Arroyo-Horne v. City of N.Y.
| Decision Date | 05 September 2018 |
| Docket Number | 16-CV-03857 (MKB) |
| Parties | MONICA ARROYO-HORNE, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Plaintiff Monica Arroyo-Horne, proceeding pro se, commenced the above-captioned action on July 7, 2016, against Defendants the New York City Police Department (the "NYPD"), and individual Defendants Robin Goodman, Norman Grandstaff, Monique Morgan, Diane Harnach, Dave Holloway, Al Jernigan, and Jean Jason.1 (Compl., Docket Entry No. 1.) Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on March 10, 2017, against Defendant City of New York asserting claims of racial discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. ("Title VII"), (, interference and retaliation in violation of the Family Medical Leave Act, 29 USC § 2601 et seq. ("FMLA"), (id. ¶¶ 28-48), and a claim of municipal liability pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, (id. ¶¶ 51-52). Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages, costs, and injunctive relief. (Id. ¶ 53.)
Defendant moves to dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b) of theFederal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (Def. Mot. to Dismiss ("Def. Mot."), Docket Entry No. 23; Def. Mem. in Supp. of Def. Mot. ("Def. Mem."), Docket Entry No. 24.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Defendant's motion and dismisses the Amended Complaint, but grants Plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint within thirty (30) days of this Memorandum and Order.
The Court assumes the truth of the factual allegations in the Amended Complaint for the purposes of this Memorandum and Order. Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court also considers and assumes the truth of Plaintiff's opposition papers and the subsequent letter2 submitted in support of the Amended Complaint.3
Plaintiff, who identifies as "Afroamerican," is employed by the NYPD as a Police Administrative Aide ("PAA") at the 69th Precinct in Brooklyn, New York. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 7-12.) The NYPD appointed Plaintiff as a PAA on or about March 13, 2000, and transferred her tothe 69th Precinct on October 1, 2009. (Id. ¶ 12.) Since February of 2011, Plaintiff has been working under Principal Administrative Aide ("PRAA") Robin Goodman and Senior Police Administrative Aide Al Jernigan ("SPAA"). (Id. ¶ 16.) More recently, another SPAA, Jean Jason, has also been supervising Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 50.)
Plaintiff made several complaints on unspecified dates to PRAA Goodman about her co-worker PAA Monique Morgan. According to Plaintiff, Morgan threatened her, incited arguments, and failed to do her assigned work, which often caused Plaintiff to have to complete Morgan's work in addition to her own work. (Id. ¶¶ 16-19.) Morgan spent time speaking with Goodman instead of completing her work. (Id. ¶ 16.) On July 1, 2014, Morgan "began yelling" at Plaintiff, telling her "to take a Domestic Incident Report." (Id. ¶ 18.) Plaintiff reported this incident to Goodman, but Goodman did not discipline Morgan and instead changed Morgan's work assignment. (Id. ¶ 19.) Morgan was reassigned to the "Roll Call office" but still worked the same hours as Plaintiff. (Id.)
On November 1, 2014, Captain Norman Grandstaff changed Plaintiff's schedule to prevent her from having to work with Morgan. Although Grandstaff threatened to make Plaintiff come into work at 4:00 AM, he ultimately changed Plaintiff's schedule to 6:30 AM to 2:30 PM, Sunday through Thursday. (Id. ¶ 17.) Plaintiff alleges that her superiors altered her schedule in retaliation for her complaints regarding Morgan. (Id.) Because of the schedule change, Plaintiff had to arrange a caretaker for her mother and walk through her "high-crime" neighborhood during the dark early morning hours. (Id.) However, the change in schedule did not prevent Morgan from being in the building at the same time as Plaintiff. (Id.)
On unspecified dates between October 1, 2009 and March 8, 2017, while employed at the 69th Precinct, Plaintiff made several transfer requests and requests to be considered for available positions for which she was qualified. (Id. ¶¶ 13, 42.) Plaintiff's superiors did not select Plaintiff for positions available in the Domestic Violence Unit, Administrative Lieutenants Office, and Payroll Department. (Id.; Pl. Opp'n to Def. Mot. ("Pl. Opp'n") 2, Docket Entry No. 30.) The positions in the Domestic Violence Unit and Administrative Lieutenants Office "offered objectively preferred benefits such as flex time," which would have afforded Plaintiff more flexibility to enable her to take care of her mother. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 13, 42.) The position in the Payroll Department offered an increase in salary. (Pl. Opp'n 2.) Plaintiff does not allege who received the positions in the Domestic Violence Unit or Payroll Department, but PAA Xiao Hung, who is of Asian descent, received the position in the Administrative Lieutenants Office. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 13, 42.)
Throughout her time at the 69th Precinct, Plaintiff's applications for overtime to "cover her FMLA," were denied while other PAAs were allowed overtime. (Id. ¶¶ 23-24.) "[O]n several occasion[s]," Plaintiff's requests for overtime compensation were denied even though she had worked beyond her scheduled hours. (Id. ¶ 24.) Plaintiff was told that she could not perform overtime in her "immediate assigned work office" but she observed co-workers working overtime in their "immediate assigned office(s)." (Id.)
On November 1, 2014, the day Plaintiff's schedule was changed, Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC alleging "among other things, that the denial of her requests for transfer of assignment constituted retaliation and discrimination based on her doctor[']sevaluation of her psychological and physical disability history."4 (Id. ¶ 14.)
Plaintiff also filed charges with the EEOC on March 4, 2016 and September 9, 2016, and received right-to-sue letters on April 8, 2016 and April 20, 2017, respectively.5 (Mem. in Opp'n to Defs. Mot. 1-2 ("Pl. Opp'n"), Docket Entry No. 30.) Plaintiff's March 4, 2016 EEOC complaint "charg[ed] NYPD, New York City, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983." (Id.) Plaintiff does not specify the claims in the September 9, 2016 EEOC charge.
On May 6, 2015, Plaintiff asked SPAA Jernigan for a form to request time off from work on Mother's Day, Sunday, May 10, 2015. (Id. ¶ 21.) Jernigan gave Plaintiff the required "tour change request" form and told Plaintiff that he did not see any reason why Plaintiff's change of schedule would affect the "work flow" because there was a "full staff." (Id.) Plaintiff completed and submitted the form but Jernigan returned the form to Plaintiff requesting that she note that she would work on May 8, 2015 in lieu of May 10, 2015.6 (Id.) Plaintiff made these changes and returned it to another supervisor. (Id.)
On May 18, 2015, Sergeant Quigg informed Plaintiff that she would receive four command disciplines from Grandstaff for: (1) removing a locker from her immediate workoffice, (2) remaining on the premises of the Precinct after the end of her scheduled tour, (3) defacing city property, and (4) being absent from work on Mother's Day. (Id. ¶ 20.) Plaintiff alleges that the reprimands were unfounded and motivated by her race and by retaliation. (Id.) According to Plaintiff, she never removed a locker from her office, was often delayed leaving work because of work related reasons, adhered to the 69th Precinct's custom of labeling office equipment, and received advance verbal approval for her absence on Mother's Day. (Id.)
At an unspecified time while assigned to the 69th Precinct, SPAA Jason also issued command disciplines to Plaintiff and recommended that she lose vacation days for "allegedly failing to type a complaint." (Id. ¶ 50.) Jason, who Plaintiff alleges is "Caribbean," did not "give the command disciplines to the PAA[s] responsible for the delay in inputting the complaint because of their race (Caucasian)." (Id.) Plaintiff also alleges that Jason has overlooked mistakes made by other employees. (Id.)
Plaintiff filed a charge with the New York State Division of Human Rights ("NYSDHR") on April 23, 2003, alleging that she had been transferred in retaliation for a previous charge of discrimination.7 (Am. Compl. ¶ 12.) On July 7, 2016, Plaintiff filed a second charge with the NYSDHR alleging age and race discrimination, harassment, and retaliation by the 69th Precinct for having previously filed NYSDHR charges while assigned to the 69th Precinct. (Id. ¶ 10.) In the July 7, 2016 charge, Plaintiff asserted that an unnamed supervisor "showed favoritismtowards a co-worker," someone with whom Plaintiff had "personal disputes." (Id.)
In December of 2014, Plaintiff submitted a FMLA application requesting leave to care for her mother who suffers from Alzheimer's Disease and had previously suffered a stroke. (Id. ¶ 28.) Goodman, aware of Plaintiff's hardship, informed Plaintiff that the application had been lost and needed to be resubmitted. (Id. ¶ 29.) Plaintiff does not indicate whether she resubmitted the application. (Id.)
In April of 2016, Plaintiff learned that SPAA Winifred Cudjoe called the FMLA Unit with questions concerning Plaintiff's prior FMLA application. (Id. ¶ 30.)
On May 2, 2016, Plaintiff submitted another FMLA application requesting leave, but the 69th Precinct returned the application because Plaintiff's doctor failed to correctly complete the document. (Id. ¶ 43.) On May 4, 2016, Plaintiff resubmitted the...
To continue reading
Request your trial