Former Buffalo Superintendent and Board Member Accused of Harassment and Retaliation

A Buffalo Public Schools administrator has accused a former superintendent and a sitting board member of sexual harassment, retaliation, and other workplace misconduct.

Editorial Note

This article discusses allegations contained in a notice of claim filed on behalf of Buffalo Public Schools Chief Equity and Governance Officer Antoinette Amos. A notice of claim is generally a procedural step required before certain lawsuits may be brought against a New York public entity. It is not a court judgment or a finding that misconduct occurred.

Former Superintendent Pascal Mubenga and Board of Education member Lewis “Muki” Hawkins are entitled to due process. Hawkins has denied wrongdoing and said he does not intend to resign. Buffalo Public Schools has declined detailed comment because of pending or potential litigation. The allegations remain unresolved.

What the Administrator Alleges

Antoinette Amos filed a notice of claim accusing former Buffalo Public Schools Superintendent Pascal Mubenga of a continuing pattern of workplace sexual harassment, sex-based discrimination, retaliation, and misuse of authority.

The filing separately accuses Board of Education member Lewis “Muki” Hawkins of unwanted conduct, threats, retaliation, and attempts to damage Amos’ professional reputation.

According to public reporting about the filing, Amos alleges that Mubenga repeatedly made unwanted sexual advances between December 2025 and July 2026. The notice alleges unwanted physical contact and other conduct Amos describes as forced and sexually explicit.

Amos also alleges that Hawkins made an unwanted advance and later retaliated after she rejected or reported the conduct. The filing accuses him of threatening her, spreading false claims about her personal relationships, and attempting to discredit her during board proceedings.

These are serious allegations, but they have not been proven in court.

A Notice of Claim Is Not a Court Finding

Some early reports described the filing as a lawsuit. More accurately, Amos filed a notice of claim against the Buffalo Board of Education and Mubenga.

Under New York law, a person seeking damages from certain public entities may first be required to notify the government body of the claim and provide an opportunity for review or examination before filing a formal civil lawsuit.

Amos’ attorney said a lawsuit was expected after the applicable waiting period. However, the notice itself does not establish liability, and no court has evaluated the evidence or issued findings.

That distinction matters because the notice presents Amos’ account of events. The district and the accused individuals may dispute the facts, challenge the legal claims, or present evidence that changes how the allegations are understood.

Mubenga Resigned and Hawkins Remains on the Board

Mubenga resigned as Buffalo’s superintendent on July 13, 2026, after serving for less than one year. The notice of claim became public several days later.

His resignation agreement reportedly waived a contractual requirement that he provide 90 days’ advance notice. Local reporting also indicated that his contract did not provide a severance payment or buyout connected to the departure.

The timing has raised questions, but the publicly available information does not establish why Mubenga resigned. It would be inappropriate to state that the allegations caused his departure unless verified documentation or a statement from the involved parties confirms that connection.

Hawkins remains a member of the Buffalo Board of Education. After the allegations became public, he denied wrongdoing, said the claims were unproven, and stated that he did not intend to resign.

The board had already announced that a member was under investigation for sexual-harassment allegations before the notice publicly identified Hawkins. Outside counsel was retained to conduct an independent review.

Amos Says the District Failed to Protect Her

The notice of claim does not focus only on the alleged conduct of Mubenga and Hawkins. It also questions how Buffalo Public Schools responded after Amos raised concerns.

According to the filing, Amos made internal complaints but did not receive adequate protection from continued harassment or retaliation. Her concerns were reportedly referred to human resources and outside legal counsel, but she alleges that meaningful protective action did not occur quickly enough.

Buffalo Public Schools has not provided a detailed public response, citing pending or potential litigation.

That limitation may be legally understandable because personnel confidentiality and active investigations restrict what a district can disclose. However, the claim raises an important institutional question: what happens when an employee reports misconduct involving both the superintendent and a sitting board member?

The ordinary reporting structure can become compromised when the people accused occupy some of the highest positions in the organization.

Senior-Leader Complaints Require an Independent Process

Most district employees report workplace concerns through a supervisor, human-resources office, Title IX coordinator, ethics officer, or other designated administrator.

That structure becomes more difficult when an allegation involves the superintendent, who oversees much of the administration, or a board member, who participates in governing the superintendent and the district.

A credible process should not require a complainant to depend on an official who reports directly or indirectly to the person accused.

District policy should therefore identify an independent route for complaints involving senior leadership. Depending on the circumstances, that may include outside counsel, an independent investigator, the board president, an ethics officer, a state agency, or another neutral authority.

The person receiving the complaint should also be free from personal, political, or professional conflicts that could undermine confidence in the investigation.

The board itself must address possible conflicts. Trustees may have relationships with the accused individuals, possess confidential information from executive sessions, or become witnesses regarding earlier reports and board discussions.

Members with direct involvement should not participate in decisions when their impartiality could reasonably be questioned. Written legal guidance may be necessary concerning recusals, document preservation, confidentiality, investigative authority, and public statements.

Retaliation Is a Separate Concern

Retaliation allegations deserve attention separate from the underlying harassment claim.

An organization may face legal exposure for punishing, threatening, isolating, discrediting, demoting, or otherwise disadvantaging a person because that individual reported misconduct or participated in an investigation in good faith.

According to Amos’ filing, Hawkins attempted to damage her reputation and professional position after the alleged unwanted conduct. The notice also alleges that the broader district response failed to protect her from retaliation.

Whether those allegations can be proven remains unresolved.

Retaliation is not limited to a formal termination or demotion. It may include exclusion from meetings, changes in duties, threats, damaging rumors, interference with professional relationships, or unusual scrutiny that begins after a complaint is made.

Not every workplace disagreement following a complaint is unlawful retaliation. Investigators must examine timing, intent, comparable treatment, documentation, and whether the action would discourage a reasonable employee from reporting misconduct.

Temporary Safeguards Can Protect Everyone

Temporary administrative measures can reduce the risk of continued contact, interference, or retaliation while an investigation proceeds.

Those measures may include paid leave, modified reporting relationships, no-contact instructions, remote work, reassignment, restricted access to records, or limits on participation in particular meetings.

Temporary safeguards should not be presented as findings of guilt.

Their purpose is to stabilize the workplace, protect the complainant and witnesses, preserve evidence, and prevent the accused person’s authority from affecting the investigation.

The appropriate response depends on the seriousness of the allegation, the authority held by the accused individual, the risk of continued contact, and the legal power of the district or board.

When a sitting board member is involved, legal counsel may need to determine which temporary restrictions can be imposed without violating election law, governance rules, or the member’s lawful authority.

What an Independent Investigation Should Examine

A credible investigation should determine what conduct allegedly occurred, when it occurred, who witnessed it, and when district or board officials first received notice.

Investigators should review emails, text messages, meeting records, human-resources complaints, board communications, security records when available, and other evidence relevant to the allegations.

The review should also examine the institutional response. Investigators should determine who received Amos’ complaints, what actions followed, whether protective measures were considered, whether retaliation concerns were investigated, and whether anyone attempted to delay, influence, or interfere with the process.

Records should be preserved, and the district should issue clear instructions prohibiting retaliation against Amos, witnesses, investigators, and employees who participate in good faith.

The final report should separate factual findings from legal conclusions. An investigator may determine whether evidence supports particular events, while a court or authorized agency may later decide whether those events violated employment, civil-rights, ethics, or other laws.

Board Scrutiny, State Attention, and Leadership Stability

The controversy has become part of a broader governance challenge for Buffalo Public Schools.

Buffalo Mayor Sean Ryan described the allegations and the district’s recent leadership turmoil as disturbing and called for greater transparency. Repeated superintendent turnover can disrupt long-term planning, employee relationships, school-improvement efforts, budgets, and accountability for previous decisions.

Leadership stability should never be preserved by ignoring credible misconduct allegations. At the same time, a district cannot operate effectively if repeated governance crises lead to constant transitions without addressing deeper structural problems.

Local officials and some board members also sought involvement from the New York State Education Department. State Education Commissioner Betty Rosa later advised that the board could temporarily leave a vacant seat unfilled while addressing the district’s turmoil. That authorization was not a state takeover or a finding related to the harassment allegations.

The board ultimately proceeded with filling the vacancy, saying the appointment process was already underway and that board leadership had communicated with the commissioner.

The dispute illustrates how one workplace complaint can expand into a broader crisis involving superintendent succession, board appointments, public trust, and the district’s relationship with state officials.

Transparency During an Investigation

Buffalo Public Schools has said it does not comment on pending or potential litigation.

That position may help the district avoid violating personnel privacy, influencing witnesses, or creating additional legal risk. However, the district can still provide procedural transparency without debating whether the allegations are true.

The public can reasonably be told whether an independent investigator has been retained, who has authority over the process, whether conflicts of interest have been addressed, what general safeguards are in place, and whether the board expects to release a summary after the investigation concludes.

The district does not need to release confidential witness statements or personnel records to explain that an independent and credible process exists.

When officials provide no procedural information, employees and families may conclude that little or nothing is happening.

Lessons for School Boards and District Leaders

Districts should establish complaint procedures designed specifically for allegations involving superintendents, board members, and other senior officials.

Those procedures should identify an independent reporting option, explain how investigators are selected, address conflicts of interest, and establish who can authorize temporary protective measures.

Boards should receive regular training on harassment, discrimination, retaliation, ethics, confidentiality, open-meetings requirements, and their responsibilities as public officials.

A district should never create the impression that senior leaders are subject to a lower standard than other employees. Greater authority creates a stronger need for oversight because senior officials may control careers, assignments, contracts, access to information, and the environment in which a complainant must continue working.

The organization should also evaluate more than whether one individual violated policy. It should determine whether the district’s structure discouraged reporting, delayed action, allowed retaliation, or made employees believe that complaints against powerful officials would not receive impartial review.

Key Takeaways

Buffalo Public Schools administrator Antoinette Amos filed a notice of claim accusing former Superintendent Pascal Mubenga of sexual harassment, discrimination, retaliation, and other workplace misconduct. The filing separately accuses Board of Education member Lewis “Muki” Hawkins of unwanted conduct, threats, retaliation, and efforts to damage Amos’ professional reputation.

The allegations have not been proven. Hawkins has denied wrongdoing and said he will remain on the board. Mubenga resigned before the notice became public, but available information does not establish that the filing caused his resignation.

The case raises broader questions about how districts investigate complaints involving senior leaders, protect employees from retaliation, manage board conflicts of interest, use temporary safeguards, and communicate responsibly without violating confidentiality.

Frequently Asked Questions

Has a lawsuit been filed?

The publicly reported filing is a notice of claim, which may be a required preliminary step before certain lawsuits against a New York public entity. Amos’ attorney said a formal lawsuit was expected after the applicable waiting period.

Have Mubenga or Hawkins been found liable?

No court finding establishing liability was identified as of publication. The allegations remain unresolved.

Why did Mubenga resign?

Mubenga resigned shortly before the allegations became public. The information reviewed for this article does not establish the reason for his departure.

Is Hawkins still serving on the Buffalo school board?

Yes. Hawkins has denied wrongdoing and said he does not intend to resign.

What has Buffalo Public Schools said?

The district has said it does not comment on pending or potential litigation. Outside counsel was retained to investigate allegations involving a board member.

Final Thoughts

The allegations involving Buffalo Public Schools are serious, but they remain allegations.

The legal process must determine whether Amos’ account is supported by the evidence and whether any person or institution violated the law.

The governance lesson is already visible.

Employees need reporting systems that remain credible when a complaint involves the superintendent, a board member, or another powerful official. They need protection from retaliation, access to an impartial investigator, and confidence that leadership status will not determine whether a complaint is taken seriously.

The accused individuals also deserve a process based on evidence rather than public pressure or assumption.

Those responsibilities are not in conflict. A well-designed investigation can protect the complainant, preserve due process, reduce retaliation, and produce findings the community can trust.

Buffalo Public Schools now faces the difficult task of demonstrating that its accountability systems can function when allegations reach the highest levels of district leadership.

Support New To Education

New To Education reports on educational law, school leadership, workplace accountability, public governance, and decisions affecting educators, students, families, and communities.

Readers can support this work by sharing the article, subscribing to New To Education updates, joining the community, or contributing thoughtful perspectives on how school systems can protect employees while preserving fair and independent investigations.

New York’s Education Oversight Debate: What Happened and Why It Matters
https://www.newtoeducation.com/view-blog/new-yorks-education-oversight-debate-what-happened-and-why-it-matters-6a2fd83a4782c

U.S. Department of Education Introduces New Accountability Rules for Colleges and Universities
https://www.newtoeducation.com/view-blog/us-department-of-education-introduces-new-accountability-rules-for-colleges-and-universities-6a44fd015ca2b