Cain v. Esthetique

• Decision Date: 20 April 2016
• Docket Number: 13 Civ. 7834 (JCF)
• Citation: 182 F.Supp.3d 54
• Parties: Ileen Cain, Plaintiff, v. Atelier Esthetique, Annette Hanson, Inc., Ms. Michelle, Ms. Christine, Ms. Ann, Ms. Kera, Mr. Rochester, Ms. Christine, (School Receptionist), School Accountant Annette Hanson, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

182 F.Supp.3d 54

Ileen Cain, Plaintiff,

v.Atelier Esthetique, Annette Hanson, Inc., Ms. Michelle, Ms. Christine, Ms. Ann, Ms. Kera, Mr. Rochester, Ms. Christine, (School Receptionist), School Accountant Annette Hanson, Defendants.

13 Civ. 7834 (JCF)

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

Signed April 20, 2016

Ileen Cain, Brooklyn, NY, pro se.

Nicole Feder, L'Abbate, Balkan, Colavita and Contini, LLP, Garden City, NY, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JAMES C. FRANCIS IV, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pro se plaintiff Ileen Cain brings this action against Atelier Esthetique Institute of Esthetics, Inc. ("Atelier"), alleging defamation and discrimination under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794 (the "Rehabilitation Act"), and the New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107 (the "NYCHRL"). The defendant has moved to amend its answer to assert additional affirmative defenses and for summary judgment on each of the plaintiff's claims. For the reasons that follow, the motion is granted in part.

Background¹

In November 2012, Ms. Cain applied for admission to Atelier's "600-Hour Esthetics program leading to licensure as an Esthetician in New York State." (Def. 56.1, ¶ 7; Letter of Kyra Svetlovsky dated Nov. 9, 2012, attached as Exh. K to Declaration of Nicole Feder dated Jan. 29, 2016 ("Feder Decl.")). The plaintiff indicated in her application that she was receiving Social Security Disability ("SSD") benefits, though she did not disclose the nature of her disability.² (Def. 56.1, ¶ 8). She attended her first class on December 5, 2012. (Def. 56.1, ¶ 11). On December 14, 2012, the plaintiff was discharged from the school. (Def. 56.1, ¶¶ 24, 26). The parties offer divergent accounts of what transpired between December 5 and 14.

Ms. Cain testified that, after her first day at Atelier, she had to miss a day of classes because of an inspection taking place at her apartment. (Cain Dep. at 135, 233-34). When she returned to class, "everything changed." (Cain Dep. at 157). The plaintiff overheard other students mocking her and calling her names like "kooka," "mokara," "cuckoo," "cooky," and "pookey." (Cain Dep. at 161, 234, 239). This harassment was "continuous." (Cain Dep. at 161). Having previously been told that Mr. Rochester handled harassment and bullying complaints, Ms. Cain went to him and reported the students' behavior and the names they were calling her. (Cain Dep. at 163, 165; Rochester Interrog., ¶ 3). Mr. Rochester responded that "it's not like this hasn't happened here before," and told the plaintiff "he would investigate," asking for the names of the students who were bullying her. (Cain Dep. at 166-67, 169). Ms. Cain stated she did not know their names. (Cain Dep. at 167). The plaintiff referred to the interaction as a "good conversation" and indicated that Mr. Rochester gave "no indication that [she] would be terminated." (Cain Dep. at 169).

A day or so later, Ms. Cain's instructor pulled her out of class and informed her that Mr. Rochester wanted to speak with her. (Cain Dep. at 179). The plaintiff met with Mr. Rochester and Ann Marie Pandullo, a financial aid officer at Atelier, in the financial aid office. (Cain Dep. at 179; Response to Plaintiff's Interrogatories/Deposition via Written Questions to Ann Marie Pandullo dated Dec. 7, 2015 ("Pandullo Interrog."), attached as Exh. G to Feder Decl., ¶ 6). Mr. Rochester told Ms. Cain that he had contacted Mark Weinstein, the director of the Brooklyn ACCES-VR office, that she was being terminated from Atelier, and that she should contact ACCES-VR. (Cain Dep. at 180-81). When the plaintiff asked why Atelier was terminating her, Mr. Rochester again stated that she should contact ACCES-VR, and stated that she was exhibiting "signs of [ ] delusion or hallucination." (Cain Dep. at 181, 227).³ Although she was present throughout the encounter, Ms. Pandullo did not speak during the meeting. (Cain Dep. at 181; Def. 56.1, ¶ 27). After the conversation, which lasted about ten minutes, Ms. Cain retrieved her belongings and left the building. (Cain Dep. at 183-85).

According to Mr. Weinstein, Mr. Rochester called him on December 14, 2012, the day Ms. Cain was terminated. (Chronological Case History/Important Events Case Note dated Dec. 14, 2012 ("12/14/12 Case Note"), attached as Exh. O to Cain. Aff.). Mr. Rochester "advis[ed] that [Ms.] Cain was hearing voices and acting paranoid." (12/14/12 Case Note). He further stated that Ms. Cain had mentioned ACCES-VR and that he believed ACCES-VR had "sent" her to Atelier. (12/14/12 Case Note). Based on his belief that Ms. Cain was "showing clear signs of not being able to get through the program," Mr. Rochester was reluctant to begin charging her tuition and planned to "terminate her as gently as he could." (12/14/12 Case Note).

The defendant states that, after Ms. Cain began attending classes, one of her instructors, Christine Anderson, complained to Mr. Rochester about the plaintiff's behavior. (Def. 56.1, ¶¶ 13-16).⁴ Ms. Anderson asserts that "[she] observed [Ms. Cain] talking to the wall or to herself," that Ms. Cain "would speak to herself during class," that "she had outbursts in class that had nothing to do with the course material," and that "several of Ms. Cain's classmates approached [Ms. Anderson] ... to express some of these same concerns." (Response to Plaintiff's Interrogatories/Deposition via Written Questions to Christine Anderson dated Dec. 14, 2015 ("Anderson Interrog."), attached as Exh. F. to Feder Decl., ¶ 5). Ms. Anderson spoke to Mr. Rochester about Ms. Cain "a few times," describing to him the behavior she observed and reporting that other students had approached her about Ms. Cain. (Anderson Interrog., ¶¶ 5-7). On December 14, 2012, "several" unidentified students "advised" Ms. Anderson that, during a break from class, they had been discussing the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School—which had occurred earlier that day—when Ms. Cain stated to them "that she was going to do that to some of the students at Atelier and that she could do it better than the Sandy Hook shooter." (Anderson Interrog., ¶ 9). Ms. Anderson immediately told Mr. Rochester what the students had told her. (Anderson Interrog., ¶ 9).

Before dismissing Ms. Cain on December 14, Mr. Rochester had conversations with her on December 12 and 13 regarding her allegations that she was being harassed by other students. (Rochester Interrog., ¶ 3). On both occasions, the plaintiff asked Mr. Rochester to contact the police but refused to identify her harassers. (Rochester Interrog., ¶ 3). Mr. Rochester sat in on one of the plaintiff's classes but "did not observe [her] being bullied or bothered by the other students." (Rochester Interrog., ¶ 3). However, he did observe her "angrily talking to the walls in class or in the hallway when no one was around." (Rochester Interrog., ¶ 3). Moreover, "[s]everal [unidentified] students came to [him] to complain about Ms. Cain's behavior and threatening, aggressive statements." (Rochester Interrog., ¶ 15). During their second conversation, Mr. Rochester "suggested that [Ms. Cain] might benefit from counseling"; Ms. Cain responded that she did not need counseling and stated that she "knew what to do with them" and "knew how to handle people like that," referring, presumably, to the students about whom she was complaining. (Rochester Interrog., ¶ 3).

Mr. Rochester acknowledges calling Mr. Weinstein on December 14 in order to "refer Ms. Cain back to ACCES-VR for services because Ms. Cain exhibited threatening, intimidating[,] and aggressive behavior." (Rochester Interrog., ¶ 13). He further states that Mr. Weinstein informed him that "Ms. Cain had a history of limited success with education institutions due to personal issues" and that he does not remember "whether [he] stated to Mr. Weinstein that Ms. Cain was ‘hallucinating and delusional.’ " (Rochester Interrog., ¶ 13). Regarding his conversation with Ms. Cain on December 14, Mr. Rochester asserts that he spoke with her about "her behavior in class" and "explained that she was being disruptive in class and that it was having a negative impact on the education of the other students." Ms. Cain "yelled" that "they" had "gotten to [him]" and suggested that she was being punished for complaining about bullying. (Rochester Interrog., ¶ 3). She then repeated "in a very disturbing tone of voice" the statement that she knew how to "take care of" and "deal with" the bullies and left Mr. Rochester's office. (Rochester Interrog., ¶ 3). Ms. Pandullo, who was present when Mr. Rochester terminated Ms. Cain, remembers that "Mr. Rochester stated over and over again that Ms. Cain was being terminated from the school" and that Ms. Cain responded by "repeatedly ask[ing] [him] why she was being terminated." (Pandullo Interrog., ¶¶ 6, 10). After Ms. Cain left the office, Mr. Rochester "explained to [Ms. Pandullo] that Ms. Cain had been terminated because students and teachers expressed concern over her behavior and things she had said." (Pandullo Interrog., ¶ 15).⁵

According to Mr. Rochester, he terminated the plaintiff because (1) she refused to identify the students harassing her; (2) she made statements about knowing how to "deal with" and "take care of people like that" in a threatening and intimidating manner, causing him concern for the safety of Atelier's students and staff; (3) she had an "aggressive and frightening" demeanor when speaking with him; (4) other students complained about her speaking "angrily or in [ ] an agitated manner" to herself or to the walls; and (5) her instructors "spoke with [him] about Ms. Cain's behavior." (Rochester Interrog., ¶ 10).⁶

Following her discharge, the plaintiff filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights ("OCR"). (Def. 56.1, ¶ 31; Cain Dep. at 190; Letter of Timothy C. J. Blanchard dated June 14, 2013 ("Blanchard Letter"), attached as Exh. M. to Feder Decl., at 1)....