Bryant v. S. Country Cent. Sch. Dist.
| Decision Date | 31 March 2017 |
| Docket Number | Case No.: 2:14-cv-5621 (DRH)(ARL) |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
| Parties | EDDIE BRYANT, Plaintiff, v. SOUTH COUNTRY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT; BOARD OF EDUCATION, SOUTH COUNTRY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT; CHRIS PICINI, President of the Board of Education, South Country Central School District and Individually; CAROL HERMANN, Vice President of the Board of Education, South Country Central School District and Individually; ROCCO DiVITO, Trustee, Board of Education, South Country Central School District and Individually; LISA DiSANTO GROSSMAN, Trustee, South Country Central School District and Individually; JEANNETTE MISTLER, Trustee, South Country Central School District and Individually; JULIO MORALES, Trustee, South Country Central School District and Individually; ROB POWELL, Trustee, South Country Central School District and Individually; BARBARA SCHATZMAN, Trustee, South Country Central School District and Individually; ANTOINETTE HUFFINE, Trustee, South Country Central School District and Individually; DANIELLE SKELLY, Trustee, South Country Central School District and Individually; ALLISON STINES, Trustee, South Country Central School District and Individually; DR. JOSEPH GIANI, Superintendent of Schools, South Country Central School District and Individually; and NELSON BRIGGS, Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources, South Country Central School District and Individually, Defendants. |
Appearances:
HARRIET A. GILLIAM, ESQ.
P.O. Box 1485
Riverhead, New York
By: Harriet A. Gilliam, Esq.
For the Plaintiff
DEVITT SPELLMAN BARRETT LLP
50 Route 111
Smithtown, New York
By: Joshua S. Shteierman, Esq.
For the Defendants
MEMORANDUM & ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
The Defendants1 move the Court for summary judgment in their favor on all of the racial-discrimination-based claims and state law claims brought by Plaintiff ("Bryant"). (See ECF Nos. 28, 28-24; hereafter, the "Summary Judgment Motion".) Bryant opposes the Summary Judgment Motion in toto. (See ECF No. 29-22; hereafter, the "Opposition".) For the reasons that follow, the Summary Judgment Motion is granted.
Bryant is an African-American male who, on July 12, 2012 (the "Start Date"), was hired as a substitute custodian for the School District. As such, Bryant would be called to work as a substitute custodian in various school buildings within the School District. For the balance of 2012, Bryant was routinely called to work two or three times per week. His work assignments increased in 2013, with Bryant being called into work almost every day of the work week.
From Bryant's Start Date to September 23, 2013, the School District posted two vacancy notices for full-time custodial positions: one in December 2012 (the "First Posting"), and one in March 2013 (the "Second Posting"). Bryant submitted an application for both Postings.
As to the First Posting: Bryant was not granted an interview for the First Posting. At the time, he had been with the School District for five months. The person hired for the First Postingwas a white male who had been a substitute custodian for the School District for almost two years. Despite the School District having a Non-Discrimination Policy and a Consolidated Complaint Procedure for students and employees, Bryant did not lodge a discrimination complaint when he did not get an interview for the First Posting.
As to the Second Posting: Bryant was one of 40 applicants granted a first interview. Thereafter, four candidates where selected for a second interview; Bryant was one of the four. Ultimately, however, the job went to another candidate who was white, had been a substitute custodian for nearly three years before the Second Posting (i.e., a full year longer than Bryant), and who had scored the best on the five identical questions posed to the applicants. As with the First Posting, Bryant did not file a discrimination complaint with the School District when he was not awarded the Second Posting position. Indeed, he testified that he was "fine" with the other substitute custodian having been chosen for the job. (Bryant 50-H Exam at 49:10.)
On September 20, 2013, Bryant was substituting at a middle school in the School District. On that day, he had a two to three minute conversation with cafeteria worker Kim Westerbeke ("Westerbeke"), whom he had first met four days prior. Part of the conversation was about Westerbeke successfully getting out of an abusive relationship. As part of the conversation, Bryant asked Westerbeke whether she was open-minded and would she be interested in making a video. She indicated "yes" to the open-minded inquiry, but gave an ambivalent response regarding the video inquiry.3 Since he did not have time to explain his reasons for wanting to make a video, i.e., that it related to his affiliation with his church and its youth group, Bryantasked Westerbeke to see him before she left work so he could provide more information. She did not do so. Therefore, Bryant left Westerbek a note with his mobile phone number and a request for her to call or text him to further discuss her willingness to make a video (hereafter, the "Note"). He left the Note near Westerbeke's name tag and apron.
Westerbeke did not discover Bryant's Note until Monday morning, September 23, 2013. She brought it to the attention of the head custodian at the middle school, who, in turn, brought it to the principal's attention. Thereafter, the principal met with Westerbeke and requested Westerbeke write a statement explaining what occurred. Westerbeke complied, stating:
On Friday Sept. 20, 2013 I Kim Westerbeke was approached by Eddie the substitute custodian and was asked if I wanted to do a video with him. When he did not receive an answer Eddie continued to watch me the remainder of the day. I left work Friday at 2:15 p.m. with no further communication. He was standing outside the cafeteria I think waiting for me not knowing I carpool. When I arrived at work Monday Sept. 23, 2013 I had found a note from Eddie on my apron with his cell number wanting me to call or text him.
On September 23rd, the principal forwarded Westerbeke's statement, together with the Note and a cover memorandum regarding the "alleged case of inappropriate conduct against" Bryant (hereafter, the "Westerbeke Complaint") to Assistant Superintendent Briggs. (See Exhibit N, attached to Shteierman Declaration.) The principal concluded her memorandum by stating, "As per your directive, the undersigned did not conduct an investigation, but requests that Mr. Eddie Bryant not serve as a substitute custodian at Frank P. Long Intermediate School." (Id.)
That same day, after receiving the Westerbeke Complaint, Briggs called Bryant using the phone number contained in the Note. Bryant answered Briggs' call during which Briggs askedBryant to meet him the next day in his office. Bryant agreed, believing Briggs might be offering him a job "under the table". (Bryant 50-H Exam at 28:10-29:4.)
Bryant arrived at Briggs' office the next morning. During the meeting, Briggs informed Bryant that he had been forwarded the Westerbeke Complaint, including the Note. He also told Bryant that he had used the phone number in the Note to call Bryant. Briggs explained to Bryant that the incident had to be further investigated and that, until further notice, Bryant would not be called as a substitute custodian within the School District. (See Briggs' Aff. at ¶17 (ECF No. 28-2).) Briggs informed Bryant that, pending further investigation, he was directing the head custodians at the various schools within the School District to no longer call Bryant.
Bryant said little in the meeting; he did not provide any explanation for what occurred between him and Westerbeke. Bryant contends he was in shock and was neither given the opportunity, nor asked, to explain what transpired. (See Bryant's LR 56.1 Statement at ¶39 ()
After his meeting with Bryant, Briggs met with Westerbeke to further investigate her complaint; her recollection of the incident with Bryant did not change.
At the end of October 2013, Briggs called Bryant to arrange a further meeting to finish his investigation of the Westerbeke Complaint. Bryant told Briggs that he (Bryant) would have his attorney arrange a meeting with Briggs. No such meeting ever occurred. As a result, Briggs' investigation was never completed. Two consequences stem from the incomplete investigation: Bryant's name was not removed from the substitute custodians list, and the Board has not made a final determination regarding Bryant's employment status. Yet, while his name remained on theSchool District's substitute custodians list, Bryant has not been called for any further work assignments.
On January 17, 2014, Bryant wrote a letter to Briggs alleging Bryant's belief that he was discriminated against by the School District by being denied a full-time custodial position because of his race (hereafter, the "Racial Discrimination Letter Complaint"). (See Bryant's LR 56.1 Statement at ¶65 () He sent a copy of the Racial Discrimination Letter Complaint to Superintendent Giani. Bryant requested that his Complaint be investigated by someone other than Briggs. (See id.) Bryant never participated in any meetings to review this Complaint. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial