Batchelor v. City of N.Y.
| Decision Date | 31 March 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 11–CV–2058 MKB.,11–CV–2058 MKB. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
| Parties | Gamien BATCHELOR, Plaintiff, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, New York City Department of Correction, Commissioner Dora Shiro, Assistant Commissioner Richard R. White, Director Dennis Wall, Deputy Director Alexis Castillo and Chief of Department Larry Davis, Sr., Defendants. |
Dominick Peter Revellino, Cronin & Byczek, LLP, Lake Success, NY, Linda Cronin, Moshe C. Bobker, Susan P. Bernstein, Cronin & Byczek LLP, New Hyde Park, NY, for Plaintiff.
Damion Kenneth Lee Stodola, City of New York, Law Department, Daniel Chiu, Michael A. Cardozo Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, Donna A. Canfield, NYC Law Department, New York, NY, for Defendants.
Plaintiff Gamien Batchelor brings the above-captioned action against Defendants City of New York, New York City Department of Correction (“DOC”), DOC Commissioner Dora Shiro, Assistant Commissioner Richard R. White, Director Dennis Wall, Deputy Director Alexis Castillo and Chief of Department Larry Davis, Sr., alleging claims of race and gender discrimination, retaliation and creation of a hostile work environment pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”), the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law § 290 et seq. (“NYSHRL”), the New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8–101 et seq. (“NYCHRL”), and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and § 1981. Defendants moved for summary judgment as to all claims. (Docket Entry No. 36.) On October 16, 2013, the Court referred the motion to Magistrate Judge Vera M. Scanlon for a report and recommendation. On February 16, 2014, Judge Scanlon issued a report and recommendation (“R & R”), recommending that the Court (1) dismiss all of Plaintiff's claims against DOC, (2) grant Plaintiff's request to withdraw her § 1983 claims, (3) dismiss Plaintiff's § 1981 gender discrimination claims, (4) dismiss Plaintiff's § 1981, NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims against Defendant Schiro in her individual capacity, (5) grant Defendants' summary judgment motion as to Plaintiff's federal, state and city race and gender discrimination claims as to the preferential allocation of vacation and holiday allegations during her employment at the Investigations Division, (6) deny Defendants' summary judgment motion as to Plaintiff's federal, state and city race and gender discrimination claims as to specialty-pay denial, (7) grant Defendants' summary judgment motion as to Plaintiff's federal, state and city law race and gender discrimination claims as to her transfer from the Investigations Division to the North Infirmary Command, (8) grant Defendants' summary judgment motion as to Plaintiff's federal, state and city law gender discrimination claims relating to various employment actions taken against her during her time at the North Infirmary Command and the Anna M. Kross Center, (9) grant Defendants' summary judgment motion as to Plaintiff's federal, state and city law hostile work environment claims stemming from her time at the North Infirmary Command and the Anna M. Kross Center, and (10) grant Defendants' summary judgment motion as to Plaintiff's federal, state and city law retaliation claims. (Docket Entry No. 45.) Plaintiff timely filed objections. (Docket Entry No. 48.) Defendants did not file objections. For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts Judge Scanlon's R & R in its entirety.
The facts and procedural history of this action are set forth in detail in the R & R and are repeated here as necessary to provide context for the Court's decision.
Plaintiff is an African–American woman who is currently employed as a captain with the DOC. Plaintiff began working with DOC as a corrections officer in 2001, and was stationed at the North Infirmary Unit (“NIC”) from 2005 through 2007. (Pl. Ex. A, Affidavit of Gamien Batchelor (“Batchelor Aff.”) ¶ 1; Pl. Dep. 21:25–22:5.) Plaintiff was appointed to the rank of captain on January 19, 2007, and in December 2007 applied for a transfer to work in the Investigation Division (“ID”). The parties dispute what criteria were used by the ID in selecting captains. According to Plaintiff, one of the factors was a DOC-wide “promotions list” number that is assigned to each employee and is designed to represent that employee's seniority. (Pl. Dep. 29:17–24.) Plaintiff contends that another factor was the applicant's score on a citywide administration test. (Pl. Ex. D, Affidavit of Robin Franklin (“Franklin Aff.”) ¶ 7.) Plaintiff was interviewed in part by Richard White, a Deputy Commissioner in the ID, and Wall, a Deputy Director in the ID. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 5; Pl. 56.1 ¶ 5.) Plaintiff and another individual, Nathan Bialek, were both selected to work as captains in the ID on February 29, 2008. (Pl. Ex. C.)
Plaintiff began working in the ID on March 7, 2008, (Def. 56.1 ¶ 2; Pl. 56.1 ¶ 2), where she was responsible for supervising investigators and keeping track of the status of investigations, (Def. Ex. C, Deposition of Richard White (“White Dep.”) 17:5–7). According to White, Plaintiff was a “fair” captain who “had a lot to learn.” (Id. at 16:24–17:4.) Plaintiff “had some difficulties making the adjustments to the division,” but after she worked on some of her difficulties “under the supervision of her deputy directors,” and “staff supervisors,” White did not recall “any subsequent issues.” (Id. at 17:4–15.) According to Wall, Plaintiff had “difficulty managing case loads,” presented inadequate verbal reports at monthly supervisor's meetings, and in particular had problems presenting the statistics on her cases and could not answer questions about specific cases. (Def. Ex. F and Pl. Ex. D, Deposition of Dennis Wall (“Wall Dep.”) 17:18–24, 19:22–23, 20:3–6.) Wall never told Plaintiff about her performance problems, nor did he note her challenges in any written records or reports. (Id. at 20:14–21:17.) Wall believed Plaintiff's inadequacies were “quite obvious at the meetings.” (Id. at 20:14–21:17.)
At an unspecified time, Wall placed Plaintiff on Temporary Duty (“TDY”) status because of her inadequate performance. (Id. at 35:13–25.) According to White, the factors that would be taken into account when deciding who would be assigned to a permanent position and who would be assigned to TDY status were “prior experience within the division, ... prior experience within the agency, [and] any courses or knowledge or training you had received within the agency.” (White Dep. 28:14–29:10.) DOC policy document on Temporary Duty Assignments states that “Temporary Duty Personnel are full duty personnel temporarily assigned from their parent command to another Facility / Division / Unit for a short term assignment.” (Pl. Ex. I at 1.) A TDY assignment required a TDY Request/Extension Form with the reason for the appointment and the length of the assignment. (Id. ) The TDY assignments are for a duration of no more than 90 days, which could be extended if requested in writing. (Id. ) Wall did not tell Plaintiff that he was placing her on TDY status, and does not recall why he did not tell Plaintiff. (Wall Dep. at 36:2–9.)
On June 27, 2008, Commissioner Horn issued a memorandum announcing a specialty-pay for certain positions, including a captain in ID, if in the position for at least six months and performing satisfactorily. (Pl. Ex. G at 1.) Individuals who were serving less than six months would qualify upon reaching the requisite time period. (Id. at 2.) For Plaintiff and Bialek, who were named ID Captains on March 7, 2008, (Def. 56.1 ¶ 2; Pl. 56.1 ¶ 2), their specialty-pay commenced September 7, 2008. The specialty-pay would increase Plaintiff's annual salary of $80,000 in 2009 by $2,400. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 7; Pl. 56.1 ¶ 7.)
In October 2009, Plaintiff asked Alex Castillo, Deputy Director of the ID, about her specialty-pay and was told for the first time that she would not be receiving the pay because she was on TDY status. (Pl. Dep. 27:2–19.) Castillo told Plaintiff that Wall had “given Captain Bialek the permanent line,” because “[t]hat's his boy.” (Id. at 27:19–28:12.) Plaintiff protested by stating, “It's not fair, that's not the way you do business,” and Castillo responded, “That's just the way it is.” (Id. at 28:14–17.) Bialek received specialty-pay in October 2009, and Plaintiff did not receive specialty-pay. (Def. 56.1 ¶¶ 6, 9; Pl. 56.1 ¶¶ 6, 9.)
Plaintiff and Bialek each had two “pass days” off each week; Plaintiff's pass days were Sunday and Monday, while Bialek's were Friday and Saturday. (Def. 56.1 ¶¶ 6, 8; Pl. 56.1 ¶¶ 6, 8.) The record does not indicate whether pass days were selected by Plaintiff and Bialek, or if those days were assigned to them; nor does Plaintiff state whether she would have preferred days other than Sunday and Monday as her pass days. According to Plaintiff, she often worked on major and/or Christian holidays, including Christmas, Easter and Thanksgiving.1 (Pl. Dep. 25:13–23.) Plaintiff contends that Bialek did not work on either Christian or Jewish holidays. (Id. at 25:6–12; Pl. Ex. A, Affidavit of Gamien Batchelor (“Batchelor Aff.”) ¶ 5.) The time sheets show that Plaintiff worked on Christmas Day in 2008 and 2009, but did not work on Easter and Ash Wednesday in either year as those days were her pass days. (Def. Ex. F at 2, 4; Batchelor Aff. ¶ 5.) They also show that Bialek worked on Christmas Day and on Easter Sunday in 2008 and 2009. (Def. Ex. E.) Neither party addresses the total number of vacation days allotted to either Plaintiff or Bialek each year, how many vacation days were taken by either individual, or whether either individual requested and did not receive...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lewis v.
...the Transit Authority's motion for summary judgment is denied in its entirety. The plaintiff's motion to strike portions of the Transit [12 F.Supp.3d 458] Authority's reply brief or in the alternative, for leave to file a surreply, is denied. SO ORDERED.--------Notes: 2. Cecil Lewis's appoi......
- Lewis v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth.
-
Batchelor v. City of N.Y.
...12 F.Supp.3d 458Gamien BATCHELOR, Plaintiff,v.The CITY OF NEW YORK, New York City Department of Correction, Commissioner Dora Shiro, Assistant Commissioner Richard R. White, Director Dennis Wall, Deputy Director Alexis Castillo and Chief of Department Larry Davis, Sr., Defendants.No. 11–CV–......