Carris v. First Student, Inc.

• Decision Date: 18 September 2015
• Docket Number: No. 5:13–CV–0923 (GTS/ATB).,5:13–CV–0923 (GTS/ATB).
• Citation: 132 F.Supp.3d 321
• Parties: Margo CARRIS, Plaintiff, v. FIRST STUDENT, INC., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York

132 F.Supp.3d 321

Margo CARRIS, Plaintiff,

v.FIRST STUDENT, INC., Defendant.

No. 5:13–CV–0923 (GTS/ATB).

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

Signed Sept. 18, 2015.

Margo Carris, Syracuse, NY, pro se.

Littler Mendelson, P.C., Ivan R. Novich, Esq., of Counsel, Newark, NJ, for Defendant.

DECISION and ORDER

GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief Judge.

Currently before the Court, in this pro se employment discrimination action filed by Margo Carris ("Plaintiff") against First Student, Inc. ("Defendant") are the following motions: (1) Plaintiff's motion for leave to file and serve an Amended Complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2) (Dkt. No. 25); and (2) Defendant's cross-motion to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter-jurisdiction pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) (Dkt. No. 31.) For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's motion is denied, and Defendant's cross-motion is granted.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND 335

A.	Plaintiff's Complaint	335
B.	Plaintiff's Proposed Amended Complaint	336
C.	Parties' Briefing on Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Her Complaint and Defendant's Cross–Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint	337

1.	Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Her Complaint	337
2.	Defendant's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion and in Support of Its Own Cross–Motion	337
3.	Plaintiff's Opposition Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant's Cross– Motion and in Reply Regarding Her Own Motion	339

II. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS 340

A.	Legal Standard Governing Motions for Leave to Amend	340
B.	Legal Standard Governing Dismissal for Failure to State Claim	341
C.	Legal Standard Governing Motions to Dismiss for Lack of Subject–Matter Jurisdiction	344

III. ANALYSIS 344

A.	Whether Plaintiff Has Alleged Facts Plausibly Suggesting Fraud	344
B.	Whether Plaintiff's Breach of Contract Claim Is Time–Barred by the Applicable Statute of Limitations	347

1.	Timeliness of Plaintiff's Hybrid LMRA § 301 Claim	347
2.	Timeliness of Plaintiff's Duty of Fair Representation Claim Under Title VII Against Local 182	349
3.	Plaintiff's Breach–of–Contract Claim Based Upon First Student's National Employee Handbook	349

C.	Whether Plaintiff Has Alleged Facts Plausibly Suggesting that Defendant and/or Local 182 Are State Actors or Private Parties Acting Under Color of State Law	350
D.	Whether Plaintiff Has Alleged Facts Plausibly Suggesting a Deprivation of Her Civil Rights by SCSD and the Proposed Defendants Employed by SCSD	353

1.	First Amendment	353
2.	Fifth Amendment	354
3.	Ninth Amendment	355
4.	Thirteenth Amendment	355
5.	Fourteenth Amendment	356
6.	Municipal Liability Under 42 U.S.C. § 1981	357
7.	Individual Liability of the Proposed SCSD Defendants Under 42 U.S.C. § 1981	358
8.	42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985(2)-(3), and 1986	360

E.	Whether Plaintiff Has Alleged Facts Plausibly Suggesting that Defendant, Local 182, and the Remaining Proposed Defendants Not Acting Under Color of State Law, Conspired to Violate Her Civil Rights Under § 1985(3)	361
F.	Whether Plaintiff's Proposed Claim Under § 1982 Is Futile	362
G.	Whether Plaintiff's Proposed Claim Under § 1988 Is Futile	362
H.	Whether Plaintiff's Discrimination Claim Under the New York State Human Rights Law, as Alleged in the Original Complaint, Is Barred by the Election–of–Remedies Provision	363
I.	Whether Plaintiff's Cause of Action Under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Against the Individual Proposed Defendants, Except for SCSD, Is Futile	364
J.	Whether Plaintiff Has Alleged Facts Plausibly Suggesting a Violation of Her Rights Under Title VII	365

1.	Individuals Defendants	365
2.	Requirements to State a Prima Facie Claim Under Title VII	365
3.	Proposed Title VII Claim Against the Proposed Defendants in Plaintiff's PAC	366
4.	Title VII Claim Against First Student in Plaintiff's Original Complaint	366

IV. CONCLUSION 368

I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

A. Plaintiff's Complaint

Generally, liberally construed, Plaintiff's Complaint alleges as follows. (Dkt. No. 1.) On October 10, 2012, Plaintiff, an African–American, was employed by Defendant as a school bus driver when she was transporting students from school to their homes located on the northeast side of Syracuse, New York. (Id., ¶ 11.) During Plaintiff's bus route, a male student on the bus began "kicking, punching, slapping, and spitting" on younger students. (Id. ) Plaintiff issued several verbal warnings to the male student and stated that she would write a behavior referral, to which the student responded that he "d [idn't] care." (Id. ) When the bus reached its first stop, the mother of a female student stepped onto the bus and "began to confront and threaten the male student by name." (Id. ) Plaintiff instructed the parent that she could not be on the bus and advised that she would write a referral regarding the student's behavior and it would be taken care of through First Student. (Id. ) The parent informed Plaintiff that she had reported the male student to the School District of Syracuse once before and no action had been taken to remedy the situation. (Id. ) Plaintiff continued her bus route until her last stop, when the male student exited the bus. (Id. ) As the male student exited, Plaintiff realized that he was a playmate of her two grandsons. (Id. )

After finishing her routes, Plaintiff returned to the bus garage and requested a referral form before leaving work. (Id., ¶ 12.) However, Plaintiff also decided to go the male student's house to discuss his behavior with his guardian(s). (Id. ) Once there, Plaintiff spoke with a young woman who answered the door. (Id. ) Because the male student's grandmother was not home, Plaintiff explained what had occurred on the bus to the young woman and requested that the young woman share the information with the student's grandmother when she returned. (Id. )

The next day, Plaintiff was on a bus route when she was contacted by dispatch, which informed her to discontinue her route and that she was being placed on administrative leave due to the events that had transpired the previous day. (Id., ¶ 13.) Plaintiff was later informed by Defendant's assistant manager that the grandmother of the male student had contacted the Syracuse City School District ("SCSD") and complained that Plaintiff had come to her house with another student's parent and confronted her about her grandson's behavior. (Id. ) Plaintiff alleges that, on October 15, 2012, she was terminated from her employment with First Student for going to the male student's house with another person and disclosing personal and/or confidential information about the student. (Id. ) Finally, Plaintiff describes three cases of employee misconduct involving white bus drivers employed by First Student, which resulted in employee discipline but not termination. (Id., ¶ 14–16.)

Based upon the foregoing, Plaintiff asserts two claims: (1) a claim that she was treated in a disparate manner and subjected to racially based discriminatory employment practices by her employers, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.; and (2) a claim that she was treated in a disparate manner and subjected to racially based discriminatory employment practices by her employers, in violation of N.Y. Executive Law § 296. (Id., ¶ 1.)

B. Plaintiff's Proposed Amended Complaint

With certain exceptions, the factual allegations contained in Plaintiff's proposed Amended Complaint ("PAC") are substantially identical to those in her original Complaint. Therefore, for purposes of brevity, the Court will not restate those allegations here. However, Plaintiff seeks to add numerous parties to this action, including the following three employees of SCSD: (1) Sharon Contreas, Superintendent; (2) Haine Alica, Chief Operating Officer; and (3) Patricia Bailey, Director of Transportation. (Dkt. No. 26, at 3 [Pl.'s Am. Compl.].) In addition, Plaintiff seeks to include the following seven employees of First Student: (1) "John/Jane Doe," C.E.O./President; (2) Frank Luciano, Regional Vice President; (3) Matt Conti, General Manager; (4) Ty Worrell, Manager; (5) Lynea Lemke, Assistant Location Manager; (6) Jimmy James, Bus Attendant Supervisor Monitor; and (7) "John/Jane Doe," Investigator. (Id. ) Finally, Plaintiff seeks also to include James LaGrange, Vice President of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local Union No. 182 ("Union" or "Local 182"), and Gary Kirck, Steward of Local 182, as defendants in this lawsuit. (Id. )

Plaintiff sets forth several new claims in her PAC, alleging that the current Defendant, and the twelve proposed defendants, violated the following: (1) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. ; (2) N.Y. Executive Law § 296 ; (3) 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982, 1983, 1985(2)(3), 1986, and 1988 ; (6) Title I of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act ("LMRDA"); (7) 29 U.S.C. §§ 411 –415 ; and (8) the First, Fifth, Ninth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. (Dkt. No. 26, at 1, 4–14.) Plaintiff also sets forth claims, under New York State law, for fraud and breach of contract in her PAC. (Id. )

Plaintiff's claims under the Civil Rights Act, N.Y. Executive Law § 296, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982, 1983, and First, Fifth, Ninth, and Thirteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution relate to the allegations of racial discrimination in employment practices and disparate treatment, as discussed previously. (Id., ¶ 1, 42.) With respect to Plaintiff's claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985 and 1986, she alleges that Defendant, and the proposed defendants, acted in concert and conspired to terminate her employment by making material misrepresentations and depriving her of evidence and information that she allegedly needed to adequately defend herself at two grievance hearings. (Id., 8, 17, 19, 27.)

Regarding Plaintiff's LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 411 –415, and breach-of-contract claims, she alleges that Defendant and the proposed defendants violated the...