Corrado v. N.Y. Unified Court Sys.

• Decision Date: 17 February 2016
• Docket Number: 12-CV-1748(DLI)(MDG)
• Citation: 163 F.Supp.3d 1
• Parties: Nicole Corrado, Plaintiff, v. New York Unified Court System, Luis Gonzalez, in his individual capacity, John McConnell, in his individual capacity, Roy Rearden, in his individual capacity, Jorge Dopico, in his individual capacity, Angela Christmas, in her individual capacity, Alan Friedberg, in his individual capacity, Vincent Raniere, in his individual capacity, Naomi Goldstein, in her individual capacity, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

163 F.Supp.3d 1

Nicole Corrado, Plaintiff,

v.New York Unified Court System, Luis Gonzalez, in his individual capacity, John McConnell, in his individual capacity, Roy Rearden, in his individual capacity, Jorge Dopico, in his individual capacity, Angela Christmas, in her individual capacity, Alan Friedberg, in his individual capacity, Vincent Raniere, in his individual capacity, Naomi Goldstein, in her individual capacity, Defendants.

12-CV-1748(DLI)(MDG)

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

Signed February 17, 2016

Nicole Corrado, Douglaston, NY, pro se.

Ambrose W. Wotorson, Jr., Law Offices of Ambrose Wotorson, Brooklyn, NY, Frank Housh, Housh Law Offices, Buffalo, NY, for Plaintiff.

Lisa M. Evans, NYS Office of Court Admin, Michael A. Berg, Office of the NYS Attorney General, Nicole Bergstrom, Wendy Stryker, Frankfurt Kurnet Klein & Selz, P.C., New York, NY, for Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

DORA L. IRIZARRY

, United States District Judge:

Before the Court are two defense motions to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. For the reasons set forth below, the motions are granted in part, as follows: (i) all claims against defendants Raniere and Friedberg are dismissed, with prejudice; (ii) Claims Five, Six, and Seven are dismissed as to each defendant that is a natural person (the “Individual Defendants”), with prejudice; and (iii) those portions of Claims Two and Three alleging sexual harassment and aiding and abetting sexual harassment are dismissed as to each Individual Defendant, with prejudice. As for the six remaining Individual Defendants and the remaining claims, the motions are denied with respect to: (i) Claim Four; and (ii) those portions of Claims Two and Three alleging retaliation. For clarity, the only Individual Defendants who remain in this action are defendants Gonzalez, McConnell, Rearden, Dopico, Christmas, and Goldstein; the only claims that survive as to these defendants are Claim Four and the retaliation allegations contained in Claims Two and Three.

BACKGROUND

I. Facts¹

The Parties

Plaintiff Nicole Corrado (“Plaintiff”) is an attorney who began her employment with defendant New York State United Court System (“UCS”) on November 8, 2001. Amended Complaint (“Am. Compl.,” Dkt. Entry No. 86), at ¶¶ 14 and 17. UCS initially hired Plaintiff as an associate attorney, promoting her to the position of Principal Attorney in 2006. Id. , at ¶ 20. One of Plaintiff's responsibilities as a Principal Attorney involved investigating cases of attorney misconduct. Id. , at ¶ 21. Within UCS, Plaintiff worked in the Department Disciplinary Committee (“DDC”), Appellate Division, First Department (“First Department”). First Motion to Dismiss, filed February, 27, 2015 (“First MTD,” Dkt. Entry. No. 119), at 1.

Each of the Individual Defendants worked at UCS at some point during Plaintiff's employment. See generally, Am. Compl. The Honorable Louis A. Gonzalez (“Gonzalez”) is the Presiding Justice of the First Department. First MTD, at 1. John W. McConnell (“McConnell”) is the former Clerk of the First Department, and in December of 2009, became Counsel to UCS. Id. , at 21. Roy Reardon, Esq. (“Reardon”) is an attorney in private practice with the law firm of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, LLC (“Simpson Thacher”), and former volunteer chairman of the DDC and its policy committee. Id. , at 1. Jorge Dopico (“Dopico”) is Chief Counsel to the DDC. Id. Angela Christmas (“Christmas”) is a DDC Deputy Chief Counsel. Id. Alan Friedberg (“Friedberg”) is a former DDC Chief Counsel who is now retired. Id. Vincent Raniere (“Raniere”) is a former Chief Investigator of the DDC who is now retired. Id. Finally, Naomi Goldstein (“Goldstein”) is a DDC Deputy Chief Counsel. Id. According to Plaintiff, each of the Individual Defendants had supervisory and disciplinary authority over her at some point when she worked at UCS. Am. Compl., at ¶ 16.

The Sexual Harassment

Sometime in 2003, a UCS employee named Andral Bratton (“Bratton”) became Plaintiff's immediate supervisor and began sexually harassing her. Id. , at ¶ 22. Allegedly, Bratton constantly made unwelcome sexually laden comments to Plaintiff, such as “with you Nicole, a little skin showing goes a long way.” Id. , at ¶¶ 23-25. Bratton frequently called Plaintiff at her home in the evenings and on weekends, exhibiting an obsessive need to speak with her. Id. , at ¶¶ 23 and 28. Bratton purportedly would look into Plaintiff's office in order to stare at Plaintiff in a sexually suggestive manner. Id. , at ¶ 25. Whenever Plaintiff attempted to discourage Bratton's inappropriate behavior, he would threaten Plaintiff by saying things like “you need to be nice to me.” Id. , at ¶¶ 23 and 27.

In June of 2007, Plaintiff requested a transfer to another supervisor, but shortly thereafter, Bratton took a two-month medical leave of absence. Id. , at ¶¶ 31-32. Upon returning to UCS in August of 2007, Bratton allegedly resumed his sexual harassment of Plaintiff, which continued until sometime in 2008. Id. , at ¶¶ 32-33. In June of 2008, Friedberg began to monitor closely Plaintiff's work and wrote “pretextual” memos containing negative accounts of her productivity. Id. , at ¶ 34. Friedberg placed these memos in Plaintiff's employee file without disclosing them to Plaintiff. Second Proposed Amended Complaint (Dkt. Entry No. 63), at ¶ 21.q. Plaintiff alleges that Friedberg did this in retaliation for Plaintiff's transfer request, and in retaliation for testimony given by Plaintiff against the DDC in an unrelated racial discrimination lawsuit. Id. , at ¶ 21.s.

From 2004 to 2008, Raneire allegedly also sexually harassed Plaintiff by routinely making sexually charged comments to Plaintiff, and often inappropriately kissing and touching Plaintiff. Am. Compl., at ¶¶ 40-45. Plaintiff claims she frequently asked Raneire to stop making sexual advances toward her, but the harassment persisted. Id. , at ¶ 45.

The Retaliation

On September 17, 2008, Plaintiff allegedly reported to Friedberg that Bratton and Raniere had sexually harassed and threatened her, and that she previously had reported Raniere's sexual harassment to Bratton and to UCS's policy committee. Id. , at ¶¶ 37-38. She further informed Friedberg that neither Bratton nor the UCS Policy Committee had taken any action to prevent Raniere from sexually harassing Plaintiff. Id.

Friedberg purportedly reported Plaintiff's allegations with respect to Bratton to the UCS Office of Inspector General (“OIG”), but failed to report Plaintiff's allegations as to Raniere. Id. , at ¶ 46. From September 2008 to November 2008, OIG investigated Plaintiff's allegations against Bratton only. Id. , at ¶ 47. At the conclusion of the investigation, UCS, along with defendants Gonzalez, McConnell, and Reardon, concluded that, although Bratton's behavior was inappropriate, it did not rise to the level of sexual harassment. Id. , at ¶ 52. Bratton was transferred to another unit within UCS, but was still permitted unrestricted access to Plaintiff's workspace. Id. , at ¶ 52-53.

Plaintiff claims that, shortly after the end of the OIG investigation in November of 2008, Friedberg's scrutiny of Plaintiff significantly increased. Id. , at ¶ 50. He began to reprimand Plaintiff regularly, criticize her work product, and closely monitor all of her activities and movements. Id. , at ¶ 51. According to Plaintiff, Friedberg's attentiveness to Plaintiff's work activities was initiated at the direction of Reardon, Gonzalez, and McConnell. Id. , at ¶ 50. This was done in order to create pretextual performance issues in retaliation for Plaintiff's formal complaints against Bratton and Raniere. Id. , at ¶ 55. This concerted campaign of pretextual negative performance reviews, unreasonable workloads and deadlines, and constant criticism allegedly continued through July of 2009. Id. , at ¶ 61. Plaintiff again requested a transfer to another position within UCS, but her request was denied. Id. , at ¶ 62.

In May of 2009, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (“EEOC”) alleging sexual harassment and retaliation. Id. , at ¶ 57. On July 16, 2009, allegedly in retaliation for the EEOC complaint, Friedberg, Gonzalez, McConnell, and Reardon purportedly ordered Plaintiff to appear for a counseling session and stated they would fire her if she did not attend. Id. , at ¶ 64. In July or August of 2009, OIG initiated a sexual harassment investigation against Raniere, and, in August, McConnell informed Plaintiff that her allegations against Raniere were unfounded. Id. , at ¶ 63 and 65.

The Ethics Investigation

In 2008, Plaintiff retained an attorney to represent her in an unrelated state court civil action involving her home. Id. , at ¶ 73. Plaintiff contends that, in August 2009, Raniere and Friedberg, acting at the direction of Reardon, Gonzalez, and McConnell, initiated an ethics investigation against Plaintiff's attorney in the state court action. Id. , at ¶ 74. In May of 2010, Plaintiff's state court attorney abruptly withdrew as counsel, and, shortly thereafter, all ethical charges against the attorney were dismissed as unfounded. Id. , at ¶¶ 75-76. However, in 2011, the ethics investigation was reopened allegedly at the direction of Dopico, Christmas, Gonzalez, Reardon, and McConnell. Id. , at ¶ 77.

The First Leave of Absence, This Action, and Additional Retaliation

These events allegedly caused Plaintiff to suffer severe physical and mental health issues, such as anxiousness, loss of appetite, and insomnia. Id. , at ¶¶ 62, 66, and 68. As a result, Plaintiff took a two-year unpaid leave of absence beginning August 24, 2009. Id. , at ¶ 66. By the time Plaintiff returned to her position at UCS in August of 2011, Bratton and Raniere no longer worked at UCS, but the EEOC complaint was still pending. Id. , at ¶ 69. Shortly after her return, Plaintiff was “rigorously scrutinized,” “strictly monitored” and “further subjected to...