Frantti v. New York

• Decision Date: 29 October 2019
• Docket Number: 1:16-CV-810
• Citation: 414 F.Supp.3d 257
• Parties: Travis Jarrett FRANTTI, Plaintiff, v. State of NEW YORK, Susan Knapp, Mary Beth Labate, Karen Davis, Karen Orcutt, Christopher Amado, and Robert Mujica, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York

414 F.Supp.3d 257

Travis Jarrett FRANTTI, Plaintiff,

v.State of NEW YORK, Susan Knapp, Mary Beth Labate, Karen Davis, Karen Orcutt, Christopher Amado, and Robert Mujica, Defendants.

1:16-CV-810

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

Signed October 29, 2019

PETERSON, THOMAS LAW FIRM, OF COUNSEL: THOMAS W. PETERSON, ESQ., Attorneys for Plaintiff, 49 Burlington Avenue, P.O. Box 578, Round Lake, NY 12151

HON. LETITIA JAMES, Attorney General of the State of New York, OF COUNSEL: KEITH J. STARLIN, ESQ., Ass't Attorney General, Attorneys for Defendants, The Capitol, Albany, NY 12224

MEMORANDUM–DECISION and ORDER

DAVID N. HURD, United States District Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

On July 5, 2016, plaintiff Travis Jarrett Frantti ("Frantti" or "plaintiff"), a former employee of the State of New York ("New York State" or the "State"), filed this civil rights action against defendants New York State and State employees Susan Knapp ("Knapp"), Mary Beth LaBate ("LaBate"), Karen Davis ("Davis"), Karen Orcutt ("Orcutt"), Christopher Amado ("Amado"), and Robert Mujica ("Mujica") (collectively the "individual defendants").

Frantti asserted claims against New York State and the individual defendants (collectively "defendants") for disability discrimination under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (First Cause of Action), employment discrimination and retaliation under Titles I and V of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") (Second Cause of Action), and a claim for the denial of Equal Protection under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Third and Fourth Causes of Action).

On September 9, 2016, defendants moved under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) seeking partial dismissal of Frantti's civil rights complaint. In particular, defendants sought pre-answer dismissal of (1) the Rehabilitation Act claim against the individual defendants; (2) the ADA claims against the individual defendants and New York State; and (3) the third or fourth constitutional claim, since the two were arguably duplicative of each other.¹

On March 8, 2017, a Memorandum–Decision & Order issued granting defendants' partial motion to dismiss, Frantti v. State of N.Y. , 2017 WL 922062 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 8, 2017), except insofar as it concluded Frantti had alleged an official-capacity claim under the ADA for prospective injunctive relief; i.e. , the individual defendants' alleged failure to restore plaintiff to his prior job title. Id. at *5-*6 (concluding ADA's discrimination and retaliation provisions do not provide for individual liability and that such claims asserted against the State itself were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity). Thereafter, plaintiff filed an amended complaint that conformed his remaining claims to the determinations set forth in this MDO. Dkt. Nos. 21, 22.

Consequently, the parties went to discovery on Frantti's (1) Rehabilitation Act claim against New York State; (2) ADA claim for prospective injunctive relief against the individual defendants in their official capacities; and (3) § 1983 claim alleging the denial of Equal Protection. Frantti , 2017 WL 922062, at *7.

On March 22, 2019, defendants moved under Rule 56 for summary judgment on Frantti's remaining claims. According to defendants, plaintiff cannot establish that he suffered from a qualifying disability for purposes of either the Rehabilitation Act or what remains of his ADA claim, but that even if he could do so, the accommodation or accommodations he apparently sought for that disability were totally unreasonable—in defendants' view, plaintiff wanted some kind of complete exemption from, inter alia , the job performance and attendance policies that were applicable to his fellow State employees.

The motion has been fully briefed and will be considered on the basis of the submissions without oral argument.

II. BACKGROUND ²

In 1992, Frantti graduated from the University at Albany with a bachelor's degree in political science. Pl.'s Dep. Vol. 1, Dkt. No. 42-4, 50:23-51:3 ("Dep. Vol. 1"). After spending a gap year caring for his ill grandmother, plaintiff began graduate work at the University of South Carolina. Id. at 51:4-13. Plaintiff went on to complete two years of study, but moved home before finishing up his master's thesis. Id. at 51:14-17.

Back home in New York, Frantti re-enrolled at the University at Albany, this time working toward a graduate degree in public administration. Dep. Vol. 1 at 51:18-23. In his second year, plaintiff interned with the New York State Division of the Budget ("DOB"), a government entity responsible for developing and executing the yearly budget adopted by the State's legislature. Id. at 51:23-52:2, 54:12-19, 58:5-18; see also Our Mission , NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF THE BUDGET , https://www.ny.gov/agencies/division-budget (last visited Oct. 9, 2019).

A. DOB Hires Frantti

In July of 1996, Frantti graduated with his master's degree and DOB hired him on full-time as a budget examiner in the Public Protection Unit ("PPU"). Dep. Vol. 1 at 58:4-11, 15-22; Frantti Aff., Dkt. No. 44-1, ¶¶ 16-17. PPU is the DOB unit responsible for "overseeing the budgets of general government and public protection agencies" like the Division of Criminal Justice Services ("DCJS"). Knapp Decl., Dkt. No. 42-27, ¶ 1.

DOB divides up work within the department by assigning its budget examiners with oversight responsibility for groupings of various State agencies, and in Frantti's case this initially included the Commission on Judicial Conduct, the Capitol Defender's Office, and the Departments of Banking and Insurance. Dep. Vol. 1 at 59:2-10. Thereafter, DOB promoted plaintiff to the title of senior budget examiner and, after he spent five or six good years in that position, to the title of associate budget examiner. Id. at 59:19-22, 60:1-4, 60:17-20; see also Frantti Aff. ¶¶ 18-22.

In 2004, DOB appointed Susan Knapp to the title of PPU Unit Chief ("PPU Unit Chief Knapp"), a position that included supervisory responsibility over Frantti and other budget examiners in the PPU. Frantti Aff. ¶¶ 18, 20. A few years later, still under PPU Unit Chief Knapp's supervision, DOB promoted plaintiff again, this time to Acting Section Head of the PPU. Id. ¶ 21. As Action Section Head, plaintiff assumed oversight responsibility for an additional set of New York State agencies. Id. Thereafter, PPU Unit Chief Knapp added to plaintiff's workload by adding another State agency to his list of responsibilities. Id. ¶ 22.

B. Frantti Gets Promoted to Grade 31

In September of 2010, DOB promoted Frantti to the title of "principal fiscal policy analyst," a "non-competitive" salary Grade 31 position "in civil service terms." Dep. Vol. 1 at 61:15-62:7, 188:18-22. According to plaintiff, principal fiscal policy analyst is a "coveted" title that is "rarely employed" at DOB. Frantti ¶ 23.

This kind of "non-competitive" position gave DOB executive personnel the discretion to promote certain employees into a higher salary grade than they might otherwise be qualified for under the ordinary criteria set forth in the regular, "competitive" civil service system. Dep. Vol. 1 at 64:3-11. Coveted or not, though, a so-called "non-competitive" civil service position is an "at will" job that does not include any of the traditional civil service protections available to other State employees. Knapp Decl. ¶ 7.

The way Frantti ended up in this non-competitive Grade 31 position is a little complicated. As plaintiff explains, the general, competitive civil service track that aspiring DOB employees follow begins at the title of budget examiner, then advances through the titles of senior budget examiner, associate budget examiner, principal budget examiner, assistant unit chief, unit chief, deputy budget director, and is finally capped off at budget director. Dep. Vol. 1 at 63:20-64:3.

The process of advancing through this well-defined civil service track involves scoring well on a series of examinations that are administered periodically by the New York State Civil Service Commission. Dep. Vol. 1 at 65:17-18. These exams are broken up into a few different components, but the two that come up in this case are (1) a written test and evaluation, known by some employees as a "T&E"; and (2) a six-month review period called the Behavioral Performance Assessment Program, or "BPAP." Id. at 65:17-66:6; Pl.'s Dep. Vol. 3, Dkt. No. 42-6, 52:17-18, 54:3-7 ("Dep. Vol. 3").

Frantti had not yet passed the Grade 31 civil service promotion exam when DOB elevated him to the non-competitive title of principal fiscal policy analyst. Dep. Vol. 1 at 65:14-67:15; 63:13-19. As plaintiff explains, he had taken the Grade 31 exam once before, but failed the T&E portion due to his admitted "arrogance" and "poor judgment." Id. at 68:12-69:14; see also Knapp Decl. ¶ 6.

Luckily for Frantti, however, a principal budget examiner had left DOB and plaintiff had been given all of this former employee's work assignments in addition to his own. Dep. Vol. 1 at 61:20-62:1; see also Frantti Aff. ¶¶ 23-24. In plaintiff's understanding, the fact he was now doing the work of two people provided his supervisors with "justification" to promote him to the non-competitive Grade 31 title of principal fiscal policy analyst. Dep. Vol. 1 at 62:18-23. According to PPU Unit Chief Susan Knapp, she had recommended plaintiff for the promotion in the hopes that he would score well the next time he took the Grade 31 exam and become eligible for a regular, competitive position at DOB in the near future. Knapp Decl. ¶ 7.

On November 29, 2010, still in his non-competitive placement, Frantti began the process of re-taking the Grade 31 civil service exam. Knapp Decl. ¶ 15. Around this time, the Governor's Office also retooled DOB's tasks and responsibilities, shifting it away from policy work and toward the more mundane work of implementing technical transactional controls. Id. ¶ 9.

In PPU Unit Chief Knapp's opinion, the former was one of Frantti's strengths while the latter was an area of...