An outside investigation found no substantiated evidence that Buffalo Board of Education member Lewis “Muki” Hawkins violated law or district policy through sexual harassment or retaliation. Attorneys for employees who accused Hawkins say they still plan to pursue civil litigation.
An outside investigation has found no substantiated evidence that Buffalo Board of Education member Lewis “Muki” Hawkins violated law or district policy through sexual harassment or retaliation, but the controversy is not over.
Attorneys representing employees who accused Hawkins say they still intend to pursue civil litigation despite the internal investigation’s findings. The result creates an important education-law distinction: an internal workplace investigation can conclude that allegations are not substantiated while the same underlying claims remain capable of being tested through the civil court system.
Editorial Note
This article summarizes publicly reported allegations, an outside investigation commissioned by Buffalo Public Schools, and statements from the parties involved. New To Education has not independently determined the truth of the underlying allegations.
The outside investigation found no substantiated evidence that Lewis “Muki” Hawkins violated law or district policy through sexual harassment or retaliation. That finding should not be described as a court judgment, a determination that every allegation was false, or a final resolution of any civil claim. Likewise, the existence of a notice of claim or future lawsuit would not establish liability.
All individuals discussed in this article should be presumed not liable for alleged misconduct unless and until a competent court or other authorized body makes a final finding. This article is provided for educational and informational purposes and is not legal advice.
What We Know
The dispute developed from complaints made by Buffalo Public Schools employees against Hawkins, who represents the Central District on the Buffalo Board of Education.
In July, Chief Equity and Governance Officer Antoinette Amos filed a notice of claim that named both Hawkins and former Buffalo Public Schools Superintendent Pascal Mubenga.
According to Buffalo Toronto Public Media, Amos alleged sexual harassment, retaliation, and abuse of authority. The notice of claim served as formal notice of potential litigation rather than a judicial finding that the allegations were true.
A separate notice of claim was later filed by Arlene Adams, who oversees the district’s federally funded Project Prevent program.
Adams alleged that Hawkins repeatedly entered her office without invitation, continued alleged advances after she rejected them, and contributed to a hostile work environment. She also alleged that district administrators failed to adequately investigate or protect her after she reported the conduct.
Hawkins denied wrongdoing.
An Outside Investigation Found the Allegations Unsubstantiated
Buffalo Public Schools retained the law firm Hodgson Russ LLP to conduct an independent investigation.
The review included interviews with the employees who made complaints, Hawkins, other relevant witnesses, and a review of available documents.
At an August school board meeting, Board President Dr. Kathy Evans-Brown announced that investigator Luisa Bostick found no substantiated evidence that Hawkins violated law or district policy through sexual harassment or retaliation.
Spectrum News separately reported that the investigation found the allegations unsubstantiated after reviewing complaints from three Buffalo Public Schools employees and interviewing witnesses connected to the alleged incidents.
Hawkins welcomed the finding and said he wanted to return his attention to district students.
“Unsubstantiated” Does Not Mean a Court Found the Claims False
This distinction is central to the case.
The outside investigation concluded that it did not find substantiated evidence of a violation of law or district policy.
That is not the same thing as a judge or jury determining that the underlying allegations were false.
Internal investigations and civil lawsuits operate differently.
A workplace investigation is generally conducted under employer policies and procedures and may be limited to witnesses and documents available to the investigator.
Civil litigation can involve formal discovery, sworn testimony, subpoenas, document production, depositions, motions, and ultimately judicial review.
That is why an employee can continue pursuing civil claims even after an employer-sponsored investigation finds insufficient evidence to substantiate them.
The Employees Say They Still Plan to Sue
Attorneys representing Amos and Adams say the internal investigation has not changed their plans.
Niagara Action reported August 30 that attorney Kristen Elmore-Garcia said the complainants still intend to file suit and continue standing by the allegations contained in their notices of claim.
Their attorneys argue that litigation will allow the claims to be evaluated through civil procedure, including evidence exchange and external judicial scrutiny.
Whether a lawsuit will ultimately succeed is a separate question.
Filing a civil complaint will not establish that Hawkins or Buffalo Public Schools violated the law. The defendants would have the opportunity to respond, dispute the allegations, seek dismissal of claims, and present evidence of their own.
Why the Notices of Claim Matter
The employees have so far been described in public reporting as filing notices of claim.
That terminology matters in New York.
A notice of claim is generally a procedural step required before certain lawsuits can be brought against municipal entities or public bodies. It alerts the government entity to the allegations and potential litigation.
It is therefore inaccurate to describe the July and August notices themselves as court rulings or successful lawsuits.
The developing story is better understood as potential civil litigation following workplace complaints and an outside investigation.
A Separate Set of Allegations Involved the Former Superintendent
The Hawkins controversy overlaps with a broader workplace dispute involving former Superintendent Pascal Mubenga.
Amos’ July notice of claim also accused Mubenga of sexual harassment and other alleged misconduct. Those claims are distinct from the allegations against Hawkins and should not be treated as though the outside investigation into Hawkins resolved the allegations involving Mubenga.
Niagara Action reported that Amos’ attorneys say they are also continuing to pursue claims involving Mubenga and that they had not received investigative findings resolving that separate matter.
Keeping those allegations separate is important because different individuals, conduct, and potential legal claims are involved.
Questions Remain About the Investigative Report
Another issue involves transparency surrounding the outside investigation.
The Buffalo Board of Education indicated that it intended to release a redacted version of the investigative report.
Spectrum News reported after the findings were announced that the board planned to make a redacted report public within seven to 10 days but had not yet received the final report at that point.
Niagara Action reported on August 30 that the stated timeframe had passed without the redacted report being released.
That does not establish wrongdoing by the district, but release of the report could provide additional information about how the investigator assessed the complaints, witness accounts, and documentary evidence.
Why Internal Investigations and Civil Litigation Can Reach Different Outcomes
This case provides a useful example of why school-district investigations and court proceedings should not be treated as interchangeable.
An internal investigator may determine that available evidence does not substantiate a policy violation.
A court could later dismiss related civil claims.
Or litigation could uncover additional evidence that was not available during the internal review and allow some claims to proceed.
None of those outcomes is predetermined.
The legal significance of the current investigation is therefore limited but important: Hawkins was not found to have violated district policy or law through the outside review.
That finding is meaningful for the district’s internal process, but it does not eliminate the employees’ ability to pursue legal remedies available to them.
Why This Matters
School districts frequently rely on internal investigations to evaluate allegations involving administrators, employees, and elected board members.
Those investigations can have serious consequences, including discipline, removal from assignments, policy changes, or findings that allegations cannot be substantiated.
But internal investigations are not courts.
The Buffalo case demonstrates why journalists, school officials, employees, and the public should distinguish between an investigative conclusion and a judicial judgment.
Saying Hawkins was “cleared by an internal investigation” can accurately describe the district review if the surrounding context is clear.
Saying a court proved the allegations false would not be accurate because no such ruling has occurred.
Likewise, the employees’ continued pursuit of litigation does not establish that their allegations are true.
The next stage will determine whether formal civil complaints are filed and, if so, how courts evaluate the claims.
Key Takeaways
• Buffalo Public Schools retained Hodgson Russ LLP to investigate allegations involving Board of Education member Lewis “Muki” Hawkins.
• The outside investigation found no substantiated evidence that Hawkins violated law or district policy through sexual harassment or retaliation.
• Multiple Buffalo Public Schools employees have made allegations against Hawkins through notices of claim.
• Attorneys representing complainants Antoinette Amos and Arlene Adams say they still intend to pursue civil litigation.
• The internal investigation’s conclusion is not a court judgment that the allegations were false.
• A civil lawsuit, if filed, would also not establish liability merely because allegations appear in a complaint.
Frequently Asked Questions
Was Lewis “Muki” Hawkins found guilty of sexual harassment?
No. An outside investigation found no substantiated evidence that Hawkins violated law or district policy through sexual harassment or retaliation.
Did a court dismiss the employees’ allegations?
No. The findings discussed here came from an outside investigation commissioned by the school district, not a court ruling.
Are the employees still suing?
Their attorneys said as of August 30 that they still intended to move forward with civil litigation. The publicly reported filings discussed so far include notices of claim, which can precede formal litigation against public entities in New York.
Does an unsubstantiated investigation mean the allegations were proven false?
Not necessarily. It means the investigation did not find sufficient substantiated evidence of a violation under its review. Civil litigation can involve different procedures and evidence.
Final Thoughts
The Buffalo Public Schools controversy is now moving into a legally important second phase.
The district’s outside investigation produced a clear internal result: it found no substantiated evidence that Lewis “Muki” Hawkins violated law or policy through sexual harassment or retaliation.
That result matters, but it does not resolve every legal question.
The employees who brought the allegations continue to stand by their claims, and their attorneys say they intend to seek review through the civil court system.
If formal lawsuits are filed, the focus will shift from an employer-sponsored investigation to pleadings, discovery, evidence, and judicial rulings.
Until then, both parts of the story should remain clear: Hawkins was cleared of substantiated wrongdoing in the outside district investigation, while the employees’ potential civil claims remain unresolved.
Related Articles
Former Wisconsin Principal Alleges School Board Pushed Him Out Because He Is Gay
A New To Education report examining unresolved allegations of discrimination, retaliation, and school-board conduct in a federal employment lawsuit.
A public-school employment case involving allegations of retaliation, suspension, and misconduct reporting that has moved into federal court.
Redlands Unified Faces Lawsuit Over Alleged Failure to Stop Racial Harassment of Black Students
A related civil-rights case illustrating the difference between allegations made in a lawsuit and final findings of liability.
Sources
Independent local reporting on the outside investigation and its conclusion that the allegations against Hawkins were not substantiated.
Additional reporting on the Hodgson Russ investigation, its scope, and the school board’s announcement of the findings.
Buffalo Toronto Public Media — Second BPS employee accuses Hawkins of sexual assault
Reporting on Arlene Adams’ notice of claim and her allegations against Hawkins and Buffalo Public Schools.
Buffalo Toronto Public Media — Mubenga, Hawkins named in sexual harassment claim
Reporting on Antoinette Amos’ notice of claim involving Hawkins, former Superintendent Pascal Mubenga, and Buffalo Public Schools.
August 30 reporting confirming that attorneys for the complainants say they intend to continue pursuing civil litigation despite the outside investigation’s conclusions.
