Allman v. New York State Dep't of Corr. Servs.
| Decision Date | 16 August 2011 |
| Docket Number | Index No. 103176/2010 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the Application of CRYSTAL ALLMAN, Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, RUDOLPH JEFFREY, and JOSEPH WILLIAMS, Defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
BACKGROUND
As defendants have moved to dismiss under CPLR 3211, the Court accepts plaintiff's recitation of the facts as true. See Weisen v. New York University, 304 A.D.2d 459, 460, 758 N.Y.S.2d 51, 52 (1st Dept. 2003). Below is an account of the facts as alleged in plaintiff's complaint, as supplemented by the papers currently before the Court.
Plaintiff Crystal Allman worked as a correctional counselor at the Lincoln Correctional Facility ("Lincoln") of the New York State Department of Correctional Services ("DOCS") from approximately September 28, 1995 until January 26, 2009. Defendants Rudolph Jeffrey and Joseph Williams, the deputy superintendent and superintendent at Lincoln, respectively, were plaintiff's supervisors at that time. Plaintiff, a correctional counselor, was a liaison with Lincoln inmates who were in the Work Release Program. Among other things, she verified their work information as part of her job. In November 2007, she reported alleged violations of the Work Release Program's policies andprocedures to Jeffrey and Williams. In particular, she told them that at least three DOCS employees were allowing inmates to submit fraudulent time cards and receive payments for hours they had not worked. In response to plaintiff's report, staff and inmates allegedly began calling her a whistleblower and a snitch. Plaintiff also informed her supervisors that she would report the alleged violations to the State Inspector General, who investigates internal DOCS complaints. Days after she spoke with her supervisors, Defendant Jeffrey wrote plaintiff up for an incident in which she allegedly slammed a door. The Inspector General ultimately ruled that plaintiff's claim about the violations lacked merit.
In addition, the complaint describes plaintiff's alleged disability and defendants' alleged failures to accommodate her. Plaintiff claims DOCS required her to type her written synopses of her reviews of the guidance unit standards.1 Allegedly as a result of the typing, plaintiff developed right shoulder pain and hand numbness. Around March 10, 2008 plaintiff received a diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome. Her doctor gave her permission to work with limited duty and with no repetitive use of either hand. Around April 7, 2008, plaintiff provided documentation of her diagnosis to defendants and requested special equipment that would accommodate her carpal tunnel. Defendant instead informed plaintiff the documentation was incomplete and asked her to resubmit it with additional materials. After plaintiff did so, around April 17, defendant Williams placed plaintiff on medical leave. Plaintiff asserts she was forced to leave because of her disability. Upon William's advice, plaintiff submitted a sick leave pay request, which was approved aroundMay 2008.
Plaintiff returned to work at Lincoln around July 27, 2008, but her condition worsened. On August 22, 2008, plaintiff requested further medical leave. The same day, Lincoln denied the request by letter. The letter indicated her request was submitted late and did not include a diagnosis. Plaintiff was absent from work at Lincoln from August 22, 2008, to October 1, 2008, during which time Lincoln placed her on leave without pay. When plaintiff returned to work, she filed a successful grievance requesting retroactive half-pay sick leave for the period she missed.
During the relevant period, plaintiff also worked as a registered nurse at Bronx-Lebanon Hospital Center ("Bronx-Lebanon"). DOCS required employees to get approval for second jobs. Prior to working at Bronx-Lebanon, plaintiff had sought and received approval for a previous position. She alleges that she did not seek approval for her job at Bronx-Lebanon because she was unaware that DOCS, having approved her once, required her to get approval for the new job. Around October 15, 2008, defendant Williams asked plaintiff if she still worked at her original second job or worked elsewhere. Plaintiff told him about her job at Bronx-Lebanon, where she worked Saturday and Sunday, bimonthly, from 8:00 pm to 8:30 am each of the two days. Defendant Williams then emailed Investigator Cho of the Inspector General's Office, requesting that the office investigate whether plaintiff had worked without permission during her absences.
Shortly after defendant Williams' and Investigator Cho's correspondence regarding plaintiff's secondary employment, plaintiff attended an employee in-service program where she encountered a former male co-worker. Two years earlier, the co-worker had sentplaintiff pictures of himself exposed. When she saw him at the program, plaintiff became upset and left the meeting. She then asked her supervisor for permission to be excused from the program for personal reasons. The supervisor ordered her to detail the incident in writing. Her supervisors informed her that they would forward her written statement to the Office of Diversity Management for investigation. Plaintiff claims that when she called the Office around January 14, 2009, the Office had not received her complaint.
On January 21, 2009, inspector Cho questioned plaintiff about her carpal tunnel syndrome and her job at Bronx-Lebanon. On January 26, 2009, after the investigation, plaintiff received a Notice of Discipline ("NOD") pursuant to the Disciplinary Procedure, Article 33 of the Agreement between the State of New York and the Public Employees Federation. The NOD recommended dismissal from service and loss of any accrued annual leave. The NOD concluded that: 1) on two occasions, plaintiff was absent from duty without authorization; 2) from April to October 2008, plaintiff submitted false documents in support of her absences; 3) plaintiff wrongfully obtained sick leave benefits totaling $16,787.20; 4) plaintiff engaged in outside employment at Bronx-Lebanon without the requisite approval; 5) plaintiff's secondary employment exceeded the maximum twenty weekly hours; and 6) plaintiff made false and misleading statements to Investigator Cho during his investigation.
Pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement between DOCS and The Public Employees Federation, the parties arbitrated plaintiff's job-related grievances, including her allegedly retaliatory termination. Plaintiff, represented by her union, and DOCS presented evidence at a hearing before Richard Graba of the American Arbitration Association. OnMay 18, 2010, Arbitrator Graba issued a decision in which he recommended plaintiff's termination and loss of leave accrual. Mr. Graba determined that: 1) DOCS had probable cause to suspend plaintiff without pay on January 22, 2009; 2) plaintiff engaged in outside employment at Bronx-Lebanon without authorization; 3) plaintiff falsely reported her employment dates; 4) plaintiff exceeded the permitted twenty hours of work; and 5) DOCS served plaintiff the NOD for just cause. Mr. Graba also found in favor of plaintiff on several issues, including that she was not absent from duty without authorization, that she did not submit false documents to support her absences, and that she was entitled to sick leave benefits.
On March 10, 2010, prior to the arbitrator's decision and after she received a Right to Sue letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, plaintiff commenced this action, asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. ("Title VII"); Title I and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"); 42 U.S.C. § 1983; The New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Executive Law §§ 290 et seq. ("State Human Rights Law"); New York State Executive Law § 55; and The New York City Human Rights Law, Administrative Code Title 8 ("City Human Rights Law"). In particular, plaintiff's first cause of action asserts that DOCS violated Title I and II of the ADA, the State Human Rights Law, and the City Human Rights Law; her second cause of action states that DOCS retaliated against her for reporting sexual harassment; the third cause of action, against the individual defendants, alleges that they participated in the discrimination; and the fourth cause of action rests on an alleged violation of plaintiff's First Amendment right to speak on matters of public concern.
Now, defendants move to dismiss on the grounds that 1) jurisdictional issues bar plaintiff's City Human Rights Law causes of action; 2) the portion of plaintiff's first cause of action that is based on the ADA is barred as a matter of law; 3) plaintiff fails to state a First Amendment retaliation cause of action; 4) plaintiff fails to state a cause of action for a hostile work environment under the State Human Rights Law; and 5) plaintiff's State Human Rights Law and Title VII claims fail based on documentary evidence. Plaintiff opposes the motion and cross-moves to amend her complaint to add a fifth cause of action, asserting a First Amendment retaliation claim for her whistleblower activities. She concedes that her City Human Rights Law causes of action must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and contends that she did not bring a claim for hostile work environment.2 On the other hand, she claims that she has viable causes of action under the ADA, the First Amendment, the State Human Rights Law and the Whistleblower Act. As plaintiff withdraws her New York City Human Rights Law causes of action and states there is no hostile work environment claim, only the second, third and fifth of defendants' arguments are relevant. For the reasons below, the Court partially grants and partially denies defendants' motion and denies plaintiff's cross-motion.
Initially the Court notes that the parties' arguments muddle some of the issues. For example, in...
To continue reading
Request your trial