Anderson v. State of Ny, Office of Admin.
| Decision Date | 27 April 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. 07 Civ. 9599(SAS).,07 Civ. 9599(SAS). |
| Citation | 614 F.Supp.2d 404 |
| Parties | Christine C. ANDERSON, Plaintiff, v. The STATE OF NEW YORK, the OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATION OF the UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM, Thomas J. Cahill, in his official and individual capacity, Sherry K. Cohen, in her official and individual capacity, and David Spokony, in his official and individual capacity, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
John A. Beranbaum, Esq., Beranbaum Menken Ben-Asher & Bierman LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiff.
Lee A. Adlerstein, Wesley E. Bauman, Assistant Attorneys General, Attorney General for the State of New York, New York, NY, for Defendants.
Plaintiff Christine Anderson brings suit against defendants1 pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"),2 42 U.S.C. § 1981 ("section 1981"), 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("section 1983"), New York State Executive Law § 296, and state common law. Plaintiff claims, under both federal and state law, that she was unlawfully terminated and subjected to a hostile work environment because of her race (African American), color (black), and national origin (Jamaican).3 Plaintiff further claims that defendants: deprived her of the right to make and enforce contracts; unlawfully retaliated against her for having exercised her constitutional right to free speech; violated her Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection by discriminating against her; and that defendants NYS and OCA breached a state collective bargaining agreement. In her request for relief, plaintiff seeks, inter alia, money damages and the appointment of a federal monitor to oversee the day-to-day operations of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, First Judicial Department ("First Department"), Departmental Disciplinary Committee ("DDC"). Defendants move for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure seeking to dismiss this action in its entirety. For the following reasons, defendants' motion is granted in part and denied in part.
The DDC is a committee within the New York State Unified Court System responsible for investigating complaints and grievances against attorneys for alleged misconduct in the course of representing members of the public.4 On February 1, 2001, Anderson was hired as a Principal Attorney by the DDC to investigate claims of attorney misconduct.5 Defendant Thomas Cahill was Chief Counsel of the DDC while Anderson worked there.6 As head of the DDC, Cahill oversaw the work of the DDC and set policy in close coordination with the DDC Policy Committee, the governing body responsible for the overall functioning of the DDC.7 Defendant Sherry Cohen has worked at the DDC since 1993 and became First Deputy Chief Counsel in 2003.8 Cohen supervises the day-to-day operations of the DDC and reviews its legal work.9 Defendant David Spokony is the Deputy Clerk of the First Department Clerk's Office and is responsible for managing the day-to-day operations of the First Department's Clerk's Office.10
From early 2001 through early 2003, plaintiffs work was reviewed and supervised by her caseload supervisor, Judith Stein.11 Once Stein approved a recommendation made by plaintiff, it was sent to Cahill for his review and approval.12 After Cahill approved the recommendation, it was sent to the Policy Committee which would decide on the discipline to be imposed.13 In the Spring of 2003, Cohen assumed the position of First Deputy to Chief Counsel Cahill.14 Shortly thereafter, Cohen became Anderson's supervisor.15
Starting in 2005, Anderson made repeated complaints to Cahill and Cohen about the DDC's failure to vigorously prosecute complaints against attorneys accused of misconduct, particularly where the "respondents were either themselves politically connected or they had attorneys who used to work for us."16 Anderson expressed her concern about improper DDC practices in connection with at least nine cases in which she believed the DDC treated attorneys too leniently.17 It was one case in particular, the case of "H.," that permanently soured the relationship between Anderson and Cohen.
In September 2005, after a year-long investigation, Anderson completed a proposed report, recommending the admonition of H. for misrepresentation and commingling of client funds.18 Stein had approved Anderson's recommendation, as had Cahill after a paragraph was inserted at Cahill's request.19 H. was represented by a former staff attorney at the DDC. After reviewing Anderson's admonition memorandum, Cohen decided that it was too harsh and re-wrote it.20 Anderson told Cohen that it was improper to revise the memorandum to skew the end result and accused Cohen of trying to "whitewash" the case.21 Cohen, who was offended by Anderson's accusation, reported what Anderson said to Cahill.22 Cohen then re-wrote the memorandum, removing the most serious finding that H. made misrepresentations to the DDC and diluting the allegations of commingling.23 Cohen submitted the revised memorandum to the Policy Committee in May 2006.24
After the matter of H. concluded, issues continued to arise between Anderson and Cohen.25 One such incident involved the purchase of a paper shredder. Cohen thought that Anderson was planning to buy a paper shredder for the office without prior approval.26 Cohen raised her voice during a telephone conversation in which she forbade Anderson from making this purchase.27 The following Monday, July 24, 2006, Cohen entered Anderson's office and closed the door.28 Cohen resurrected the shredder issue and asked Anderson whether she had destroyed, or was planning to destroy, case documents.29 Anderson then got up and moved past Cohen toward the door so she could leave to meet with a complainant.30 Anderson claims that when she reached for the door handle, Cohen grabbed her hand, dug her nails into Anderson's wrist, and said: "You're not leaving this office."31 Anderson retreated to the far side of her desk and told Cohen that it would be best, for both of them, if Cohen left Anderson's office.32 After some hesitation, Cohen stated, "Now I am leaving your office," and slammed the door behind her.33 At her deposition, Cohen did not specifically recall whether there was any physical contact between them but conceded that their hands may have touched.34
After the July 2006 incident, Anderson asked Cahill to take disciplinary action against Cohen.35 When he failed to do so, Anderson met with former First Department Court Clerk Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe on August 8, 2006.36 At that meeting, Anderson gave Wolfe two written reports recounting the July incidents.37 Anderson told Wolfe that she did not want Cohen to continue as her supervisor, which she believed to be a reasonable request given the availability of Stein as a supervisor.38 Anderson informed Wolfe that Cohen's hostility stemmed from disagreements between Anderson and Cohen over the handling of some cases to the perceiyed detriment to complainants.39
At their meeting, Anderson verbally advised Wolfe that the DDC favored certain well-connected respondents and attorneys through lenient treatment otherwise known as "whitewashing," and that such whitewashing tarnished the mission of the DDC. Anderson told Wolfe that she previously complained to Cohen and Cahill about whitewashing in some cases.40 In particular, Anderson reported that a former DDC attorney, in her role as respondents' counsel, was trying to improperly influence the disposition of cases, acting as "one of the cogs in the wheel of trying to subvert the mission of our office ...."41 In sum, Anderson stressed to Wolfe that "complainants were not being served."42
Wolfe instructed Spokony to set up a fact-finding mediation panel consisting of Spokony and two other court managers, Sara Jo Hamilton and Pat Finnegan.43 On September 12, 2006, the panel interviewed Anderson and Cohen separately.44 Anderson told the panel of the July 2006 incident, complained about Cohen's temperament, and requested a different supervisor.45 Cohen also gave her account of the July 2006 incident and acknowledged that she was responsible for the unfortunate incident.46 After the interviews were conducted, and written input was submitted by the panel members, Spokony recommended that Cohen: (1) apologize to Anderson for raising her voice and for the physical contact in Anderson's office, and (2) attend a management skills course.47 Because Spokony found that the supervisor/subordinate relationship could be reestablished he rejected Anderson's request to have Cohen removed as her supervisor.48 Finally, Spokony concluded that Anderson's complaint did not raise an issue of class bias.49 In a letter to Anderson's former counsel, Wolfe stated that she accepted Spokony's findings and recommendations on September 28, 2006.50
Anderson appealed the Spokony Report to Presiding Justice John Buckley on the ground that the remedial measures suggested by Spokony—a mandated management skills course for Cohen and an apology to Anderson—were not commensurate with the gravity of Cohen's misconduct.51 In her Appeal, Anderson alleged that Cohen acted "out of bias toward [her] as a person of color and this is reflected in her dealings with persons of color, or those whom she regards as objectionable, for example, persons she regards as overweight."52 In a letter dated October 24, 2006, Justice Buckley affirmed the Spokony Report,53 finding "that the recommendations set forth in the report are proportionate to the complaint and appropriate to restore a professional relationship between Ms. Anderson, the subordinate, and Ms. Cohen, the supervisor."54 With regard to race discrimination, Justice Buckley found "no evidence in either Ms. Anderson's account of Ms....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Trivedi v. N.Y.S. Unified Court Sys. Office of Court Admin.
...Amendment. (R & R 734) (citing Gollomp v. Spitzer, 568 F.3d 355, 365–68 (2d Cir.2009); Anderson v. State of N.Y., Office of Ct. Admin. of Unified Ct. Sys., 614 F.Supp.2d 404, 426 (S.D.N.Y.2009).) Magistrate Judge Maas then found that Plaintiffs' claims did not qualify for either of the two ......
-
Pietri v. N.Y.S. Office of Court Admin.
...1983 was not intended to override a state's sovereign immunity.” (internal citations omitted)); see also Anderson v. State of New York, et. al., 614 F.Supp.2d 404, 426 (S.D.N.Y.2009) (holding that the “[plaintiffs] section 1983 claim must be dismissed against the governmental entity defenda......
-
Carmody v. Village of Rockville Centre
...12 F.3d 332, 342 (2d Cir.1993) ("The second element, the employer's motivation, presents a question of fact."); Anderson v. New York, 614 F.Supp.2d 404, 430 (S.D.N.Y.2009) (denying summary judgment where there was a question of fact "as to whether plaintiff [had] shown a causal connection b......
-
Hagan v. City of N.Y.
...275 (S.D.N.Y.2007) (more than two or three months is too long) (collecting cases), with Anderson v. State of N.Y., Office of Court Admin. of Unified Court Sys., 614 F.Supp.2d 404, 430 (S.D.N.Y.2009) (“substantial authority holding that a period between five and six months is sufficient”) (c......