Epstein v. Cnty. of Suffolk

• Decision Date: 26 August 2015
• Docket Number: 14-CV-0937(JS)(ARL)
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
• Parties: STEPHEN EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, SUFFOLK COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE, PINA BRITTON, CARLA MAZZARELLI, and JEFFREY TEMPERA, in their individual capacities, Defendants.

STEPHEN EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, SUFFOLK COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE, PINA BRITTON,CARLA MAZZARELLI, and JEFFREY TEMPERA, in their individual capacities, Defendants.

14-CV-0937(JS)(ARL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

August 26, 2015

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

APPEARANCES

For Plaintiffs:

Steven A. Morelli, Esq.

Anabia Hasan, Esq.

The Law Offices of Steven A. Morelli, P.C.

1461 Franklin Avenue

Garden City, NY 11530

For Defendants:

Elaine M. Barraga, Esq.

Leonard G. Kapsalis, Esq.

Suffolk County Attorney's Office

100 Veterans Memorial Highway

P.O. Box 6100

Hauppauge, NY 11788

SEYBERT, District Judge:

Plaintiff Steven Epstein ("Epstein" or "Plaintiff") commenced this action on February 12, 2014, against defendants County of Suffolk (the "County"), Suffolk County Community College ("SCCC"), and Pina Britton ("Britton"), Carla Mazzarelli ("Mazzarelli"), and Jeffrey Tempera ("Tempara") (collectively the "Individual Defendants," and together with the County and SCCC, "Defendants"), alleging constitutional violations pursuant to 42U.S.C. § 1983, the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), and 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 ("ADEA"), and 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. (Compl. ¶ 1.)

Currently pending before the Court is Defendants' motion to dismiss the Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), and for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the following reasons, Defendants' motion is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND¹

Plaintiff joined the staff of the communications faculty at SCCC in 2003. (Compl. ¶ 20.) In 2005, Plaintiff was asked to serve as co-advisor to the Phi Theta Kappa Honor Society and to direct the Honors Program at the Grant Campus of SCCC. (Compl. ¶ 23.) In 2006, Plaintiff was granted tenure, and in 2007, he was promoted to Associate Professor. (Compl. ¶ 22.)

After his appointment, Plaintiff began to notice discrepancies in Defendants' implementation of its policies and procedures. (Compl. ¶ 25.) Plaintiff claims that Defendants would routinely permit unqualified students to enroll in honors courses, allow students to use non-honors courses to qualify for an honors diploma, and would permit students who enrolled in the honorsprogram to be excused from taking a "College Seminar," a college-wide requirement, while still being permitted to graduate. (Compl. ¶ 25.) Plaintiff vocalized his concerns that this practice diminished the quality of SCCC's honors program and its academic reputation. (Compl. ¶ 25.)

Plaintiff also vocalized his opposition to the unequal distribution of resources among the three campuses, which he claimed disproportionately impacted minority students. (Compl. ¶ 26.) Plaintiff contended that SCCC favored the Selden campus, which was predominately Caucasian, over the Brentwood and Riverhead campuses.² (Compl. ¶ 26.)

Plaintiff also protested the use of advertisements, which he claimed had racist overtones and failed to feature minority students in speaking roles. (Compl. ¶ 28.) On January 27, 2013, Plaintiff reiterated his concerns regarding the demographic makeup of the Honors Program, maintaining that Defendants' admission criteria disproportionately impacted minority students. (Compl. ¶ 29.)

In March 2013, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Board of Academic Standards Committee (the "Board") requesting that theyinvestigate Defendants' failure to follow its internal policies by permitting unqualified students to enroll in honors courses. (Compl. ¶ 30.) That same month, in March 2013, Plaintiff was charged with violating the Family Educational Rights and Policy Act ("FERPA").³ (Compl. ¶ 31.) Plaintiff claims that Defendants' allegations were carried out in retaliation to Plaintiff's First Amendment rights. (Compl. ¶ 32.)

Plaintiff claims that Defendants instituted a discriminatory and retaliatory campaign against him during the 2011-2012 school years, based upon his age, disability, and in retaliation for his protected speech. (Compl. ¶ 33.) For example, Plaintiff alleges that in the spring of 2012, despite his repeated requests, Defendants refused to place Plaintiff on the faculty list for receipt of a summer stipend to run SCCC's honors program. (Compl. ¶ 34.) Plaintiff also claims that in May of 2012, he was denied a promotion under the pretext the he did not provide sufficient service to the college, despite the fact that he was (1) the only individual at the college who held coordinating positions; (2) grew each of his assigned programs beyond expectations; and (3) routinely presented before the SUNYchancellor, members of the Board of Trustees, and the Dean's council regarding the college programs at all three college campuses. (Compl. ¶ 35.) Plaintiff maintains that in the summer of 2012, he was denied the position as coordinator of the honors program and the accompanying summer stipend, which he had received since 2005. Plaintiff claims that younger individuals were allowed to retain their positions and receive their stipend. (Compl. ¶ 36.)

Plaintiff alleges that in August of 2012, he was stripped of all duties as the coordinator of the Grant Campus Honors program, the College-Wide Early College Program, and the College Wide Stay on Long Island Scholarship Program. (Compl. ¶ 37.) Defendants assert that the position was being eliminated due to budgetary concerns. (Compl. ¶ 37.) Plaintiff alleges that SCCC began recruiting and advertising for the position before it was "eliminated," and appointed a younger individual to the position. (Compl. ¶ 37.) When Plaintiff sought reinstatement of his former position in the fall of 2012, Defendants failed to address his request. (Compl. ¶ 37.) Finally, in October 2012, defendant Britton, an Assistant Dean, lodged a bullying complaint against Plaintiff. (Compl. ¶ 39.) Plaintiff claims that Britton's complaint was in retaliation for the complaints Plaintiff made regarding the tri-campus equity and its impact on minority students enrolled at SCCC. (Compl. ¶ 39.)

In September of 2012, Plaintiff underwent an operation to relive Achalasia, a digestive disorder which makes it difficult and painful to swallow. (Compl. ¶ 42.) As a result of the operation, Plaintiff must sleep in a reclining position which "often makes it difficult to obtain restful sleep." (Compl. ¶ 42.) Because of his condition, Plaintiff asked to teach a reduced course load and receive a corresponding reduction in his salary. (Compl. ¶ 43.) Although Plaintiff provided medical documentation in support of his condition, Defendants ultimately failed to provide the requested accommodation. (Compl. ¶¶ 45-49.)

I. Plaintiff's First Complaint to the N.Y.S. Div. of Human Rights

On April 10, 2013, Plaintiff filed a complaint (the "2013 DHR Complaint") with the New York State Division of Human Rights ("DHR"), alleging that he was discriminated against based upon his age and disability. (Compl. ¶ 5.) The April 2013 DHR Complaint alleged that the Defendants discriminated against him by failing to accommodate his medical disability. (Exhibits to Defs.' Br. ("Defs.' Exs."), Docket Entry 6-2, at 29⁴.) Plaintiff alleged that he was disabled due to heart disease and an unspecified digestive order that caused him not to be able to get "adequate sleep." (Defs.' Exs. at 29.) Plaintiff, who resides inWestchester County and works as an Associate Professor at SCCC's Michael J. Grant Campus ("Grant Campus") in Brentwood, NY, claimed he requested an accommodation to teach via "distance education," so he would not have to be present on campus because "he often drive[s] to and from campus while fatigued." (Defs.' Br., Docket Entry 7, at 2; Defs.' Exs. at 29.)

The April 2013 DHR Complaint also alleged discrimination based on age. Specifically, the April 2013 DHR Complaint asserts that on August 12, 2012, Plaintiff was removed from his position as Honors Coordinator at the Grant Campus due to his age. (Defs.' Exs. 30.) Plaintiff's claim was based on his belief that his "removal was due to age discrimination so that the position could be filled by a younger person." (Defs.' Exs. at 30.)

After an investigation, the DHR issued a Determination and Order After Investigation (the "April Determination"), finding "NO PROBABLE CAUSE" to believe that Plaintiff was discriminated against because of his alleged disability or age. (Defs.' Exs. at 33.) The April Determination found that Plaintiff resided fifty-one miles from his place of employment and is subject to a two-hour drive. (Defs.' Exs. at 33.) The DHR found that the "accommodation sought by the [Plaintiff] to telecommute and avoid the long commuting drive places the employer under no obligation to meet the personal preferences of a disabled employee." (Defs.' Exs. at 33.) The DHR concluded that "[d]ifficulties commuting toa job need not be accommodated. There is no evidence that driving is an essential function of the [Plaintiff's] job. The [Defendant] is not obligated to accommodate the [Plaintiff's] request." (Defs.' Exs. at 34.)

As to Plaintiff's age discrimination claim, the DHR concluded that Plaintiff's assertion that "he was removed as the Honors Program Coordinator, because of his age" is not supported by the evidence. (Defs.' Exs. at 33.) The DHR found that while Plaintiff's replacement was younger than Plaintiff, eight candidates were suggested to replace Plaintiff and the position was offered to three of the eight suggested candidates, two of whom were close in age to Plaintiff.⁵ (Defs.' Exs. at 34.)

II. Plaintiff's Second Complaint to DHR

On or about August 8, 2013, Plaintiff filed a second complaint with the HDR alleging discrimination. (Defs.' Exs. at 36.) Plaintiff's second DHR Complaint alleged, inter alia, that SCCC administrators engaged in a harassment campaign against Plaintiff in an effort to intimidate him for requesting a disability accommodation. (Defs.' Exs. at 43.) The retaliatory campaign...