Boncoeur v. Haverstraw-Stony Point Cent. Sch. Dist.

• Docket Number: 20-CV-10923 (KMK)
• Decision Date: 22 March 2022
• Parties: OSWALD BONCOEUR, Plaintiff, v. HAVERSTRAW-STONY POINT CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

1

OSWALD BONCOEUR, Plaintiff, v. HAVERSTRAW-STONY POINT CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT et al., Defendants.

No. 20-CV-10923 (KMK)

United States District Court, S.D. New York

March 22, 2022

Ambrose Wotor Wotorson, Jr., Esq. Ambrose Wotorson, P.C. New York, NY Counsel for Plaintiff ^[1]

Michael A. Miranda, Esq. Maranda Sambursky Solne Sklarin Verveniotis LLP Counsel for Defendant

OPINION & ORDER

KENNETH M. KARAS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Oswald Boncoeur (“Boncoeur” or “Plaintiff”) brings this lawsuit, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act or “Title VII”), 29 U.S.C § 621 et seq. (Age Discrimination Employment Act or “ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(1) (Family and Medical Leave Act or “FMLA”), and 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. (“Rehabilitation Act”), against Haverstraw-Stony Point Central School District (the “School District”), Michael Senno (“Senno”), Rose Sira (“Sira”), and Eric Baird (“Baird” and collectively, “Defendants”), alleging discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation on the basis of his age, race, national origin, prior alienage, and prior protected activities. (See generally Am. Compl. (Dkt. No. 13).)

Before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint (the “Motion”). (See Not. of Mot. (Dkt. No. 16).) For the following reasons, Defendants' Motion is granted.

I. Background

A. Factual Background

Unless otherwise stated, the following facts are drawn from Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and are assumed true for the purpose of resolving the instant Motion.^[2] See Div. 1181 Amalgamated Transit Union-N.Y. Emps. Pension Fund v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ., 9 F.4th 91, 94 (2d Cir. 2021) (per curiam).

Plaintiff has worked for the School District for over 20 years as an accountant. (Am. Compl. ¶ 5.) Plaintiff has a Bachelor's degree in Business Administration with a concentration in Accounting and is an IRS enrolled agent. (Id. ¶ 20.) He was hired by the School District as an Accountant I on September 8, 1999. (Id. ¶ 13.) In 2003, Plaintiff was promoted to the position of Accountant II. (Id. ¶ 14.)

Defendant Senno is the School District's Assistant Superintendent for Business. ((Id. ¶¶ (Id. ¶ 8.) Defendant Sira is the School District's Treasurer. (Id. ¶ 19.) Defendant Baird is the

School District's Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources and Community Relations. (Id. ¶ 10.) Senno and Sira are Plaintiff's supervisors. (Id. ¶¶ 22, 54.)

Plaintiff alleges that he has been subjected to “a continuing violation and an uninterrupted pattern of discrimination against Plaintiff because of his age, his race, his national origin and his prior alienage and because of his protected activities.” (Id. ¶ 23.) Plaintiff, who is 63 years old, alleges that he has been the second oldest employee for the entirety of his tenure at the School District. (Id. ¶ 16.) He has also been the only Black employee, and, up until August 2019, he was the only employee who was not born in the United States. (Id. ¶¶ 16, 18.) Although Plaintiff is fluent in English, he has a strong French/Haitian accent. (Id. ¶ 19-20.)

Plaintiff alleges that James Johnston (“Johnston”), who was hired as the Assistant Superintendent for Business in 2002, sarcastically referred to Plaintiff as “King” because of his age and race. (¶¶ 25-29.) Plaintiff also alleges that he was overlooked for various promotions because of his age. For example, in March 2010, the School District created an interim District Treasurer position and hired Senno, who is white and American-born, without posting any vacancy announcements or interviewing Plaintiff. (Id. ¶¶ 30-31.) Similarly, in October 2010, Senno was again promoted to a newly created Business Administrator position, without a vacancy announcement. (Id. ¶ 32.) Plaintiff alleges that he was neither interviewed nor considered, despite his qualifications and experience. (Id. ¶¶ 33-34.) Additionally, in 2014, Senno took over Johnston's position as Assistant Superintendent for Business, but Plaintiff alleges he was not considered for the same reasons. (Id. ¶¶ 35-36.) Also in 2014, Michael Ivanoff (“Ivanoff”), who is also white and American-born, was hired for the position of Treasurer, and Plaintiff was neither interviewed nor considered. (Id. ¶¶ 37-39.) And in 2015, Rosa Sira, who is white, American-born, and over a decade younger than Plaintiff, was hired to replace Ivanoff. (Id. ¶¶ 40-41.) Finally, in 2015, Donna Dowen, who is American-born, white, and seven or eight years younger than Plaintiff, was hired as Deputy Treasurer, despite not being able to pass the Accountant I test. (Id. ¶¶ 43-44.) Plaintiff alleges that despite his qualifications and experience, he was not considered for these positions due to his race, national origin, and age. (See Id. ¶¶ 30-46.)

In 2018, Plaintiff made an oral complaint to Sira, Senno, and Baird that he was not being paid for overtime work that he had been performing due to his status as a Black, foreign-born employee. (Id. ¶¶ 47-49.) Although Plaintiff concedes that his complaint was eventually resolved, he alleges that he was subjected to retaliation in the form of “micro-aggressions.” (Id. ¶ 51.) For example, Plaintiff alleges that Sira continually mocked Plaintiff's accent through “facial gestures and shaking of her head” and allegedly falsely claimed not to understand Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 53(a).) Plaintiff also describes an incident which allegedly resulted in Senno physically assaulting Plaintiff by pushing Plaintiff out of his office. (Id. ¶ 60.) This incident allegedly occurred after Plaintiff and Senno had a “heated” exchange in Senno's office about Plaintiff's accounting practices. (Id. ¶ 59.) Following the incident, Plaintiff received a “negative counseling memo, ” the contents of which alleged that Plaintiff had acted inappropriately. (Id. ¶ 63-64.) Plaintiff alleges that the counseling memo was drafted to “build a paper trail for his eventual separation from service.” (Id. ¶ 65.)

After Plaintiff submitted a complaint alleging that the incident and subsequent counseling memo were motivated by discrimination, the School District hired a law firm in May 2019 to investigate the claim. (Id. ¶ 67.) The law firm found no evidence of violent or discriminatory behavior by Senno. (Id. ¶ 70.) However, Plaintiff alleges that, starting in October 2019, Sira began “intentionally accusing Plaintiff of failing to do tasks that she knew, or had reason to know, he had already performed, or in other instances, falsely accusing Plaintiff of failing to do tasks that she knew, or reasonably should have known, were not within Plaintiff's work purview.” (Id. ¶ 77.) This culminated in a November 14, 2019 meeting between Baird, Plaintiff, and his union representative regarding Plaintiff's alleged insubordination. (Id. ¶ 82.) Plaintiff alleges that Sira was ultimately forced to withdraw her accusations of insubordination. (Id. ¶ 83.)

Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Rockland County Human Rights Commission and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on December 12, 2019, alleging age, race, and national origin discrimination, as well as retaliation. (Id. ¶ 84.)

Plaintiff also alleges that in March 2020, the School District did not initially provide him with a laptop to enable him to work from home, causing him to fall behind in work. (See Id. ¶¶ 86-97.) Plaintiff further alleges that in September 2020, Defendants denied him medical accommodation for laser surgery for retinal detachment by refusing to reassign one of his projects to other employees. (Id. ¶¶ 99-103.) Finally, Plaintiff alleges that when he sought to take an FMLA leave of absence due to anxiety and depression caused by Defendants' discrimination and retaliation, Defendants sent him “harassing emails” by asking him to send back any school district records that he had at home and provide computer passwords, even though Plaintiff alleges that he did not have such records or recall any passwords. (Id. ¶¶ 106- 09.)

Plaintiff alleges six (6) causes of action: (1) age and race discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under § 1983 against all Defendants; (2) race discrimination, prior alienage discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under § 1981 against the Individual Defendants; (3) race discrimination, national origin discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII against the School District; (4) age discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under the ADEA against the School District; (5) FMLA interference against all Defendants; and (6) violations of the Rehabilitation Act against the School District. (See Id. ¶¶ 122-33.) Plaintiff alleges that as a result of Defendant's actions, he has suffered “extreme anxiety and depression” and “humiliation and extreme mental anguish, ” which has resulted in Plaintiff seeking treatment from mental health professionals. (Id. ¶¶ 113-17.) Plaintiff seeks an award of damages for pain and suffering and for past and future loss of compensation. (Id. Part, VI(a)-(e).) He also seeks punitive and/or liquidated damages, as well as costs and reasonable attorney's fees. (Id.)

B. Procedural History

Plaintiff filed his Complaint on December 24, 2020. (Dkt. No. 1.) On February 11, 2021, the Parties agreed via stipulation to extend the time for Defendants to answer until March 1, 2021. (Dkt. No. 8.) On March 2, 2021, Defendants filed a pre-motion letter outlining the grounds for their anticipated Motion To Dismiss. (Dkt. No. 9.) On March 19, 2021, Plaintiff filed a letter seeking leave to file an Amended Complaint, (Dkt. No 11), which the Court granted the same day, (Dkt. No. 12). Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint on April 2, 2021. (Dkt....