Canales-Jacobs v. New York State Office of Court Administration
| Decision Date | 05 August 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. 08 Civ. 03434(CM)(THK).,08 Civ. 03434(CM)(THK). |
| Citation | 640 F.Supp.2d 482 |
| Parties | Milagros CANALES-JACOBS, Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATION, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Milagros Canales-Jacobs, Brooklyn, NY, pro se.
Pedro Angel Morales, NY State Office of Court Administration, New York, NY, for Defendant.
DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT
Milagros Canales-Jacobs was employed as a Senior Court Clerk by the defendant New York State Office of Court Administration for 25 years. After incidents in which she, inter alia, yelled at a judge, threw court papers and subjected the public to a barrage of obscenity, disciplinary charges were preferred against her in accordance with the procedures specified in the Collective Bargaining Agreement between OCA and plaintiffs union. Her employment was terminated following a hearing at which plaintiff was represented by counsel. She had ample opportunity both to confront the massive evidence that was introduced against her and to put her own side of the story into the record.
At the hearing, plaintiff excused her conduct on the ground that she had been suffering from depression. At her deposition in this action, plaintiff testified that she did not reveal her condition to anyone at OCA until after disciplinary charges were filed against her, when the attorney she retained to defend her at the hearing began requesting an "accommodation" on her behalf. The "accommodation" plaintiff belatedly sought was not an adjustment in the workplace to make it possible for plaintiff to perform her job. Rather, plaintiff wanted to be "accommodated" by receiving a penalty less severe than termination for the serious transgressions she had already committed.
On those undisputed facts, plaintiff fails as a matter of law to make out any claim for disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act or the New York State Human Rights Law. Plaintiffs attempt to save her claim by insisting that her supervisor did know about her medical condition fails because it contradicts her prior deposition testimony; in this Circuit, an affidavit cannot be used to create a genuine issue of fact if it contradicts prior sworn testimony. Hayes v. New York City Dept. of Corrections, 84 F.3d 614, 619 (2d Cir.1996).
Plaintiff appends to her ADA claim allegations of sexual harassment and disparate treatment due to her race (Hispanic) and gender. The sexual harassment claim is both time-barred and subject to an unassailable Farragher-Ellereth defense; and the race and gender discrimination claims are unexhausted and unsupported by any evidentiary showing.
OCA's motion is granted and the complaint is dismissed with prejudice.
OCA filed with its motion a Statement of Undisputed Facts in conformity with Local Rule 56.1 of the Rules of the Southern District of New York. Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, did not file an appropriate Local 56.1 response. The following facts are deemed admitted.
The Unified Court System of the State of New York is the Judicial Branch of New York State Government established pursuant to Article VI of the New York State Constitution.
The Office of Court Administration is the administrative office for the Unified Court System. N.Y. Judiciary Law § 212(1)(b).
The chief judicial officer of the Unified Court System is the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals. The Chief Judge, with the approval of the Administrative Board of the Courts, appoints a Chief Administrative Judge, who supervises the administration and the operation of the Unified Court System consistent with the power and duties delegated to her by the Chief Judge and in accordance with standards and administrative policies promulgated under section 28 of Article VI of the New York State Constitution and the Judiciary Law. N.Y. Judiciary Law §§ 211-212.
Through a delegation from the Chief Judge, the Chief Administrative Judge is, among other things, authorized to appoint and remove, upon nomination or recommendation of the appropriate administrative judge, or other administrator, all nonjudicial offices and employees, except the county clerks, commissioner of jurors town and village court employees, and personal assistants to judges and justices. N.Y. Comp.Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22, § 80.1(b)(3).
Through a delegation from the Chief Judge, the Deputy Chief Administrative Judge for Courts within New York City is, among other things, authorized to assist the Chief Judge and the Chief Administrative Judge in the supervision of the administration and operation of the Unified Court System and to supervise the day-to-day operations of the trial courts, county clerk's offices and commissioners of jurors and supervise the administrative actions of the administrative judges for the Supreme, Family, Civil and Criminal Courts in New York City. N.Y. Comp.Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22, §§ 80.2(9)(I), 81.1(a)-(b). The Deputy Chief Administrative Judge is authorized to discipline employees in New York City for misconduct and incompetence. N.Y. Comp.Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22, § 25.29; (Morales Aff. Ex. A at 47-52.)
The Bronx County Clerk is responsible for the on-site administration of the County Clerk's Office, its personnel and its operations. The Bronx County Clerk has the power to nominate his deputies and other employees assigned to the County Clerk's Office and must approve any request to discipline those employees before the request is forwarded to the Deputy Chief Administrative Judge for action. (Morales Aff. ¶ 4.)
The Kings County Supreme Court is a trial court of unlimited original jurisdiction and is comprised of both civil and criminal terms, each of which is under the administrative authority of an administrative judge assigned to that term. The Administrative Judge for the Criminal Term of the Supreme Court, who reports to the Deputy Chief Administrative Judge, is responsible for the on-site management of the Criminal Term of the Supreme Court and, among other things, must approve any request by court managers or supervisors to discipline an employee assigned to the Criminal Term of the Supreme Court before that request is forwarded to the Deputy Chief Administrative Judge for action. (Id. ¶ 5.)
The New York City Criminal Court is under the administrative authority of an administrative judge specifically assigned to it. The Administrative Judge for the New York City Criminal Court, who reports to the Deputy Chief Administrative Judge, is responsible for the on-site management of that Court and, among other things, must approve any request by court managers or supervisors to discipline an employee assigned to the Criminal Court before that request is forwarded to the Deputy Chief Administrative Judge for action. (Id. ¶ 6.)
Plaintiff was employed by the Unified Court System from 1981 through 2006. (Id. ¶¶ 7-9.)
In 2002, plaintiff was appointed to the Senior Court Clerk title and was assigned to the Bronx County Clerk's Office. (Id. ¶ 9.)
The Senior Court Clerk (JG-21) title, which is in the competitive jurisdictional class, serves either in a court's clerical offices or its courtrooms and can be designated to act in the absence of a Chief Clerk or Commissioner of Jurors. When assigned to a clerical office, a Senior Court Clerk is responsible for supervising Court Assistants and other court personnel in the processing of prisoner correspondence, reviewing calendaring decisions, motions for sufficiency and preference, and orders for conformance with decisions. When assigned to a courtroom, a Senior Court Clerk swears witnesses, polls jurors, and prepares courtroom minutes. This title is allocated to the JG-21 salary grade. (Id. ¶ 9; Morales Aff. Ex. B.)
Senior Court Clerks in the First and Second Judicial Departments are peace officers. N.Y.Crim. Proc. Law § 2.10(21).
As peace officers, Senior Court Clerks are authorized to carry firearms, and have the power to make warrantless arrests; to use physical and deadly physical force in making an arrest or preventing an escape; to carry out warrantless searches; to issue appearance tickets, when acting pursuant to a special duty; and to possess and take into custody a firearm not owned by the peace officer for the purpose of disposing or guarding the firearm. N.Y. Penal Law § 265.20(1)(c); N.Y.Crim. Proc. Law § 2.20(1).
In April 2006, plaintiff was transferred from the Bronx County Clerk's Office to the Red Hook Community Justice Center, subject to the successful completion of probation. (Morales Aff. ¶ 10.)
In June 2006, plaintiffs probationary appointment to the Red Hook Community Justice Center was terminated and she was returned to the Bronx County Clerk's Office. (Id. ¶ 11.)
Upon the termination of her appointment to the Red Hook Community Justice Center, plaintiff did not report to work at the Bronx County Clerk's Office. Instead, in connection with a disciplinary proceeding that it had commenced against her, the Unified Court System suspended plaintiffs employment from June 2006 through November 2006. (Id. ¶ 12.)
Article 23 of the collective bargaining agreement between the State of New York and the New York State Court Clerks Association provides that a court employee holding a position by permanent appointment in the competitive class of the classified service "shall not be removed or otherwise subjected to any disciplinary penalty provided in this section except for incompetency or misconduct shown after a hearing upon stated charges pursuant to this section." (Morales Aff. Ex. A at 47.)
Under Article 23 of the collective bargaining agreement, the disciplinary procedure is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Risco v. McHugh
...employment, even where the misconduct is caused by an undivulged psychiatric condition.” Canales–Jacobs v. N.Y. State Office of Court Admin., 640 F.Supp.2d 482, 500 (S.D.N.Y.2009) (citing Raytheon v. Hernandez, 540 U.S. 44, 54 n. 6, 124 S.Ct. 513, 157 L.Ed.2d 357 (2003)). Therefore, even if......
-
Trivedi v. N.Y.S. Unified Court Sys. Office of Court Admin.
...immunity with respect to claims brought under the ADEA, ADA, Section 1983, NYSHRL and NYCHRL. Canales–Jacobs v. N.Y. State Office of Ct. Admin., 640 F.Supp.2d 482, 498 (S.D.N.Y.2009) (New York has not waived immunity with respect to ADEA claims); Trotman v. Palisades Interstate Park Comm'n,......
-
Emmons v. The City Univ. Of N.Y.
...abrogate the sovereign immunity enjoyed by the State of New York or its agencies and officials.” Canales-Jacobs v. N.Y. State Office of Court Admin., 640 F.Supp.2d 482, 498 (S.D.N.Y.2009) ( citing Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 363, 121 S.Ct. 955, 961, 148 L.Ed.2......
-
Sutter v. Dibello
...that UCS is an administrative arm of the State of New York. See Am. Compl. ¶ 16; see also Canales-Jacobs v. New York State Office of Court Admin., 640 F. Supp. 2d 482, 498 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). Therefore, unless one of the three exceptions to Eleventh Amendment immunity identified above applies ......