CHAPMAN v. CITY of N.Y.
| Decision Date | 30 March 2011 |
| Docket Number | 06-CV-3153 (ENV)(JMA) |
| Parties | BRIDGETTE CHAPMAN, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF NEW YORK and NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
VITALIANO, D.J.
Plaintiff Bridgette Chapman commenced this action against the City of New York and the New York City Department of Education ("DOE"), alleging employment discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seg. ("Title VII"), the New York State Executive Law § 296, New York City Administrative Code §§ 8-101 et seg., and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983 and 1985. Defendants now move for summary judgment, pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted.
The following facts are drawn from the complaint and the submissions of the parties on defendants' motion, including the statements of undisputed material fact filed by all parties pursuant to Local Civil Rule 56.1. The facts are construed, as they must be in the summary judgment context, in the light most favorable to Chapman as the nonmoving party. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hamilton Beach/Proctor Silex, Inc., 473 F.3d 450, 456 (2d Cir. 2007). Any factual disputes are noted.
Plaintiff, a former tenured teacher employed by DOE, alleges that from January 2002 toOctober 2004, she was denied certain positions based on her race (African-American) and in retaliation for having filed charges of race discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") in 2001 and 2002.
Plaintiff began her employment with DOE, then the Board of Education, in October 1985 as a teacher of common branches assigned to P.S. 279. (See Ozgu Decl., at ¶3.)1 After working at P.S. 279, P.S. 120, P.S. 196, and P.S. 250, Chapman achieved tenure on September 1, 1996, and was assigned to P.S. 23 in Brooklyn effective September 3, 1996. (Id. at ¶ 4.) Patricia Hagler-Singleton was the principal of P.S. 23, and, like plaintiff, is also African-American. (Id. at ¶ 5.) Chapman alleges that from September 1998 to May 2002, Singleton "subjected her to a hostile work environment predicated upon her race." (See Jackson Decl., at ¶ 5.)2 Specifically, she claims that Singleton encouraged other employees to belittle and use profane language against her, resulting in physical threats and harassment on a daily basis. (Id.)
In March 2001, disciplinary charges were filed against Chapman for engaging in inappropriate and insubordinate conduct and neglecting her duties. (Ozgu Decl., at ¶ 10.) The charges alleged that, during the 1999-2000 school year, plaintiff failed to follow the school schedule by taking her class out of the classroom at 9:05am, engaged in a private conversation with an unknown individual while her class was standing in the hallway unattended, refused to allow students to go to the bathroom, dressed inappropriately with shorts past her thigh area and t-shirts, filed her fingernails and applied makeup during instructional time, and conducted union business during instructional time. (Id.) Further, in the 2000-2001 academic year, plaintiffallegedly took her class to the main lobby and was speaking on her cell phone, refused to return her students to the classroom, said to the principal "ghetto slut bitch, fuck you," in front of her students after being directed to return to the classroom, left school at 9:30am, refused to allow students inside the classroom when they were late, and refused to sign the safety log book after being directed to do so. (Id) Plaintiff contradicts two of these incidents. First, she contests that on May 31, 2000, as Singleton claims, her class was not in the classroom but instead outside a room on the first floor of the school building, while she was inside the room engaged in a private conversation with an unknown individual. (Ozgu Deck, at ¶ 6.) Chapman allegedly refused to take her students back to the classroom, and was inappropriate and insubordinate. (Id.) Chapman, however, claims that she had merely taken her students to participate in an event in another classroom, and that Singleton chastised her in the presence of her peers and students. (Jackson Deck, at ¶ 6.) Second is an incident on September 29, 2000, when Assistant Principal Victor Rodriguez claims that he observed plaintiff, accompanied by her students, having a conversation with another teacher regarding a union matter. (Ozgu Deck, at ¶ 7.) Rodriguez followed up with a written warning to Chapman that she could not conduct union business during class time. (Id.) Chapman denies that this happened and claims that she conducted union business only during the designated periods. (Jackson Deck, at ¶ 7.)
After the disciplinary charges were filed, an independent hearing was conducted. (Ozgu Deck, at ¶ 11.) The hearing lasted 31 days and 115 exhibits were submitted by the parties. (Id. at ¶ 11-12.) Eventually, DOE voluntarily withdrew some of the charges and, ultimately, Chapman was found guilty of only one of the charges—she was issued a letter of reprimand for using the word "slut" in response to Singleton when she was asked to return to the classroom. (Id. at ¶ 13.) Prior to the conclusion of this disciplinary hearing process, plaintiff was reassigned.(Id., at ¶ 14.)
In 2002, DOE again filed disciplinary charges against Chapman for insubordination, this time also seeking termination of her employment. (Id. at ¶ 18.) The charges alleged that plaintiff failed to report to P.S. 157 after being told that she was being reassigned to that school for safety reasons, refused to leave the Community School District 14 office on May 14, 2002 and had to be escorted out by school security officers and police, engaged in conduct unbecoming of her position,3 and violated certain conflict of interest laws of the City of New York related to her position at Revelation Performing Arts Studio. (Id) Chapman denies that she refused to leave the district office premises on May 14, 2002, and contends instead that she left of her own volition after retrieving her personal belongings. (Jackson Deck, at ¶ 16.) She also denies making any inappropriate remarks to school officials. (Id. at ¶ 17.) At the conclusion of the second process, the independent hearing officer found plaintiff guilty of the first two charges—that Chapman failed to report to P.S. 157 as instructed and was insubordinate, requiring her to be escorted off the district office premises. (Ozgo Deck, at ¶ 19.) She was ordered to pay a fine of a full week's salary. (Id.) Parenthetically, during the pendency of the 2001 and 2002 disciplinary charges, though suspended, Chapman received full salary and benefits. She remained suspended until September 7, 2004, when she was assigned to P.S. 256, Brooklyn. (Id at 20.)
While assigned to P.S. 256, Chapman claims that she was subjected to "specious, retaliatory and discriminatory allegations of classroom ill preparedness . . . ." (Jackson Deck, at % 23.) She stopped reporting to school and sought a sabbatical leave of absence due to posttraumatic stress disorder. (Ozgu Decl., at 24.) Plaintiff was granted a sabbatical leave from October 20, 2004 to September 5, 2005.4 (Id.) While on sabbatical, Chapman applied for a 6-month extension of her leave, which was denied. (Id. at 26-29.) At the end of her sabbatical, plaintiff failed to return to her position at P.S. 256. (Id. at 30.) On May 9, 2006, Interim Acting Principal of P.S. 256, Sharyn Hemphill, sent Chapman a letter directing her to contact the school as soon as possible to inform them of her intentions regarding the upcoming school year. (Id.) Another letter was mailed to Chapman on February 12, 2007 informing her that if DOE did not receive a response by February 16, 2007, they would consider her position abandoned. (Id. at 31.) Since plaintiff failed to return to duty or contact DOE, she was deemed to have abandoned her position and was administratively terminated on February 23, 2007, effective August 31, 2006. (Id. at 32.) Plaintiff claims that she contacted defendants and submitted medical documentation justifying her demand to remain on medical leave. (Jackson Deck, at ¶ 30-33.)
In her complaint here, Chapman alleges that she filed two charges of discrimination with the EEOC in January 2001 and July 2002, alleging that defendants discriminated against her on the basis of race. (Compl, at ¶ 10.) In her opposition to the instant motion, plaintiff also alleges that she filed a charge of discrimination with the New York City Commission on Human Rights ("CCHR") in November 2002. (Jackson Deck, at 37.) However, a search of DOE records indicates that no charges were filed by plaintiff in 2001 or 2002. (Ozgu Deck, at 37.) A further search of all DOE Office of Legal Services databases showed no complaints by Chapman except a complaint filed simultaneously on March 16, 2005, with the State Division of Human Rights ("SDHR") and the EEOC. (Id.) On February 6, 2006, SDHR dismissed Chapman's charge andon March 23, 2006, the EEOC issued a right to sue letter. (Id at 25 n.3.)
This lawsuit followed on June 26, 2006. Chapman's complaint states conclusory allegations that "defendants discriminated against her in the terms and conditions of her employment on the basis of race," (compl. ¶ 10), and that "after [filing charges of discrimination with the EEOC in January 2001 and July 2002] defendants retaliated against [her]," (id. ¶¶ 1011). She recites a litany of specific additional allegations in opposition to the instant motion.
To summarize her claims, Chapman alleges that unfounded disciplinary charges were brought against her in 2001 and 2002; that between January 2002 and October 2004 she was denied promotions to several positions, including administrative principal and assistant principal positions;...
To continue reading
Request your trial