Davis v. Power Auth. of New York
| Decision Date | 02 February 2022 |
| Docket Number | 19-CV-792 (KMK) |
| Parties | EDWARD DAVIS, Plaintiff, v. THE POWER OF AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK et al ., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Edward Davis New Windsor, NY Pro Se Plaintiff
Greg Anthony Riolo, Esq. Brian Bodansky, Esq. Jackson Lewis LLP White Plains, NY Counsel for Defendants
Pro se Plaintiff Edward F. Davis (“Plaintiff”) brings this Action against Paul Belnick (“Belnick”) Justine Driscoll (“Driscoll”), Nancy Harvey (“Harvey”), Kristine Pizzo (“Pizzo”) Rani Pollack (“Pollack”), Gil Quiniones (“Quiniones”), Sangeeta Ranade (“Ranade”), Guy Sliker (“Sliker, ” and collectively, the “Individual Defendants”) and his former employer, the Power of Authority of the State of New York (“NYPA, ” and collectively “Defendants”). (Dkt. No. 33.)[1] Plaintiff alleges that Defendants discriminated and retaliated against him on the basis of his disability in violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq. (“Rehabilitation Act”), the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq. (“ADA”), and the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. §§ 290 et seq., (“NYSHRL”), as well as retaliation in violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601 et seq. (“FMLA”). (Id.) Before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. No. 88.) For the reasons explained below, Defendants' Motion is granted.
The following facts are taken from the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), (Dkt. No. 33), Plaintiff's statement pursuant to Local Civil Rule 56.1, (Pl.'s Rule 56.1 Statement in Opp'n to Mot. (“Pl.'s 56.1”) (Dkt. No. 101)), Defendants' statement pursuant to Local Civil Rule 56.1, (Defs.' Rule 56.1 Statement in Supp. of Mot. ( ) (Dkt. No. 90)), and other documents submitted by the Parties, and are recounted “in the light most favorable to” Plaintiff, the non-movant. Wandering Dago, Inc. v. Destito, 879 F.3d 20, 30 (2d Cir. 2018); see also Johnson v. Kitt, No. 15-CV-7823, 2021 WL 1105438, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2021).
NYPA is a corporate municipal instrumentality and political subdivision of the State of New York and serves as a public power utility in the State of New York. (Pollack Decl. ¶ 3 (Dkt. No. 93.) Plaintiff was hired by NYPA in September of 2009 as a “Senior Electrical Engineer I” in the Design Engineering group of the Energy Services Department. [2] Plaintiff brought “25 years of experience in the power and energy industry involving primarily design and engineering and analysis of electric power systems.” (SAC ¶ 3.) This experience also included a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering and Computer Engineering from Rutgers University and a certification for nuclear engineering and a professional license for power systems analysis and design. (Davis Decl. Ex. A (Dkt. No. 103-1); Davis Decl. Ex. B (Dkt. No. 103-2).)
Plaintiff suffers from Chron's disease. (SAC ¶ 2.) “Over the course of Plaintiff's employment with the NYPA, Plaintiff took FMLA leave on a number of different occasions, beginning in 2011 and the latest in 2017.” (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 68; see also Riolo Decl. Ex. M (“Pl.'s 2011 FMLA Paperwork”) (Dkt. No. 92-13); Riolo Decl. Ex. N (“Pl.'s 2012 FMLA Paperwork”) (Dkt. No. 92-14); Riolo Decl. Ex. O (“Pl.'s 2013 FMLA Paperwork”) (Dkt. No. 92-15); Riolo Decl. Ex. P (“Pl.'s 2014 FMLA Paperwork”) (Dkt. No. 92-16); Riolo Decl. Ex. Q (“Pl.'s 2015 FMLA Paperwork”) (Dkt. No. 92-17); Riolo Decl. Ex. R (“Pl.'s 2016 FMLA Paperwork”) (Dkt. No. 92-18); Riolo Decl. Ex. S (“Pl.'s 2017 FMLA Paperwork”) (Dkt. No. 92-19). “Over the course of seven . . . years, Plaintiff was never denied FMLA leave.” [3] Plaintiff alleges that he “endured numerous years of harassment, discrimination[, ] and abuse” during his time at the NYPA, (SAC ¶ 20), “on the grounds of his chronic illness and disability, Chron's disease, ” (SAC ¶ 23). To this end, Plaintiff filed two complaints with the NYPA's Affirmative Action Office (“AAO”)-one in 2014, one in 2016-in which he claimed that Sliker was discriminating against him based on his disability. (Davis Decl. Ex. K (“Pl.'s 2014 AAO Complaint”) (Dkt. No. 109-7); Davis Decl. Ex. V (“Pl.'s 2016 AAO Complaint”) (Dkt. No. 114-1).) Plaintiff alleges that the discrimination began when he was transferred into Sliker's group in 2012. (SAC ¶ 5.) Specifically, Plaintiff alleges:
According to Defendants, beginning in 2012, Plaintiff developed “a history of poor performance and issues with his professionalism during his employment with NYPA, ” (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 5), resulting in the issuance of various warning letters, (see Riolo Decl. Ex. C (“2012 Warning Letter”) (Dkt. No. 92-3); Riolo Decl. Ex. G (“2014 Warning Letter”) (Dkt. No. 92-7); Riolo Decl. Ex. H (“2016 Final Warning Letter”) (Dkt. No. 92-8), and multiple negative performance reviews from 2013 through 2016, (see Riolo Decl. Ex. D (“Pl.'s 2013 Performance Review”) (Dkt. No. 92-4); Davis Decl. Ex. D (“Pl.'s 2014 Performance Review”) (Dkt. No. 103-11); Riolo Decl. Ex. E (“Pl.'s 2015 Performance Review”) (Dkt. No. 92-5); Riolo Decl. Ex. F (“Pl.'s 2016 Performance Review”) (Dkt. No. 92-6).) The Court will describe each of these events in chronological order.
On March 8, 2012, “Plaintiff was issued a warning letter for his inappropriate discussions with Metro-North, a client of NYPA.” (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 6; see also 2012 Warning Letter.) Specifically, Plaintiff “represented to Metro-North that a particular piece of equipment would be replaced, with the cost being borne by NYPA-a representation that Plaintiff had no authority to make.” (Defs' 56.1 ¶ 7.) As the letter notes, “[Plaintiff's] management team has had several discussions with [Plaintiff] in the past regarding [his] responsibility to be forthright in expressing [his] opinions internally and then to proceed with the consensus management decisions once made.” (2012 Warning Letter at 2.) Further, the letter states that Plaintiff was “defensive and reluctant to accept responsibility that [his] actions affected the working relationship between Metro-North and NYPA, ” and that he “went on to disparage [his] immediate supervisor and [his] senior manager by stating that [he] knew more about the topic than the two of [them] combined.” (Id.) Defendants considered the situation to be “so severe as to warrant issuing Plaintiff an ‘off-cycle' performance review (that is, a performance review issued at a time other than regularly scheduled), and that such review would rate Plaintiff as not meeting expectations.” (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 9.) “Further, Plaintiff lost five vacation days and was removed from the Metro-North account effective immediately.” (Id.; 2012 Warning Letter at 2.) Plaintiff “disputes the characterization of the incident . . . .” (Pl.'s 56.1. ¶ 7.) In rebuttal, Plaintiff claimed that he “acted appropriately in this situation.” (Davis Ex. F (“Pl.'s 2012 Rebuttal”) 2 (Dkt. No. 104-2).)
In 2013, Plaintiff received an overall performance review of “Partially Achieves Expectations.” (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 12; Pl.'s 2013 Performance Review.)[4] Specifically, the narrative portion of the review notes that “communications” with the Plaintiff were “challenging in 2013.” (Pl.'s 2013 Performance Review at 12.) Further, “[c]coordinating multiple project deliveries between [Plaintiff], [his supervisor, ] and customers [did] not always go[] smoothly.” (Id.) Plaintiff was also “reluctan[t] to share draft work.” (Id.) However, the review also noted that despite these issues, “the overall quality of [Plaintiff's] work is good . . . .” (Id.)
On December 16, 2014, Plaintiff received a written warning from John Markowitz[5] and Sliker regarding Plaintiff's “failure to communicate his absences from work” in violation of NYPA's policies. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 17). According to NYPA's Employee Policy 3.9 “Employees who are absent from work due to their own illness or injury (or that of eligible family members . . .), must notify their supervisor of such absence as soon as practicable, and keep the supervisor informed as to their expected date of return.” (2014 Warning Letter at 1.) Similarly, NYPA's Policy 3.3 states, (Id.) The letter details five instances from April to December 2014 in which Plaintiff was absent from work and failed to inform his supervisor. (See id.) The letter states, “Despite the fact that [Plaintiff's supervisor] ha[s] spoken to [him] on several occasions about [his] obligations pursuant to [NYPA's] Policy, [he] continue[s] to fail to report when [he is] unable to come to work, and to date, ha[s] not provided a satisfactory reason to explain this continued refusal.” (Id.). Further, when Plaintiff met with his supervisor regarding these absences, Plaintiff “responded that [he was] ‘not interested' in providing [his supervisor with] notice [of] when [he] would be out of the office.”[6] (Id. at 2.) In...
To continue reading
Request your trial