Baker v. MTA Bus Co.
| Docket Number | 18-CV-12231 (TMR) |
| Decision Date | 18 July 2023 |
| Parties | NEDGRA D. BAKER, Plaintiff, v. MTA BUS COMPANY, ROBERT “BUTCH” MILLER, YONETTE DUKE AND SUZETTE POME, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Alejandro Carvajal and Arian Soroush, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, of New York, N.Y., argued for plaintiff Nedgra D Baker. Also on the brief was Matthias Thompson.
Gabriella Palencia, MTA Bus Company, of New York, N.Y., argued for defendants MTA Bus Company, Robert “Butch” Miller, Yonette Duke and Suzette Pome.
TIMOTHY M. REIF, Judge, United States Court of International Trade, Sitting by Designation:
Nedgra D. Baker (“plaintiff”) brings the instant action against Robert “Butch” Miller (“Miller”), Yonette Duke (“Duke”), Suzette Pome (“Pome”) (collectively, the “individual defendants”) and MTA Bus Company (“MTA Bus”) (collectively, “defendants”), alleging claims of discrimination based on race, retaliation, failure to accommodate and a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000-e et seq.; 42 U.S.C. § 1981; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Rehabilitation Act”), 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.; the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.; the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”), N.Y. Exec. L. § 290 et seq.; and the New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”), N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-101 et seq. See Emp. Discrimination Compl. (“Compl.”), ECF No. 2.
Pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”), defendants move for summary judgment as to each of plaintiff's claims. See Not. of Defs.' Summ. J. Mot. (With R. 56.1 Statement), ECF No. 70; Defs.' Mem. in Supp. of Their Mot. for Summ. J. Dismissing the Compl. (“Defs. Br.”), ECF No. 71; Defs.' Reply in Supp. of Their Mot. for Summ. J. Dismissing the Compl. (“Defs. Reply Br.”), ECF No. 67. Plaintiff opposes defendants' motion. See Mem. in Opp'n to Defs.' Mot. for Summ. J. (“Pl. Br.”), ECF No. 64.
For the reasons discussed below, defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Plaintiff, a Black man, began working for MTA Bus as a Bus Operator (“BO”) in 1998. See Defs.' Statement of Facts Pursuant to Local R. 56.1 (“SMF”) ¶ 1, ECF No. 70; Pl.'s Resp. to Defs.' Statement of Undisputed Facts (“RSMF”) ¶ 1, ECF No. 63; Decl. of Matthias Thompson (“Thompson Decl.”), Ex. 1 at 15:03-15, ECF No. 65; Decl. of Gabriella Palencia (“Palencia Decl.”), Ex. D, ECF No. 72. Plaintiff worked for 14 years as a BO at the JFK Depot, see SMF ¶ 1; RSMF ¶ 1, which plaintiff describes as one of eight bus depots that MTA Bus operates in Queens, New York. See Pl. Br. at 3 n.3; Thompson Decl., Ex. 3 at 15:19-16:18; Pl.'s Statement of Add'l Material Facts (“SAMF”) ¶ 1, ECF No. 63.
Defendants Miller, Duke and Pome “held managerial roles at the JFK Depot during [plaintiff's] employment.” SAMF ¶ 3. Miller served as the Assistant General Manager (“AGM”) of the JFK Depot “at all relevant times” with respect to the instant action. Id. Duke served as the General Superintendent of Transportation (“GST”) of the JFK Depot starting in March 2014, see id.; Thompson Decl., Ex. 5 at 20:18-25, and Pome served as the GST of the JFK Depot starting in October 2015. See Palencia Decl., Ex. G at 11:19-25, 14:22-15:13.
Plaintiff describes each bus depot that MTA Bus operates as being organized hierarchically. See SAMF ¶¶ 2-3; Pl. Br. at 3 n.3. BOs are managed by Surface Line Dispatchers (“SLDs”), who report to General Superintendents (“GSs”). SAMF ¶ 2 (citing Thompson Decl., Ex. 2 at 17:25-19:22). GSs, including GSTs, are managed by AGMs, who report to the General Manager (“GM”). Id.
The responsibilities of the SLD position consist of “supervising [BOs], scheduling and assigning [BO] driving shifts or ‘runs,' being on the road to monitor service and investigate incidents, [and] entering timekeeping, time off and medical information” in the Unified Time Keeping system (“UTS”). SMF ¶ 8; RSMF ¶ 8. In addition, “[m]ost” SLDs are promoted from the BO position. SMF ¶ 9; RSMF ¶ 9.
Newly promoted SLDs are required to demonstrate their performance in a “probationary period,” during which “managers can evaluate the probationary SLD and determine whether [the probationary SLD] can perform the SLD job functions successfully.” SMF ¶ 16; RSMF ¶ 16. Pursuant to MTA Bus policy, the probationary period that accompanies an employee's promotion to a new position lasts six months but can be terminated prematurely “either by decision of the employer or by choice of the employee.” Palencia Decl., Ex. I; See SMF ¶ 23; RSMF ¶ 23. Further, a probationary period can be extended by up to an additional six months. See Palencia Decl., Ex. I; id., Ex. C at 44:25-45:06. With respect to the decision to extend or terminate an employee's probationary period, the GST of the MTA Bus depot at which the employee works “makes [a] recommendation which is later reviewed by the depot's AGM and Zerega.”[1] SMF ¶ 24; RSMF ¶ 24. This decision is based on the “probationary SLD's violations or infractions during the probationary period.” SMF ¶ 25; RSMF ¶ 25.
At the JFK Depot, the GST “schedules probationary SLD training,” and “senior” SLDs “are ‘shadowed' by the probationary [SLDs].” SMF ¶ 15; RSMF ¶ 15. Probationary SLDs are evaluated at intervals during their probationary periods and may be counseled or receive “counselings” from the GST. SMF ¶¶ 19-20; RSMF ¶¶ 19-20. Counselings are “managerial decisions issued by the GST at his/her discretion, based on [the GST's] experience and training at MTA Bus,” that address “infractions or violations” of MTA Bus policy by a probationary SLD and may also contain recommended “corrective actions [that] the [probationary] SLD can take.”
SMF ¶¶ 20, 22; RSMF ¶¶ 20, 22. Plaintiff states that counselings “are expected to . . . specify[] a given rule violation or the specific nature of the alleged unsatisfactory performance.” RSMF ¶ 19 (citing Thompson Decl., Ex. 2 at 65:16-67:12).
In 2012, plaintiff attained a score on an examination that placed him on the SLD promotion list of MTA Bus. SMF ¶ 4; RSMF ¶ 4. In October 2014, the management of the JFK Depot, including defendant Miller, evaluated and recommended plaintiff for a promotion to a vacant SLD position. SMF ¶ 6; RSMF ¶ 6 (citing Thompson Decl., Ex. 20).
Plaintiff's first probationary period started on October 6, 2014. See SMF ¶ 10; RSMF ¶ 10; Palencia Decl. ¶ 6. During plaintiff's first probationary period, Miller served as the AGM and defendant Duke served as the GST of the JFK Depot. SAMF ¶ 3. During plaintiff's first probationary period, [Redacted] SMF ¶ 27; RSMF ¶ 27; See Palencia Decl., Ex. K. On January 9, 2015, Duke extended plaintiff's first probationary period by up to an additional six months in view of plaintiff's [Redacted]. See SMF ¶ 28; RSMF ¶ 28; Palencia Decl., Exs. I, K; id., Ex. C at 48:10-19 (). Duke provided notice to Miller of the decision to extend plaintiff's first probationary period. See Palencia Decl., Ex. K.
On March 20, 2015, plaintiff was informed that his probationary period would be terminated. See Palencia Decl., Ex. L. Miller provided plaintiff with the opportunity to resign from his position so that plaintiff “could have another opportunity to apply to an SLD promotion” at a later point. SMF ¶ 31. Defendants note that plaintiff “begrudgingly agreed, submitted his resignation, and went back to his [BO] position.” Id. Plaintiff describes the circumstances of his purportedly “voluntary” demotion as involving an underlying “condition of ‘duress.'” RSMF ¶ 31 (citing Thompson Decl., Ex. 24).
On April 22, 2015, following his “demotion” to the BO position, plaintiff filed an internal complaint that was assigned to the Office of Special Investigations and Security (“SIS”) of MTA Bus. See SMF ¶¶ 32-33; RSMF ¶¶ 32-33; Palencia Decl., Exs. N, O. Lora Hinds (“Hinds”) and Rehan Munsif (“Munsif”), MTA Bus employees who were promoted to the SLD position at approximately the same time as plaintiff, and whose probationary periods were terminated at approximately the same time, also filed internal complaints. See SMF ¶ 32; RSMF ¶ 32; Palencia Decl., Ex. F. Plaintiff's internal complaint addressed the alleged inadequacy of SLD training at the JFK Depot, which, according to plaintiff, had resulted in his “demotion.” SMF ¶¶ 33, 35; RSMF ¶¶ 33, 35; See Palencia Decl., Exs. N, O. SIS investigated the adequacy of the training that plaintiff and the other complainants had received but did not investigate whether the “complainants' probationary performance [had] warranted a demotion.” SMF ¶ 33; RSMF ¶ 33.
On June 17, 2016, SIS issued a report concluding that a disproportionate number of probationary SLDs at the JFK Depot had not been promoted to permanent positions. SMF ¶ 34; RSMF ¶ 34. Further, SIS recommended that the complainants be provided with another opportunity to serve as probationary SLDs at the JFK Depot. SMF ¶ 34; RSMF ¶ 34; See Palencia Decl., Ex. O. In accordance with this recommendation, plaintiff was “promoted to [the] probationary SLD” position for a second time in August 2016. SMF ¶ 36; RSMF ¶ 36; See Thompson Decl., Ex. 26.
Plaintiff's second probationary...
To continue reading
Request your trial