Cummings-Fowler v. Suffolk Cnty. Cmty. Coll.

• Decision Date: 04 November 2013
• Docket Number: No. 09–CV–3593 (ADS)(ARL).,09–CV–3593 (ADS)(ARL).
• Citation: 981 F.Supp.2d 124
• Parties: Michelle CUMMINGS–FOWLER, Plaintiff, v. SUFFOLK COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE, James Canniff and Richard Britton, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

981 F.Supp.2d 124

Michelle CUMMINGS–FOWLER, Plaintiff,

v.SUFFOLK COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE, James Canniff and Richard Britton, Defendants.

No. 09–CV–3593 (ADS)(ARL).

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

Nov. 4, 2013.

Rick Ostrove, Esq., Andrew George Costello, Esq., Thomas Ricotta, Esq., Of Counsel, Leeds Morelli & Brown, P.C., Carle Place, NY, for Plaintiff.

Christopher M. Gatto, Assistant County Attorney, Christine Malafi, Suffolk County Attorney, Hauppauge, NY, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER

SPATT, District Judge.

On August 19, 2009, Michelle Cummings–Fowler (the “Plaintiff”) commenced this action against her former employer, Suffolk County Community College (“SCCC”), and her former supervisors, James Canniff (“Canniff”) and Richard Britton (“Britton”) (collectively, the “Defendants”). The Plaintiff brings claims for hostile work environment, discrimination and retaliation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (“Title VII”) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“§ 1983”). In this regard, the remaining claims in this action are (1) a § 1983 claim brought against Canniff for allegedly violating the Plaintiff's constitutional rights under the Equal Protection Clause by participating in a discriminatory hiring decision; (2) a § 1983 claim brought against Britton for allegedly violating the Plaintiff's constitutional rights under the Equal Protection Clause by subjecting her to inappropriate racist comments; and (3) a Title VII and § 1983 claim against SCCC for alleged discriminatory hiring practices, hostile work environment and retaliation.

Presently before the Court is the Defendants Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ.P.”) 56 motion for summary judgment. For the reasons that follow, the Defendants' motion is granted in its entirety and this case is dismissed.

I. BACKGROUND

A. The Alleged Hostile Work Environment

The Plaintiff is an African–American woman who was forty-five years old at the time this action was commenced. In 1997, she was hired by SCCC as an adjunct faculty member. Thereafter, in February of 2000, the Plaintiff was promoted to the full-time faculty, and in February of 2003, the Plaintiff was promoted to the position of Coordinator of Instructional Development. With respect to her education, the Plaintiff received an associate's degree in applied science from SCCC in 1983; a bachelor of science degree in management information systems from SUNY Old Westbury in 1985; a master's in business administration degree from Dowling College in 1987; and a doctorate degree in education administration from St. John's University in 2007.

While employed by SCCC, the Plaintiff received positive evaluations from supervisors and never received any negative reviews. Also, in 2008, she was nominated for the State University of New York (“SUNY”) Chancellor's Award for Excellence in Professional Service. Her nomination was supported by letters of recommendationfrom colleagues at SCCC, who recognized her professional achievement as a member of the faculty and her contributions to SCCC's Distance Education and Instructional Technology program.

During her time at SCCC, the Defendant Canniff served as Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs from 1997 until 2010 and also headed the Office of Instructional Technology, the department in which the Plaintiff worked. According to the Plaintiff, Canniff commonly referred to African–Americans as “you people.” For example, the Plaintiff claims Canniff referred to the Black Faculty Association as “you people,” stating that “ ‘[y]ou people’ have scheduled her to attend her meeting.” She further alleges that when Canniff was scheduling a meeting with Dr. Randolph Manning (“Manning”) an African–American man, he said “[w]hen ‘you people’ get it together, let me know.”

In addition, Canniff apparently appeared incredulous that the Plaintiff completed her doctorate degree program at St. John's in three years, insisting that there was no way she could have finished in that amount of time and suggesting that she bring him an official transcript so he could review it. Allegedly, Canniff's attitude was significantly different when he learned that a white faculty member had completed her doctorate in three years. Moreover, the Plaintiff claims that while Canniff referred to white colleagues by their professional titles, he continuously called her “young lady” or “Michele” instead of her professional title.

The Plaintiff complained of Canniff's behavior to the Defendant Britton, who from 2003 to 2013 served as the Associate Dean for General Education and who acted as the Plaintiff's “mentor” during the College's Leadership Academy. His office was located next door to the Plaintiff's office. With respect to the Plaintiff's complaints that Canniff called her “young lady,” Britton purportedly told her to “just let it go” and then, according to the Plaintiff, “launched into a racist rant.” (Pl. Opp., pg. 5.) In this regard, Britton allegedly said that “[y]ou people are just taking over” while referencing SCCC's President, Vice President and two executive deans, all of whom were African–American. In response, the Plaintiff questioned Britton about whether he liked anyone of color, to which Britton replied that he liked Yvonne Walters and Manning, since Britton felt he was “one of them” even though he “looked like you people.”

On another occasion, when Michele Green (“Green”) was promoted to assistant dean, Britton allegedly stated “Well, she is smart. She just happens to be black.” Furthermore, when the Plaintiff and Britton discussed their upbringings in Mount Vernon, New York, the Plaintiff explained to Britton that when they moved in, everyone moved out. The Plaintiff claims Britton replied “oh, yeah, we got the hell out of there.” In addition, when Joanne Braxton (“Braxton”) was promoted to a new position as a vice president, Britton apparently told the Plaintiff that she was not going to be able to go anywhere professionally because Braxton was “a fat black woman” while the Plaintiff was “a skinny black woman” and that Braxton would not want an attractive, thin black woman “on her turf.” Lastly, according to the Plaintiff, Britton constantly made negative comments about Shirley Pippin (“Pippin”), who was an African–American woman and the President of SCCC. These alleged derogatory statements suggested that Pippin was full of it and that it was time for her to go.

The Plaintiff also complained to Manning about the alleged racist remarks. At the time, Manning was the Interim Dean of Instructional Technology. Manning usually shook his head in disgust and, on one occasion, when the Plaintiff told him that Britton had referred to him as “one of us,” he responded by saying “Does he know I grew up in Gordon Heights and I'm a black man?” Nevertheless, Manning apparently took no action to investigate the Plaintiff's complaints.

The Plaintiff asserts that Britton's and Canniff's comments and attitudes made her feel demeaned, humiliated and less equal that her white peers, as well as put her in a position where she thought she had to constantly prove herself. Moreover, they caused her to apparently have anxiety attacks, which would occur when she had to be in the company of Britton and Canniff during events at SCCC. Due to Britton's and Canniff's comments, she claims she passed on promotional opportunities because she thought her prospects were diminished.

However, SCCC had an Anti–Discrimination Policy and Grievance Policy for Employee Claims of Discrimination by Another Employee, Guest or Contractor (the “Policy”), which had been adopted by SCCC's Board of Trustees in 2003. In relevant part, the Policy provides:

The College will not tolerate discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, color, religion, sex, age, sexual orientation, disability, marital status, military status, domestic violence victim status or any other status prohibited by law. Whenever an alleged violation of this policy is brought to the college's attention, an investigation will be undertaken and, if a violation is found, prompt and corrective action will be taken. All members of the college community should contact the appropriate college office, as set forth below, if they believe a violation of this policy has occurred.

(Bergen Aff., Exh. C.) The Policy directed that a faculty member complaining of discrimination by another faculty member should submit her complaint to the Office of the Compliance Officer or the Office of Human Resources. Additionally, under the policy, discriminatory practices include retaliation for filing a charge of discrimination, participating in an investigation or opposing discriminatory practices. The Policy calls for a thorough investigative process for an employee's discrimination or retaliation claim, which includes the reporting of a Complaint to a Compliance Officer or the Human Resources Department, investigation, determination of sufficient cause and appeal to SCCC's president.

Nevertheless, the Plaintiff never reported a complaint in accordance with the Policy. As such, no internal investigation was ever conducted. However, according to the Plaintiff, SCCC was on notice and should have taken action, because she had complained to two Deans, Britton and Manning.

B. The Alleged Discrimination

In January 2006, SCCC submitted a report to the Middle States Commission on Higher Education, which is a college accreditation committee. In the report, SCCC indicated that one of its goals was to increase the number of doctoral-degree holders among its faculty, stating the doctoral degree was the preferred qualification over the master's degree, which was only a requisite minimum qualification for instructional faculty. Moreover, with respect to its faculty-diversity-hiring plans through the year 2010, SCCC represented that ninety percent of its faculty identified themselves as white or Caucasian. Therefore, SCCC hoped to engage in efforts to increase faculty...