electronic gradebook, according to the complaint. Muzafar alleges that an unidentified administrator later converted the grade to a passing mark without notifying her or obtaining her approval.
The complaint presents the episode as part of a wider concern. Muzafar alleges that students who were not adequately prepared were being placed in advanced courses and then awarded passing grades they had not earned.
Those remain allegations. No court has determined that Information Technology High School or its administrators engaged in systematic grade manipulation.
Why an Advanced Placement Grade Matters
Advanced Placement courses are intended to offer college-level academic work to high-school students. They can affect grade-point averages, class rankings, college applications, and perceptions of a school’s academic strength.
A student’s course grade is separate from the score earned on the national AP examination, but both can contribute to the student’s academic record.
Changing a failing course grade can allow a student to receive credit, remain on track for graduation, or avoid repeating the class. It can also affect the school’s course-completion and graduation statistics.
Schools sometimes provide struggling students with make-up assignments, credit-recovery opportunities, or other chances to demonstrate learning. Those practices are not automatically improper.
The central issue in Muzafar’s lawsuit is whether the student actually met legitimate academic requirements and whether the grade was changed through an authorized, transparent process.
The Teachers’ Contract Addresses Grade Changes
The United Federation of Teachers says educators are generally the best judges of their students’ academic achievement.
Its published guidance states that if a supervisor changes a student’s grade, the teacher must be notified in writing and given the reason for the change. The union advises teachers who experience pressure to pass an undeserving student or discover that a grade was changed without proper notification to contact their chapter leader.
That contractual protection does not necessarily mean principals can never alter grades. Administrators may need to correct clerical mistakes, address discriminatory grading, enforce schoolwide policies, or respond when a grade is unsupported by the teacher’s records.
The requirement for written notice creates accountability.
It gives the teacher an explanation, creates a record of who made the decision, and allows the change to be challenged through contractual or administrative procedures.
If Muzafar’s account is accurate, the absence of notice could become an important part of the legal and labor dispute.
The Teacher Says Retaliation Followed
Muzafar alleges that the dispute did not end when the grade was changed.
According to the complaint, she reported her concerns internally and to outside organizations, including the Office of the Special Commissioner of Investigation for the New York City School District and the College Board.
She claims that administrators then gave her negative classroom-observation ratings, issued disciplinary letters, removed her from leadership and paid per-session assignments, and subjected her to additional disciplinary meetings.
Muzafar also alleges that multiple school employees accessed her electronic gradebook more than 40 times without her knowledge. She says the continuing conflict caused severe emotional distress, including a panic attack, and led her to return to therapy and use prescription medication.
These claims have not been tested through discovery or trial.
The defendants may argue that any evaluations, assignments, or disciplinary actions were based on legitimate workplace concerns rather than her complaints about grading.
The School Watchdog Has Opened an Investigation, According to the Lawsuit
The Office of the Special Commissioner of Investigation is the independent watchdog responsible for examining allegations of corruption, wrongdoing, and misconduct involving New York City public schools.
Its website states that complaints may be filed by parents, students, administrators, school employees, vendors, and whistleblowers. It also says city employees are protected against workplace retaliation for reporting wrongdoing.
Muzafar’s complaint says the office informed her that it had opened an investigation into her allegations.
An opened investigation does not mean the allegations have been substantiated. Investigators must still review records, speak with witnesses, examine gradebook access, and determine whether school or district rules were violated.
The office reported receiving 11,775 complaints during 2025 and initiating 471 investigations, demonstrating that only a portion of complaints ultimately become full investigations.
The Lawsuit Includes a First Amendment Claim
Muzafar accuses the defendants of violating her First Amendment rights by retaliating against her for reporting alleged wrongdoing.
Public employees do have free-speech protections, but those protections are complicated.
Courts often examine whether the employee spoke as a private citizen on a matter of public concern or merely communicated as part of ordinary job duties.
Speech about possible academic fraud, inaccurate public records, or systemic pressure to award unearned grades may involve a matter of public concern. However, a court may also consider whether the teacher’s reports were closely connected to responsibilities she was employed to perform.
The outcome may depend on exactly what she said, where she reported it, whom she contacted, and whether the speech occurred through official workplace channels or outside them.
The court must also examine whether the allegedly adverse actions were caused by her protected speech or would have occurred for independent reasons.
New York Civil Service Protections May Also Apply
The lawsuit also invokes state civil-service protections.
New York law contains provisions intended to protect certain public employees who disclose violations of laws, rules, regulations, or activities that present dangers to public health or safety.
Whistleblower cases are rarely simple. The employee must generally show that a legally protected report occurred, that the employer knew about it, and that an adverse action followed because of that report.
Employers frequently respond that the action was based on job performance, misconduct, insubordination, or other legitimate reasons.
The timing of events can be important, but timing alone may not prove retaliation.
Muzafar will need to connect her complaints about grading and course placement to the negative evaluations, lost assignments, and disciplinary actions she says followed.
Teacher Evaluations Can Become Powerful Evidence
The teacher alleges that she received poor observation ratings after reporting her concerns.
Classroom observations are intended to measure teaching quality and provide feedback. They can also influence tenure, professional development, discipline, transfers, and career opportunities.
In a retaliation case, the court may compare evaluations issued before and after the protected complaint.
A sharp decline following years of stronger performance could support the employee’s argument, particularly if the administrator cannot identify a credible change in teaching quality.
However, a negative evaluation is not automatically retaliatory. Administrators are allowed to document genuine performance concerns, even when the teacher has recently filed a complaint.
The evidence may include lesson plans, observation notes, student work, prior evaluations, emails, witness testimony, and comparisons with the treatment of other teachers.
Loss of Extra Assignments Can Have Financial Consequences
Muzafar says she was removed from per-session positions and leadership roles that provided additional compensation.
Per-session work can include after-school programs, tutoring, extracurricular activities, curriculum projects, or other assignments performed outside the regular school day.
Losing such work may reduce a teacher’s income even when the teacher remains employed at the same base salary.
It can also reduce professional visibility and future leadership opportunities.
Whether the loss qualifies as an unlawful adverse employment action will depend on the circumstances. The court may consider how regularly Muzafar received the assignments, how much compensation was lost, who made the decisions, and whether the positions were given to other employees for legitimate reasons.
Grade Inflation Can Harm Students Who Appear to Benefit
Changing a failing grade to a passing one may appear to help the student involved.
In the short term, it may protect the student’s transcript, prevent a repeated course, or help the student progress toward graduation.
In the long term, passing a student who has not mastered the material may create additional problems.
The student may enter a more advanced course without the necessary reading, writing, or analytical skills. College instructors or employers may assume the transcript represents competencies the student did not actually develop.
An unearned passing grade can hide the need for tutoring, intervention, language assistance, disability support, or a different course placement.
It may also send the student the message that completing the work and meeting academic expectations are optional.
Real support should help students learn the material not merely erase evidence that they are struggling.
Other Students May Also Be Affected
Grade manipulation can undermine trust among students who completed the required work.
A student who spends months preparing assignments and improving writing skills may reasonably expect course grades to reflect effort and achievement.
When administrators secretly change another student’s grade, honest students may begin to believe that standards are flexible for political or statistical reasons.
The effects may be particularly serious in advanced courses where grades influence class rank, honors, scholarships, or college admission.
Fairness does not require every student to complete identical work in identical ways. Students with disabilities, language needs, health conditions, or other circumstances may require accommodations and alternative opportunities to demonstrate learning.
Those supports should still be connected to genuine academic standards.
Parents Need Confidence in School Records
Parents rely on grades to understand how their children are performing.
A passing grade should indicate that the student has met the school’s stated requirements. A failing grade should alert the family that additional support or a different plan may be necessary.
When grades are changed without clear reasons, parents may receive an inaccurate picture.
The family of the student whose grade was changed may wrongly believe the child is prepared for the next course. Other parents may lose confidence in the school’s academic reports.
Transparent procedures protect everyone.
If an administrator concludes that a teacher’s grade is incorrect, the reason should be documented. The teacher should be notified, and the student’s family should receive an accurate explanation when appropriate.
Schools Face Pressure to Improve Graduation Statistics
Public schools are evaluated through graduation rates, course-completion data, test results, attendance, college enrollment, and other measurements.
These statistics can influence public reputation, leadership evaluations, enrollment, and political scrutiny.
Accountability data can reveal schools that need more resources or intervention.
It can also create incentives to make numbers look better without improving learning.
When administrators are judged heavily by the percentage of students passing courses or graduating, they may feel pressure to prevent failures.
That pressure does not prove that any particular administrator altered a grade improperly. It does explain why grade-changing allegations deserve independent investigation.
An impressive graduation rate means little if diplomas do not represent real academic achievement.
Credit Recovery Is Not Automatically Grade Fixing
New York City schools may use credit-recovery and make-up programs to help students complete missing work or demonstrate required knowledge.
These programs can be educationally valuable.
A student may have missed school because of illness, family instability, housing insecurity, work obligations, or other circumstances. Allowing that student another opportunity to learn can be fair and responsible.
Problems arise when recovery programs require little meaningful work, exist primarily to increase passing rates, or bypass the teacher without proper documentation.
The goal should be recovery of learning, not merely recovery of credit.
Schools should establish clear standards describing what students must complete, how the work will be evaluated, who may authorize a grade change, and how the original teacher will be involved.
Administrators Also Need Authority to Correct Unfair Grades
Teacher autonomy is important, but it cannot be unlimited.
A teacher might calculate a grade incorrectly, ignore required accommodations, apply inconsistent rules, or grade a student based on conduct unrelated to academic achievement.
New York law generally prevents schools from using attendance alone as the basis for awarding or denying course credit. A student who misses class may still demonstrate mastery through completed work or assessments.
Administrators therefore need a process for reviewing grades that may be inaccurate or inconsistent with district policy.
The legal and ethical problem is not simply that a grade was changed.
The questions are whether the change was justified, properly documented, communicated to the teacher, and based on legitimate evidence of learning.
The Case Could Affect Teacher Willingness to Report Problems
Teachers are often the first people to notice problems involving grading, student placement, testing, safety, special-education services, or misuse of school resources.
If educators believe reporting concerns will lead to poor evaluations or lost assignments, they may remain silent.
That silence can allow small problems to become systemic.
Strong whistleblower protections do not mean every complaint is correct. They mean employees should be able to make good-faith reports without fear that administrators will punish them merely for raising concerns.
Schools also need fair procedures for administrators who are accused.
An allegation can damage a person’s reputation before any investigation is completed. Confidential reviews, documentary evidence, and opportunities to respond are therefore essential.
What the Court Will Need to Determine
The federal court has not ruled on the accuracy of Muzafar’s allegations.
The defendants’ response was due August 10, 2026, under an extension approved by the court. They may file an answer denying the claims or ask the judge to dismiss some or all of the lawsuit.
If the case proceeds, discovery may reveal who changed the student’s grade, why the decision was made, whether written notice was provided, how often administrators accessed the gradebook, and whether the actions taken against Muzafar were connected to her complaints.
The court may also examine whether her reports were legally protected, whether she suffered a sufficiently serious employment action, and whether individual administrators are protected from certain claims.
A lawsuit can survive for months or years before producing a final decision.
Settlement is also possible.
Key Takeaways
Susan Muzafar, an English teacher at Information Technology High School in Queens, filed a federal lawsuit on May 1, 2026.
She alleges that an administrator changed an Advanced Placement student’s failing grade to a passing mark without her knowledge or consent.
Muzafar says she reported concerns to school officials, the Special Commissioner of Investigation, and the College Board.
She alleges that administrators retaliated through negative evaluations, disciplinary letters, lost leadership roles, reduced opportunities for additional pay, and repeated access to her electronic gradebook.
The United Federation of Teachers says supervisors who change a student’s grade must notify the teacher in writing and explain the reason.
The allegations have not been proven, and New York City Public Schools has not publicly addressed the merits of the pending case.
The dispute could clarify how teacher grading authority, public-employee speech, whistleblower protections, and administrative oversight interact in New York City schools.
FAQ
When was the lawsuit filed?
Susan Muzafar filed the federal lawsuit on May 1, 2026.
Did this case begin on July 15?
No. The case remained active as of July 15, but the complaint was filed earlier and news coverage increased in early July.
Which school is involved?
Muzafar teaches at Information Technology High School in Long Island City, Queens.
Was the student’s grade definitely changed improperly?
That has not been determined. The teacher alleges that an administrator changed it without her knowledge or consent. The defendants have not yet presented their full response.
Can a principal change a teacher’s grade?
Administrators may have authority to correct or review grades in certain circumstances. UFT guidance says that when a supervisor changes a grade, the teacher must be notified in writing and given the reason.
What retaliation does the teacher allege?
She alleges negative classroom observations, disciplinary letters and meetings, removal from paid assignments and leadership roles, and unauthorized access to her gradebook.
Is the Special Commissioner investigating?
The lawsuit says the Special Commissioner of Investigation informed Muzafar that an investigation had been opened. An investigation does not establish that wrongdoing occurred.
What does the teacher want from the lawsuit?
She seeks unspecified damages and other relief for alleged violations of her First Amendment and state civil-service rights.
Final Thoughts
Grades are more than letters entered into a computer system.
They communicate whether students have learned required material, whether additional support is needed, and whether a student is prepared for the next stage of education.
That makes control over grades a serious responsibility.
Teachers should not be pressured to award credit that students have not earned. Administrators should not secretly change academic records to improve statistics.
At the same time, teachers’ decisions must remain open to review when a grade is based on an error, violates policy, ignores an accommodation, or does not accurately represent a student’s learning.
The solution is transparency.
Any grade change should be supported by evidence, documented in writing, and communicated to the teacher. Students and parents should be able to trust that the final record reflects legitimate academic judgment rather than institutional pressure.
Muzafar’s allegations remain unproven. The defendants deserve the opportunity to respond, and the court must evaluate the evidence rather than the headlines.
Regardless of the outcome, the case exposes an important educational-law issue.
A school system cannot claim to value accountability if employees fear retaliation for raising concerns about the accuracy of student records.
Academic integrity protects teachers, but its most important purpose is protecting students from an education that looks successful on paper while leaving them unprepared in reality.
Related Articles
New York’s Education Oversight Debate: What Happened and Why It Matters
https://newtoed.com/view-blog/new-yorks-education-oversight-debate-what-happened-and-why-it-matters-6a2fd83a4782c
New York City Expands Protections Around Schools With New Anti-Harassment Law
https://www.newtoed.com/view-blog/new-york-city-expands-protections-around-schools-with-new-anti-harassment-law-6a4860420879c
Sources
Federal Court Docket — Muzafar v. New York City Department of Education
New York Post — NYC School Leaders Accused of Changing an AP Student’s Failing Grade
United Federation of Teachers — Teachers’ Rights Regarding Student Grades
Special Commissioner of Investigation — Official Website
Special Commissioner of Investigation — About the Independent School Watchdog
