Curcio v. Roosevelt Union Free Sch. Dist.
| Decision Date | 22 August 2012 |
| Docket Number | 10-CV-5612(SJF)(AKT) |
| Parties | JOHN J. CURCIO, Plaintiff, v. ROOSEVELT UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE ROOSEVELT UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, and WILHELMINA FUNDERBURKE, individually and as a member of the BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE ROOSEVELT UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
On December 3, 2010, plaintiff John J. Curcio ("plaintiff") commenced this action against defendants Roosevelt Union Free School District (the "District"), the Board of Education of the Roosevelt Union Free School District (the "Board") (and together, "the Roosevelt Defendants"), and Wilhelmina Funderburke, individually and as a member of the Board of Education of the Roosevelt Union Free School District ("Funderburke"), alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. ("Title VII"), violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986, violations of New York Executive Law § 296, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. [Docket Entry No. 1]. On July 15, 2011, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, and defendant Funderburke moved to dismiss. The motion to dismiss was denied on November 10, 2011.
Before the Court are motions for summary judgment filed by: (1) the Roosevelt Defendants [Docket Entry No. 61]; and (2) defendant Funderburke [Docket Entry No. 63]. For the reasons that follow, the Roosevelt Defendants' motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Funderburke's motion is GRANTED.
Plaintiff is a Caucasian male. Plaintiff's Statement Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 56.1 [Docket Entry No. 62-66] ("Pl. 56.1 Stat.") at ¶ 2. On or about July 7, 2008, he was hired as the District's Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources and Professional Development, at a salary of $142,000.00 per year. Id. at ¶¶ 1, 5.1 Plaintiff was employed in this capacity on a three (3)-year probationary basis. Id. at ¶ 20; Affidavit of John Curcio [Docket Entry No. 62-67] ("Curcio Aff.") at ¶ 2. Plaintiff understood that at the conclusion of this probationary period, the District would have one (1) of three (3) options: (1) offer him a tenured position; (2) offer him an additional year of employment on probationary status; or (3) terminate his employment. Roosevelt Defendants' Statement Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 56.1 [Docket Entry No. 61-44] ("Roos. Def. 56.1 Stat.") at ¶ 21.
Plaintiff was one (1) of several assistant superintendents employed by the District. See Roos. Def. 56.1 Stat, at ¶¶ 8-9. After commencing his employment, plaintiff learned that Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction Roxanne Garcia-France ("Garcia-France"), a black female of Caribbean national origin, was earning a base salary of $168,000.00. Pl. 56.1 Stat, at ¶ 14, 22-23.2 This salary difference was not prohibited by the collective bargaining agreement. Roos. Def. 56.1 Stat, at ¶ 8. Plaintiff believes that this difference in salary was motivated by racial discrimination. See Curcio Aff. at ¶ 4.3
Plaintiff first raised his concerns about his rate of pay with District Superintendent Robert-Wayne Harris ("Superintendent Harris" or "Harris") in an e-mail dated July 17, 2008, shortly after he was hired. Roos. Def. 56.1 Stat, at ¶ 15; Roos. Def. Ex. N [Docket Entry No. 61-17]. At that time, plaintiff did not raise his alleged concern that the pay discrepancy was racially motivated because he did not want to "sour [his] relationship with the District and [plaintiff's] peers." Pl. 56.1 Stat, at ¶ 16; Curcio Aff, at ¶ 6. On at least three (3) different occasions during May and June 2009, Superintendent Harris, who is African-American, requested that the Board increase plaintiff's salary to $168,000.00. Pl. 56.1 Stat, at ¶¶ 29, 30, 35. The Board addressed the issue at its meetings on May 14, 2009, May 28, 2009, and June 30, 2009, but ultimately declined to approve the increase. Id.
During the 2009-2010 school year, the Board "equalized" the salaries of all but one (1) of the assistant superintendents at $142,000.00. Id. at ¶ 26. At that time, Garcia-France resignedfrom her position as Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction and was rehired as Assistant Superintendent for Educational Services at an annual pay rate of $142,000.00. Id. at ¶ 32. The District then hired Dr. Marianne Steele ("Steele"), an African-American female, as Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction, also at a salary of $142,000.00 per year. Plaintiff contends that he "had far more experience and qualifications" than Steele, and that he therefore was "entitled" to a higher salary than she. Id. at ¶¶ 33-34; Curcio Aff. at ¶ 15.
The one (1) assistant superintendent whose salary was not set at the $142,000.00 level was David Weiser ("Weiser"), a Caucasian male. Pl. 56.1 Stat, at ¶¶ 26-28. Weiser was hired as Assistant Superintendent for Business in 2009 at a salary of $150,000.00. Id. at ¶ 28. During the 2010-2011 school year, the District hired Gene Levenstien ("Levenstien"), a Caucasian male, as Assistant Superintendent for Business at a salary of $168,000.00 per year. Id. at ¶¶ 37-38.4 Thus, in plaintiff's second and third years of employment, he was earning the same salary as Garcia-France and Steele, but less than Weiser or Levenstien. Id. at ¶ 36.
At the time plaintiff was hired, defendant Wilhelmina Funderburke ("Funderburke"), an African-American female, was an active member of the Roosevelt community. Roos. Def. 56.1 Stat, at ¶¶ 49-51; Pl. 56.1 Stat, at ¶¶ 49-51. She often attended the Roosevelt Board of Education meetings as a member of the community; according to plaintiff, she also did so as a "de facto member of the Board and Board representative." Pl. 56.1 Stat, at ¶ 52. Despite the fact that shewas not a Board member, plaintiff claims that Funderburke exercised "considerable influence over the Board." Id.
During a September 24, 2008 Board meeting, Funderburke allegedly stated in plaintiff's presence that she was "not in favor of hiring another white Assistant Superintendent." Id. at ¶ 57. Although Funderburke made this comment from the general audience, plaintiff alleges that she "had a domineering role over the meeting" and "was exercising considerable control over the temperament of the Board and the community." Id. at ¶ 58; Curcio Aff. at ¶ 21. According to plaintiff, Board member Robert Summerville then expressed agreement with Funderburke's remarks. Pl. 56.1 Stat, at ¶¶ 54-55.
According to plaintiff, Funderburke "made unannounced visits" to the administration building where he worked, and would occasionally subject him to "threatening, harassing and severely discriminatory behavior." Id. at ¶ 56. Plaintiff alleges that on September 26, 2008, he encountered Funderburke in the hallway of his office building, and that she "became annoyed" when he did not immediately recognize her, stating: "You should remember me and what I said at the Board meeting." Id. at ¶¶ 60-61. Plaintiff further alleges that Funderburke appeared at his office on October 16, 2008 and told him "in sum and substance . . . that she was not in favor of his hiring because he was white." Id. at ¶ 62. Funderburke allegedly added that plaintiff's predecessor, who was also Caucasian, "was not what they were looking for" and "that it was telling that [plaintiff's predecessor] was no longer employed at the District." Id.; Pl. Ex. A at 167:3-20. Plaintiff informed Superintendent Harris of these incidents in an e-mail dated October 16,2008. Id.; Ex. JJ.
On or about November 18, 2008, Funderburke was formally appointed as a member ofthe Board of Education.5 Id. at ¶ 53. According to plaintiff, during an executive session of the Board on Thursday, April 23, 2009, Funderburke accused him of "not treating various community members and employees of the District respectfully." Id. at ¶ 65. Funderbruke then allegedly told plaintiff that she was "never in favor of hiring him," that "he could not empathize with the students in the District because he was white," and "that he would have to have walked in their shoes to understand them." Id. at ¶ 66; Pl. Ex. LL. Plaintiff states that he was so upset by these comments that he walked out of the session. Def. 56.1 Stat, at ¶ 66. Gale Stevens-Haynes ("Stevens-Haynes"), then the Chairwoman of the Board, testified that the "treatment" of plaintiff around this time "crystallized" her decision to resign from the Board. Pl. 56.1 Stat, at ¶ 66; Pl. Ex. H [Docket Entry No. 62-8] at 27:11-14 ().
Plaintiff once again summarized these events and his concerns in e-mails to Superintendent Harris. In a reply e-mail dated April 28, 2009, Harris expressed continuing support for plaintiff and praised his performance. Pl. Exs. HH [Docket Entry No. 62-34]. Superintendent Harris reported Funderburke's remarks to the State Education Department. Pl. 56.1 Stat, at ¶ 67. On April 30, 2009, allegedly at the behest of the Senior Deputy Commissioner of Education, Johanna Duncan Portier, Funderburke apologized to plaintiff in front of the Board. Plaintiff dismisses the apology as "reluctant," "forced," and "hollow," and claims that it did "little" to ameliorate the humiliation that he felt. Id. at ¶ 70.
On or about July 11, 2009, plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination with the UnitedStates Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), in which he alleged discrimination on the basis of his race and color. Roosevelt Def. Ex. A [Docket Entry No. 61-2]. The complaint recounted the incidents involving Funderburke between September 2008 and April 2009, and alleged that his salary was lower than that of non-Caucasian assistant...
To continue reading
Request your trial