Chalfen v. E. Williston Union Free Sch. Dist.
| Decision Date | 27 February 2023 |
| Docket Number | 19-CV-7170 (JS) (ARL) |
| Parties | MICHELLE CHALFEN, Plaintiff v. EAST WILLISTON UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE EAST WILLISTON UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, DR. LYNN MAZZA, individually and in her official capacity, and DR. DANIELLE GATELY, individually and in her official capacity, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Michelle Chalfen (“Plaintiff”), brings this action for religious and age discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. ("Title VII"), the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”), and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. (the “ADEA”). Before the Court, on referral from District Judge Seybert, is Defendants' motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 56. For the reasons set forth below, the Court respectfully recommends that the motion be granted.
Plaintiff commenced this action commenced this action on December 20 2019, against defendants, East Williston Union Free School District (the “District”), the Board of Education of the East Williston Union Free School District (the “School Board”), Dr. Lynn Mazza individually and in her official capacity, and Dr. Danielle Gately, individually and in her official capacity (collectively, “Defendants”). An Amended Complaint was filed on May 21, 2020 asserting six causes of action: religious discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against all Defendants (First Cause of Action), religious discrimination in violation of Title VII against District and the School Board (Second Cause of Action), religious discrimination in violation of the NYSHRL against all Defendants (Third Cause of Action), age discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against all Defendants (Fourth Cause of Action), age discrimination in violation of the ADEA against the District and the School Board (Fifth Cause of Action) and age discrimination in violation of the NYSHRL against all Defendants (Sixth Cause of Action). ECF No. 39.
Defendants moved for summary judgment on February 4, 2022. ECF No. 62. The briefing schedule for Defendants' motion for summary judgment was modified several times at the parties' request and the motion was ultimately fully briefed on May 26, 2022. In their motion for summary judgment, Defendants argue that Plaintiff has no evidence supporting an inference of discriminatory intent, Defendants had legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons to deny Plaintiff tenure, which she cannot rebut, there is no genuine issue of material fact to support Plaintiff's hostile work environment claims, Drs. Danielle Gately and Lynn Mazza (the “Individual Defendants”) should be dismissed from the case because Plaintiff admits she has no direct evidence that either Dr. Gately or Dr. Mazza discriminated against her on account of age or religion and Plaintiff's Monell Claim should be dismissed because there is no evidence any final policymaking official discriminated against Plaintiff. ECF No. 55. In response, Plaintiff contends that material issues of fact preclude dismissal of Plaintiff's religious and age discrimination claims as well as Plaintiff's hostile work environment claim. ECF No. 68.
By Order dated October 31, 2022, Judge Seybert referred the motion to the undersigned to issue a Report and Recommendation.
The following facts are drawn from the parties' Local Rule 56.1(a) Statements and are uncontested unless otherwise noted.
Plaintiff is female of Jewish faith and Jewish ancestry who is a resident of Nassau County, New York. Am. Compl. ¶ 7. Plaintiff worked as a special education teacher for the District from the Fall of 2015 until July of 2019. Id. at ¶ 9. Plaintiff was 46 years old when she was hired by the District as a full-time probationary special education teacher. Def. Rule 56.1 Statement ¶¶ 13, 18. Prior to her employment by the District, Plaintiff worked as a part-time, non-tenured teacher in the Hewlett-Woodmere School District. Id. at ¶ 1. In the fall of 2015, Dr. Elaine Kanas, Superintendent, recommended to the Board that Plaintiff be hired. Id. at ¶¶ 14, 15. Plaintiff was on a four-year probationary track before she would be considered for tenure. Id. at ¶ 19. When Plaintiff was hired in 2015, her direct supervisor was Shari Senzer. Id. at ¶ 20.
The District is a public school district located in New York. Id. at ¶ 1. Dr. Danielle Gately was the Director of Secondary Curriculum and Social Studies between 2014 and 2016, became the Assistant to the Superintendent in 2016, the Assistant Superintendent in 2017, and the Deputy Superintendent in 2020. Id. at ¶ 36. In July 2017, Dr. Lynn Mazza replaced Ms. Senzer as Director of Pupil Personnel Services (“PPS”). Id. at ¶ 65. In that position, Dr. Mazza was Plaintiff's direct supervisor from July 2017 until Plaintiff's termination in July 2019. Id. at ¶ 66. Dr. Mazza was approximately 40 years old when she was hired. Id. at ¶ 67.
Plaintiff's first probationary teaching year was the 2015-16 academic year. Id. at ¶ 43. She taught small classes or resource room, which consisted of only four students at a time, although a fifth student was added for one of her classes in one year. Id. at ¶ 44. She generally kept the same students each year. Id. at ¶ 45. On November 19, 2015, Thomas Sposato, Assistant Director of PPS, conducted an observation of Plaintiff's resource room with four students present. Id. at ¶¶ 22, 46. Mr. Sposato raised concerns about independence of the students in the class, and the tracking of prompting provided during the lesson, which he shared with Plaintiff. Id. at ¶ 47. On November 23, 2015, Dr. Karen Klapper, Assistant Principal, observed Plaintiff's resource room with three students present. Id. at ¶¶ 29, 48. Dr. Klapper noted three areas that needed improvement, which included critical questioning, having students read passages for themselves, and building students' self-esteem and confidence. Id. at ¶ 49. Dr. Klapper was critical of Plaintiff's response of “Nope” to a special education student who had answered a question incorrectly. Id. at ¶ 50. By the end of the 2015-16 academic year, Mr. Sposato had concerns about Plaintiff's data collection for prompting and the overall independence of Plaintiff's special education students. Id. at ¶ 52.
Plaintiff's second probationary teaching year was the 2016-17 academic year. Id. at ¶ 53. On November 29, 2016, Ms. Senzer conducted an observation of Plaintiff's 9th Grade Special Class English class with four students. Id. at ¶ 54. Ms. Senzer offered Plaintiff some constructive criticism following this observation, including providing Plaintiff with different strategies to incorporate into future lessons. Id. at ¶ 55. On December 20, 2016, Dr. Klapper observed Plaintiff's 9th Grade Special Class English class. Id. at ¶ 56. Dr. Klapper raised three concerns about Plaintiff's performance. Id. at ¶ 57. Dr. Klapper raised concerns about Plaintiff telling students how to spell words instead of having them look up words themselves. Id. at ¶ 58. Dr. Klapper also noted Plaintiff was not following protocols by sharing with the students the homeroom schedule of events, and not following safety protocols by properly marking the classroom for active shooter situations. Id. at ¶ 60. On March 17, 2017, Mr. Sposato observed Plaintiff's 9th Grade Special Class English class with four students present. Id. at ¶ 61. After the lesson, Mr. Sposato raised concerns about Plaintiff's use of educational terminology with Plaintiff's students. Id. at ¶ 62. Mr. Sposato had concerns about Plaintiff's teaching by the end of her second year. Id. at ¶ 64.
Plaintiff's third probationary teaching year was the 2017-18 academic year. Id. at ¶ 72. From the beginning of the 2017-18 school year, parents brought concerns to Dr. Mazza's attention concerning the tone and nature of the classroom environment.[1] Id. at ¶ 73. One parent in particular voiced a number of concerns regarding her daughter's interactions with Plaintiffs. Id. at ¶¶ 74-80. Defendants contend that a second parent also requested a meeting with Dr. Mazza because their son felt uncomfortable in Plaintiff's resource room, however, Plaintiff partially disputes this this contention, asserting that the student later admitted that the student felt uncomfortable because the student claimed that Plaintiff and another individual had made fun of his parents' signatures - an allegation which the student later admitted was not true. Pl. Rule 56.1 Counter Statement ¶ 81. Dr. Mazza felt Plaintiff was not responsive to reflecting on her approach to how she could change to support students within her classes. Def. Rule 56.1 Statement ¶ 87.
Plaintiff was observed in 2017-18 by Dr. Mazza, Dr. Klapper, and Mr Sposato. Id. at ¶ 92. On January 30, 2018, Dr. Klapper conducted an observation of Plaintiff's 10th Grade Special Class English class. Id. at ¶ 93. In April or May of 2018, Principal Dr. Sean Feeney observed a class in which Plaintiff's students presenting their papers as part of the school's research program. Id. at ¶ 96. Dr. Feeney was concerned that the format of the students' papers did not align with the mandated format for the 10th graders research program. Id. at ¶ 97. Dr. Feeney considered this a significant concern because it spoke to...
To continue reading
Request your trial