Broich v. The Inc. Vill. Of Southampton
| Decision Date | 25 January 2011 |
| Docket Number | CV-08-0553 (SJF)(ARL) |
| Parties | CHRISTOPHER BROICH, Plaintiff, v. THE INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF SOUTHAMPTON, MARK EPLEY, BONNIE M. CANNON, NANCY C. MCGANN, PAUL L. ROBINSON, LARS KINGS and WILLIAM WILSON, JR., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
On February 8, 2008, plaintiff Christopher Broich ("plaintiff) commenced this action against defendants the Incorporated Village of Southampton ("the Village"), the Board of Trustees of the Incorporated Village of Southampton ("the Village Board"), and Mark Epley, Bonnie M. Cannon, Nancy C. McGann, Paul L. Robinson, Lars Kings and William Wilson, Jr., all in their individual and official capacities (collectively, "the individual defendants").1Plaintiff's second amended complaint, filed on June 11, 2008, alleges violations of, inter alia, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983 and 1985, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. ("Title VII"), New York State Executive Law ("NYSHRL") and the New York State Constitution.
Defendants now move pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure forpartial summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's: (1) Title VII claims; (2) equal protection claim; (3) retaliation and discrimination claims; (4) Monell claim; and (5) state law claims. For the reasons stated herein, defendants' motion is granted.
Plaintiff is a Caucasian male who has been employed by the Village Police Department ("SVPD") since May 16, 1988. (Second Amended Complaint [Compl.], ¶¶ 9, 15). Plaintiff was employed as an officer in the SVPD from May 16, 1988 until approximately 1998. (Compl, ¶ 15). In approximately 1998, plaintiff was promoted to sergeant. (Compl., ¶ 15).
Defendant Lars King ("King") is the former chief of police of the SVPD. (Compl, ¶ 13). Defendant William Wilson, Jr. ("Wilson) was King's successor as chief of police of the SVPD. (Compl ¶13).
At all relevant times, the Village Board consisted of five (5) members: defendant Mark Epley ("Epley"), the Village mayor; defendants Bonnie M. Cannon ("Cannon"), Nancy C. McGann ("McGann") and Paul L. Robinson ("Robinson"); and non-party William F. Bates ("Bates"). (Compl, ¶¶ 12, 21). Plaintiff alleges that at all relevant times, Bates was a member of "The Good Sense Party" ("GSP"), a political party in the Village which he supported, whereas the other four (4) trustees of the Village Board, as well as King and Wilson, were members of theopposing "Citizens with Integrity Party" ("CIP"). (Compl, ¶¶20-22, 32). According to plaintiff, he "would often" post signs on his front lawn supporting GSP candidates, including Tufo, Epley's opponent during the June 2005 mayoral election. (Id.)
In February 2005, plaintiff sought a promotion to the position of detective sergeant. (Compl, ¶ 29). On February 18, 2005, Herman Lamison ("Lamison"), an African-American male, was promoted to detective sergeant. (Compl, ¶ 35). Epley was elected Village mayor in June 2005. (Compl, ¶37).
On December 27, 2005, plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination (charge no. 160-200600756) with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), (Compl, ¶ 39), asserting claims against the Village and King for discrimination based on race, national origin and disability arising from the failure to promote him on February 17, 2005. (Declaration of Diane K. Farrell in support of motion for summary judgment [Farrell Decl], Ex. F).
In December 2005, plaintiff also reported to the Suffolk County District Attorney's Office ("the DA's office") "what he believed to be highly unethical behavior" in the SVPD, including, inter alia, ticket-fixing schemes and Lamison's operation of a private security business without a license. (Compl, ¶¶ 40-41). Approximately one (1) month later, the New York State Commission of Investigation ("SCI") contacted him regarding his complaints to the DA's office. (Compl, ¶¶ 44-45). Thereafter, plaintiff regularly reported to the SCI regarding his concerns about the SVPD. (Compl, ¶ 6). Specifically, plaintiff complained to the SCI: (1) that Lamison arranged an improper plea-bargain with respect to one of his arrests; (2) that Chief Sherryarranged the release of that arrestee to Lamison's custody; (3) of ticket-fixing in the SVPD; (4) that Wilson worked security on one occasion while on-duty; (5) that Lamison operated a security company without a license; (6) that Mayor Romonaski allegedly stole a police-issued pistol with illegal ammunition; (7) that Wilson claimed a work-related injury for an injury he sustained off-duty; and (8) that Wilson issued a false letter of necessity qualifying a local painting contractor for a pistol permit. (Plaintiff's Responses to Interrogatories, Farrell Deck, Ex. R, ¶6).
Plaintiff alleges that on January 22, 2006, he observed a handwritten memorandum signed by Lamison in the detectives' office indicating that all doors were to be kept locked when plaintiff was in the building. (Compl, ¶ 50). On January 23, 2006, plaintiff amended EEOC charge no. 160-2006-00756 to include a claim of retaliation based upon: (1) conduct of Captain Thomas Cummings ("Cummings") on January 19, 2006 which plaintiff believed constituted "witness tampering" and "witness intimidation;" and (2) Lamison's January 22, 2006 memorandum. (Farrell Deck, Ex. G).
On May 12, 2006, King placed plaintiff on paid administrative leave pending the preparation of disciplinary charges against him. (Compl, ¶¶ 53, 57).
On May 15, 2006, plaintiff again amended his EEOC charge no. 160-2006-00756 to assert claims of discrimination based on race, national origin, age and disability, and retaliation, against the Village and King. (Farrell Deck, Ex. H). Plaintiff claimed that he was placed on administrative leave in retaliation for his April 26, 2006 Freedom of Information Law ("FOIL") request seeking documents supporting his EEOC charge. (Id.)
On June 8, 2006, the EEOC dismissed Plaintiff's EEOC charge no. 160-2006-00756 and issued a right-to-sue letter indicating, inter alia, that "[b]ased upon its investigation, [it] [was]unable to conclude that the information obtained [in Plaintiff's charges] establishe[d] violations of the statutes." (Farrell Decl., Ex. I).
On or about August 8, 2006, plaintiff, and another claimant, Brian Platt, served a Notice of Claim against the Village alleging, inter alia, that plaintiff was retaliated against for exercising his free speech rights by filing EEOC charge no. 160-2006-00756. (Declaration of Eric S. Tilton [Tilton Decl.], Ex. 7). Plaintiff's sole allegation in the notice of claim was that he was placed on administrative leave on May 12, 2006 in retaliation for his filing of the EEOC charge, (Id. at ¶3).
On August 16, 2006, Wilson commenced formal disciplinary charges, consisting of eighteen (18) administrative charges with twenty (20) specifications, against plaintiff based upon the charges drafted before he became Chief of Police on June 20, 2006, (Defendants' Rule 56.1 Statement of Undisputed Facts [Def. 56.1 Stat.], ¶85 Plaintiff's Rule 56.1 Counterstatement [Plf. 56.1 Stat.], ¶85), and suspended plaintiff without pay for thirty (30) days. (Compl, ¶¶ 56, 57; Farrell Ex. K).
On August 17, 2006, plaintiff filed a charge of retaliation (charge no. 520-2006-03500) against Wilson and the Village with the EEOC alleging that Wilson suspended him without pay in retaliation for his filing of his prior EEOC charge (charge no. 160-2006-00756) and that the disciplinary charges preferred against him constituted "unjustified negative evaluations of his performance during the same evaluation period where [he] was evaluated with an 'above average' numeric score." (Farrell, Ex. K).
Plaintiff alleges that on August 30, 2006, Wilson and Cummings threatened to terminate his employment if he proceeded with an administrative hearing to defend the disciplinary charges against him instead of resigning. (Compl., ¶ 59).
On August 31, 2006, plaintiff filed a charge of retaliation against the Southampton Village Police Benevolent Association Inc. ("the PBA") with the EEOC, alleging that the PBA was not supporting him or protecting him from adverse employment actions being taken against him by the Village and SVPD. (Farrell Deck, Ex. J). Although plaintiff designated the charge against the PBA as an "amended complaint, " the EEOC assigned the charge against the PBA a new charge number (charge no. 520-2006-03670). (Id.)
On November 2, 2006, plaintiff filed an amended EEOC charge, relating to charge no. 520-20 06-03 5 003, alleging age discrimination. (Farrell Decl, Ex. L). In the amended EEOC charge (no. 520-2006-03500), plaintiff complained of the disciplinary charges preferred against him by Wilson; his suspension without pay; the conduct of Wilson and Cummings in threatening him with termination, and the resulting loss of benefits, if he did not resign in lieu of an administrative hearing on the disciplinary charges against him; the failure to promote him for more than five (5) years; and the failure to offer him, or assign him to, training in 2005 and 2006. (Id.)
On or about November 15, 2006, the SCI issued a report regarding its investigation into Plaintiff's allegations against the SVPD indicating that its investigation revealed, inter alia: (1) that the traffic summonses of which plaintiff complained "were not destroyed improperly" and "that several other summonses sent to the [SCI] for review had also been referred to and adjudicated in a local court;" (2) that, nonetheless, "no disposition had been reported for approximately ten percent of the summonses assigned to the [SVPD];" (3) that there was "insufficient evidence to substantiate many of the allegations [against the...
To continue reading
Request your trial