Brooking v. Mattox, 1:15-CV-0510 (GTS/CFH)

• Decision Date: 21 March 2018
• Docket Number: 1:15-CV-0510 (GTS/CFH)
• Parties: JOSEPH BROOKING, Plaintiff, v. THOMAS MATTOX, in his Individual Capacity; and JAMIE WOODWARD, in her Individual Capacity, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York

JOSEPH BROOKING, Plaintiff, v. THOMAS MATTOX, in his Individual Capacity; and JAMIE WOODWARD, in her Individual Capacity, Defendants.

1:15-CV-0510 (GTS/CFH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

March 21, 2018

APPEARANCES:

SUSSMAN & WATKINS LAW FIRM

Counsel for Plaintiff

331 East 70^th Street

New York, New York 10021

HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN

Attorney General for the State of New York

Counsel for Defendants

The Capitol

Albany, NY 12224

OF COUNSEL:

CHRISTOPHER D. WATKINS, ESQ.

ADRIENNE J. KERWIN, ESQ.

Assistant Attorney General

DENISE P. BUCKLEY, ESQ.

Assistant Attorney General

GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge

DECISION and ORDER

Currently before the Court, in this employment civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 and N.Y. Exec. L. § 296(6) ("NYHRL § 296(6)") filed by Joseph Brooking, ("Plaintiff") against Thomas Mattox and Jamie Woodward ("Defendants"), is Defendants' motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 45.) For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted.

I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

A. Plaintiff's Complaint

On July 5, 2015, multiple claims in Plaintiff's Complaint were dismissed in response to Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for failure to state a claim. (Dkt. No. 27 [Decision & Order, 7/5/2016].) Of the claims alleged in the Complaint, the only surviving claims allege that Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff for complaining of discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983, and that they aided and abetted retaliatory conduct in violation of NYHRL § 296(6). (Dkt. No. 1, at ¶ 69 [Compl.].) Plaintiff's requested relief includes compensatory damages, punitive damages, reinstatement or award of front pay, and the award of reasonable attorneys' fees. (Id. at ¶ 70.)

B. Undisputed Material Facts on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment

Before reciting the undisputed material facts in this case, the Court notes that Plaintiff has made a significant number of denials of Defendants' asserted facts, stating specifically that the evidence cited by Defendants did not support the asserted facts. (Dkt. No. 52, Attach.1, at ¶¶ 67-72, 84-85, 113-71, 175, 180, 188-90, 196, 199 [Pl.'s Rule 7.1 Resp.].) However, not only does the evidence cited by Defendants support their asserted facts, but Plaintiff's denials either (a) do not include any citations whatever, or (b) include citations that do not actually support his denials. (Id.) Similarly, Plaintiff has made a number of denials based on the existence of evidence not cited by Defendants; however, the evidence Plaintiff cited does not support those denials. (Id. at ¶¶ 54, 57-59, 73, 80, 82, 87-89, 101-02, 107-08, 197.) As a result, all of these facts are deemed admitted based on Plaintiff's failure to properly deny them in accordance with

N.D.N.Y. L.R. 7.1(3).¹

Unless otherwise noted, the following facts were asserted and supported with accurate record citations by Defendants in their Statement of Material Facts and expressly admitted by Plaintiff in his response thereto or denied without appropriate record citations.² (Compare Dkt. No. 45, Attach. 51 [Defs.' Rule 7.1 Statement] with Dkt. No. 52, Attach. 1 [Pl.'s Rule 7.1 Resp.].)

1. Defendant Jamie Woodward was employed by the Department of Taxation and Finance ("DTF") from 1980 until she retired in July 2013.

2. Woodward was employed by the DTF as a Deputy Commissioner of the Office of Tax Processing from June 2007 until April 2008, when she was promoted to Executive Deputy Commissioner, a position she held until she retired.

3. In 2009, in addition to holding the position of Executive Deputy Commissioner, Woodward took the position of Acting Commissioner of the DTF.

4. Woodward was Acting Commissioner of the DTF until 2011 when Defendant Thomas Mattox was appointed as Commissioner.

5. When Woodward retired from the DTF, she did not retain any documentation, including e-mails, that she created during the course of her employment there.

6. As Executive Deputy Commissioner, Woodward's duties included the following: (a) providing strategic and operational leadership for the agency; (b) providing oversight of the day-to-day operations of the DTF in accordance with the policy set by the Commissioner; (c) effectuating the Department's vision, mission, and goals through management of the agency; (d) working closely with program managers and senior staff to ensure that the DTF operations were consistent with the Commissioner's and the Governor's policy direction; (e) managing and allocating scarce resources across competing program areas; and (f) representing the Commissioner in official capacities.

7. Mattox was employed as Commissioner of the DTF from January 2011 through January 2015.

8. As Commissioner, Mattox's duties included the following: (a) oversight of all administrative functions and activities pertaining the establishment and support of New York State tax policies; (b) compliance with and enforcement of state laws and regulations associated with more than 40 individual and commercial tax programs; and (c) provision of taxpayer services.

9. Mattox is a member of the same race-based protected class as Plaintiff and is approximately the same age as Plaintiff.

10. During Mattox's term as Commissioner, all senior members of the DTF, including Plaintiff, had an obligation to recognize the Albany, New York, office located at the W.H. Harriman Campus as the DTF's headquarters given the fact that nearly 50 percent of the DTF's 5,000 employees were based in Albany.³

11. Albany serves as the capital of New York State; therefore, access to the Governor's staff, the Legislature and its staff, and senior members of other state agencies was facilitated by the DTF's headquarters location.

12. Plaintiff was appointed as Director of the Office of Affirmative Action ("OAA") in 2008.⁴13. Woodward held the position of Executive Deputy Commissioner when Plaintiff was appointed to lead the DTF's diversity and affirmative action program in 2008.

14. In 2009, the OAA became the Office of Diversity and Affirmative Action ("ODAA").

15. As Director of the ODAA, Plaintiff reported to Woodward as his direct supervisor and to Mattox as his second level supervisor.

16. Plaintiff's position was classified as "exempt" and "management/confidential," which is a non-statutory position that is exempt from the competitive examination and interview process required for other New York State agency positions.

17. As such, Plaintiff was politically appointed to an executive level position at the direction of then-Governor Patterson's office, and he served at the pleasure of both the Commissioner of the DTF and the Governor.

18. Upon Plaintiff's appointment as Director, he became a member of the DTF's Senior Staff and Executive Leadership Group ("ELG").

19. The Senior Staff included Woodward's "key direct reports" (including all those on Executive Row), while the ELG was a broader group of leaders within the DTF that included the Deputy Commissioners, division managers, and bureau directors for the various units within the division.

20. After the OAA became the ODAA, the DTF provided Plaintiff and the ODAA with a substantially increased staff, intending and expecting to raise the profile of the office; the DTF and Woodward were committed to the goals and objectives of affirmative action and diversity in the workplace.

21. From the time Plaintiff became Director until the time he retired in June 2013, he had a long history of not only failing to properly perform the requirements of the position of Director, but also of failing to follow the directions and orders of his superiors, including the following: (a) failing to attend mandated meetings; (b) ignoring repeated directives to work at the DTF's headquarters in Albany, New York; (c) continuously failing to advise his supervisors of his whereabouts to the point where he could often not be located; (d) failing to perform duties and assignments himself and instead repeatedly delegating his responsibilities to subordinates; (e) failing to appropriately supervise subordinates; (f) allowing DTF assignments to be continuously late, not completed, or not prepared well; (g) allowing investigations of discrimination complaints to be delayed for extended periods of time;and (h) and allowing responses to both the EEOC and the New York State Department of Human Rights ("DHR") to be inexcusably late on numerous occasions.⁵

22. At all times relevant to this litigation, the DTF's principal offices were located in Albany, including the principal ODAA office.⁶

23. Ellen Mindel was based in the Albany office when she served as manager of the OAA.

24. Throughout Woodward's employment as Acting Commissioner and as Executive Deputy Commissioner, Woodward maintained her office in Albany, New York.

25. Indicating the level of executive support of the ODAA and to promote personal interactions between Plaintiff and the other executives, the DTF provided Plaintiff with an office on the executive floor of the DTF's offices (known as Executive Row) and paid all his travel expenses to and from Albany.

26. When Plaintiff was first appointed as Director of the ODAA, Woodward ordered Plaintiff to attend all ELG and Senior Staff meetings, all of which took place in Albany, New York.

27. Woodward eventually started to memorialize directives about being in the Albany office as often as required and attending ELG and Senior Staff meetings in e-mail correspondence to Plaintiff because of Plaintiff's non-compliance.⁷

28. Woodward explained to Plaintiff that the DTF's principal offices were located in Albany, that the Agency's Senior Staff were based in the Albany Office, that much of his staff were in Albany, and that his failure to be present at the Albany office as often as required caused him to fail to build professional relationships with other executives as repeatedly directed by Woodward.⁸

29. At all times relevant to this litigation, the DTF maintained

...