Gentleman v. State Univ. of N.Y.-Stony Brook

• Decision Date: 31 March 2021
• Docket Number: CV 16-2012 (JMA) (AKT)
• Parties: MOLLY M. GENTLEMAN, Plaintiff, v. STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK - STONY BROOK, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

MOLLY M. GENTLEMAN, Plaintiff, v. STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK - STONY BROOK, Defendant.

CV 16-2012 (JMA) (AKT)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

March 31, 2021

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

A. KATHLEEN TOMLINSON, Magistrate Judge:

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Plaintiff Molly M. Gentleman (the "Plaintiff"), who suffers from bipolar disorder, commenced this disability discrimination and retaliation action against her former employer, the State University of New York at Stony Brook (the "University" or the "Defendant") and several individuals who worked at the University. See generally Complaint ("Compl.") [DE 1]. Following extensive motion practice before the assigned District Judge related to the operative pleadings, the individual defendants were dismissed from this case. See November 21, 2016 Memorandum of Decision & Order ("11/21/16 M&O") [DE 35]. Plaintiff subsequently filed a Third Amended Complaint against the University which asserted claims for disability discrimination and retaliation pursuant to the Rehabilitation Act, as well as a claim for breach of contract. See Third Amended Complaint ("TAC") [DE 36]. Thereafter, Plaintiff's claim for breach of contract was dismissed but her claims pursuant to the Rehabilitation Act survived. See June 6, 2017 Decision & Order ("6/6/17 D&O") [DE 42].

The University has now moved for summary judgment on Plaintiff's two remaining claims under the Rehabilitation Act. See Notice of Motion [DE 94]; Defendant's Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment ("Def.'s Mem.") [DE 94]; Defendant's Reply Memorandum of Law in Further Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment ("Def.'s Reply") [DE 94-22]. Plaintiff opposes the motion primarily on the grounds that departmental colleagues were aware of her bipolar disorder and that her request for accommodation was ignored and/or denied and retaliated against her for engaging in protected activity. See generally Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment ("Pl.'s Opp'n") [DE 94-13]. The parties have consented to this Court's jurisdiction for purposes of deciding the University's motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). See DE 96; January 13, 2021 Electronic Order. For the reasons which follow, the University's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Deficiencies in the Parties' Local Rule 56.1 Statements

As a preliminary matter, the Court points out that there are many instances in which Plaintiff failed to properly respond to Defendant's Rule 56.1 Statement. Plaintiff objects to a variety of the assertions set forth in that Statement. She does so by using boilerplate language which does not specifically controvert the University's statements. For example, Plaintiff lodges numerous objections on the grounds that the assertions or evidence submitted by the University "is defective and in violation" of various sections of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the E.D.N.Y. Local Rules—without citing any evidence in the record which contradicts the University's statements. See, e.g., Plaintiff's Responses and Objections to Defendant's Local Rule 56.1 Statement and Plaintiff's Local Rule 56.1(b) Statement of Material Facts ("Pl.'s 56.1 Stmt.") [DE 94-14] at ¶¶ 3-10, 12, 14-17, 19, 21. The Court also notes that the University didnot respond to any of the new factual assertions which Plaintiff appended to her Rule 56.1 Statement after she finished responding to the University's.

Local Rule 56.1(c) is clear that "[e]ach numbered paragraph in the statement of material facts set forth in the statement required to be served by the moving party will be deemed to be admitted for purposes of the motion unless specifically controverted by a correspondingly numbered paragraph in the statement required to be served by the opposing party." (emphasis added). There is no ambiguity in this provision. However, "[a] district court has broad discretion to determine whether to overlook a party's failure to comply with local court rules." Holtz v. Rockefeller & Co., Inc., 258 F.3d 62, 73 (2d Cir. 2001) (citing Wight v. Bankamerica Corp., 219 F.3d 79, 85 (2d Cir. 2000)).

As a result of the collective failures of counsel, the Court conducted its own review of the record as well as the parties' Local Rule 56.1 Statements and the exhibits submitted. See Holtz, 258 F.3d at 73 (holding that a district court may "opt to 'conduct an assiduous review of the record' even where one of the parties has failed to file [ ] a statement [of fact]") (quoting Monahan v. New York City Dep't of Corrections, 214 F.3d 275, 292 (2d Cir. 2000)). From these documents, the Court references what it considers to be the undisputed facts -- those which are uncontroverted by admissible evidence. The Court will construe these facts in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff as the non-moving party. See Lucente v. County of Suffolk, 980 F.3d 284, 296 (2d Cir. 2020); Brandon v. Kinter, 938 F.3d 21, 31 (2d Cir. 2019); Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Great Am. Ins. Co. of N.Y., 822 F.3d 620, 631 n.12 (2d Cir. 2016); Beyer v. Cty. of Nassau, 524 F.3d 160, 163 (2d Cir. 2008); Doro v. Sheet Metal Workers' Int'l Ass'n, 498 F.3d 152, 155 (2d Cir. 2007); Capobianco v. New York, 422 F.3d 47, 50 (2d Cir. 2001); CoastalPipeline Prod. of New York v. Gonzales, No. 04 CIV. 8252, 2006 WL 473883, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 28, 2006).

B. The Undisputed Facts

1. Plaintiff's Term Appointment

Plaintiff was initially hired by the University for a three-year term appointment as a full-time Assistant Professor in the Department of Materials Science and Engineering, effective September 1, 2012 through August 31, 2015. See Plaintiff's Responses and Objections to Defendant's Local Rule 56.1 Statement and Plaintiff's Local Rule 56.1(b) Statement of Material Facts ("Pl.'s 56.1 Stmt.") [DE 94-14] at ¶ 13. A "term appointment" is defined by the State University of New York ("SUNY") Board of Trustees Policies as "an appointment for a specified period of not more than three years which shall automatically expire at the end of that period unless terminated earlier because of resignation, retirement or termination." Id. ¶¶ 17-18; State University of New York Policies of the Board of Trustees ("Policies"), annexed as Defendant's Exhibit "E" [DE 94-3 at 30-34]. The reappointment and non-renewal of SUNY employees is subject to the Policies as well as the collective bargaining agreement between the State of New York and the United University Professionals ("UUP"). See Pl.'s 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 17, 19; Agreement Between United University Professions and the State of New York ("UUP CBA"), annexed as Defendant's Exhibit "F" [DE 94-3 at 36-42]. Section 4 of the Policies states as follows with respect to the renewal of a term appointment:

Renewal of Term. Except as provided in this Article, term appointments may be renewed by the chief administrative officer of the college for successive periods of not more than three years each; such renewals shall be reported to the Chancellor. No term appointment, of itself, shall he deemed to create any manner of legal right, interest or expectancy in any other appointment or renewal.

See Pl.'s 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 20; Policies, Art. XI, Title D, § 4. If a term appointment is not renewed, the Policies require that the employee be notified within a certain time-period, which, for Plaintiff here, was one year in advance. See Pl.'s 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 21; Policies, Art. XI, Title D, § 5.

2. The Office of Labor Relations' Investigation and Student Complaints

During the Spring 2013 semester, less than one year after Plaintiff was hired, Michael Dudley, Chair of the Department of Materials Science and Engineering, and Dilip Gersappe, noticed that nearly half of Plaintiff's graduate students dropped her course and that most of these students were from China. See Pl.'s 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 22; Michael Dudley Declaration ("Dudley Decl.") [DE 94-8] at ¶ 4. It appeared to Chairperson Dudley that Plaintiff's intimidating behavior in class was causing graduate students to drop her class. See Pl.'s 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 23; Dudley Decl. ¶ 5. For example, in front of the entire class, Plaintiff accused an academically strong female Asian graduate student of cheating. See See Pl.'s 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 24; Dudley Decl. ¶ 5. Stating that they felt intimidated by the Plaintiff, these students did not want to go on the record as complaining about the Plaintiff because they feared retaliation and dropped Plaintiff's course instead. See Pl.'s 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 25; Dudley Decl. ¶ 5. Professor Gersappe spoke to Plaintiff about her teaching style and advised her not to use the Socratic method in classes where there were a lot of Chinese students. See Pl.'s 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 26. Chairperson Dudley and Professor Gersappe also agreed to restrict Plaintiff's future course offerings to undergraduate classes only because "this was the first time that a faculty member experienced such a steep drop rate with the graduate courses." See Pl.'s 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 28; Dudley Decl. ¶ 6.

In May 2013, Professor Alexander Orlov informed Chairperson Dudley "that Plaintiff had told him that she was so stressed at work that she felt like getting a gun a shooting it." See Pl.'s 56.1 Smt. ¶ 29; Dudley Decl. ¶ 7. Due to the seriousness of Plaintiff's reported statements,Chairperson Dudley spoke to Dean Yacov Shamash who directed and accompanied Chairperson Dudley to a meeting with University counsel and University police on May 24, 2013. See Pl.'s 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 30; Dudley Decl. ¶ 7. A complaint was filed with the University police that same day. See Pl.'s 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 31; Dudley Decl. ¶ 7; May 24, 2013 Incident Report ("5/24/13 Incident Report"), annexed as Defendant's Exhibit "H" [DE 94-3 at 43-47]. The University's Labor Relations Office started an investigation into Plaintiff's statements. See Pl.'s 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 32; 5/24/13 Incident Report. The Labor Relations Office collected statements from Professors Orlov and Jason...