Geras v. Hempstead Union Free Sch. Dist.

• Decision Date: 17 December 2015
• Docket Number: 13–cv–5094(ADS)(AYS)
• Citation: 149 F.Supp.3d 300
• Parties: Robert Geras, Plaintiff, v. Hempstead Union Free School District, Board of Education of the Hempstead Union Free School District, and Betty Cross, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

149 F.Supp.3d 300

Robert Geras, Plaintiff,

v.Hempstead Union Free School District, Board of Education of the Hempstead Union Free School District, and Betty Cross, Defendants.

13–cv–5094(ADS)(AYS)

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

Signed December 17, 2015

Law Office of Steven A. Morelli, P.C., 1461 Franklin Avenue, Garden City, NY 11530, By: Steven A. Morelli, Esq., Joshua S. Beldner, Esq., of Counsel, Attorneys for the Plaintiff,

The Scher Law Firm, LLP, One Old Country Road, Suite 385, Carle Place, NY 11514, By: Austin R. Graff, Esq., of Counsel, Attorneys for the Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER

SPATT

, District Judge

This case involves allegations of reverse racial discrimination by a Caucasian Assistant Superintendent against the Hempstead Union Free School District and its Board of Education.

On September 12, 2013, the Plaintiff Robert Geras (“Geras” or the “Plaintiff”) commenced this civil rights action against the Defendants Hempstead Union Free School District (the “District”), the Board of Education of the Hempstead Union Free School District (the “Board”), and the former President of the Board, Betty Cross (“Cross,” together with the District and the Board, the “Defendants”), alleging unlawful discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.

(“Title VII”); the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. L. § 290 et seq. (“NYSHRL”); and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (“§ 1981 ”) and § 1983 (“§ 1981 ”).

Presently before the Court is a motion by the Defendants, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ.P.”) 56

, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

I. Background

Unless otherwise noted, the following facts are undisputed and are construed in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff's Employment

The Plaintiff is a Caucasian male. Beginning in November 2009, he was employed by the District as its Assistant Superintendent for Business and Operations. In this capacity he was, effectively, the District's Chief Financial Officer, with responsibility for overseeing the District's finances, business dealings, and a number of supporting departments. He also oversaw approximately 150 to 200 District employees. His immediate supervisor was one Patricia Garcia, Ph. D. (“Dr.Garcia”), the District's Superintendent of Schools.

Geras alleges that, at all relevant times, his performance was “outstanding.” In this regard, the Plaintiff testified that his performance evaluations were conducted in a two-step process: first, he completed a self-evaluation; then, he met with Dr. Garcia, who would review the self-evaluation and provide her own evaluation.

On a self-evaluation for the 2010–2011 school year, Geras reported that he had “exceed[ed] expectations” in the area of leadership. He testified that Dr. Garcia agreed with that assessment and “totally endorsed” his response as “accurate and consistent with her evaluation of [him].” According to Geras, the following year, Dr. Garcia again “praise[d] [him] as an outstanding administrator” and advised him that he would be recommended for tenure.

This is consistent with Dr. Garcia's testimony that, in the years that Geras worked for her, his performance was “outstanding.” She testified that he “behaved with the utmost integrity all the time”; he “kn[ew] the job very, very well”; and he “saved the district a lot [of] money and put in place systems to move the district forward.” Dr. Garcia stated that Geras had high expectations for his employees, but was respectful, and was focused on “getting the task done.” According to Garcia, “[t]here was never a doubt in [her] mind that Mr. Geras deserved tenure.” Further, she testified that, based on his performance, she had no concern that the Board would not grant him tenure.

Dr. Garcia testified that, after being hired as the Superintendent in 2009, she learned that, historically, the District lacked adequate financial programs and oversight. She stated that, at the beginning of her tenure, the District had no meaningful credit and could not borrow money. However, by July 2012, three years into her and Geras's employment, Standard & Poor's rating service for government finance had given the District the highest short-term outlook rating available to local government, and the third-highest long-term outlook rating. Dr. Garcia testified that Geras's expertise “definitely” played a significant role in obtaining these favorable ratings. This testimony is consistent with a July 11, 2012 memorandum that Dr. Garcia wrote to the Board, stating, in relevant part:

The [Standard and Poor's] ratings are a result of responsible budget management beginning in 2008–09 and continuing to present and the presentation made to Standard and Poor's by Robert Geras and NYMAC, our fiscal advisor....

Previous to us receiving the aforementioned financial ratings, the district did not have a credit rating since sometime in the mid–2000s. This “Non–Rated” status was primarily a result of significant budget overspending in 2003–04, 2005–06, and 2006–07 Fiscal Years.

B. The Facts Relating to Annette Greer

Annette Greer is a long-time District employee. From 2000 to 2004, she worked as a Community Aide; from 2004 to 2009, she worked as a Clerk Typist; and in 2009, she was promoted to Assistant Supervisor for Transportation. At all relevant times, the Plaintiff was her supervisor.

In her deposition, Greer testified that Geras harassed her. She stated that her position frequently required her to travel between District buildings, which Geras did not appreciate. She stated that he would look for her at her desk throughout the day and sometimes would stand over her desk while she was on the phone with a student's parent and shout “who are you talking to?”

Apparently, Greer frequently complained to Dr. Garcia about the conduct of Geras, but Garcia testified that she considered most of Greer's complaints to be without merit. In this regard, on or about March 3, 2012, Greer wrote a memorandum to Dr. Garcia, with copies provided to the Board and the Assistant Superintendent for Personnel, Julius Brown, complaining about an altercation that she had with Geras. In the memo, Greer alleges that Geras yelled at her; threatened her job; and told her that “if [she] can't do [her] job then maybe he w[ould] find someone that can.” There is no evidence in the record that disciplinary action was taken against Geras in response to this memo.

However, there is evidence in the record to dispute Greer's account of her working conditions. Dr. Garcia testified that Greer “was an extremely disrespectful employee to Mr. Geras” and was “very incompetent.” According to Garcia, at some point, Greer was permitted to report to a supervisor other than Geras, who also found that she did not adequately perform her job. Dr. Garcia further stated that Greer had a close relationship with the individual Defendant Betty Cross, an influential member of the Board, which made her believe she could “do whatever [she] want[ed] to do.” Garcia testified that if Greer did not like something that the Plaintiff did, she would go directly to Cross, who “r[a]n the district” and would “create [a] problem.”

Geras also testified that Greer was an unsatisfactory employee, who, in his estimation, should not have been employed by the District. However, Greer believed that she was “untouchable” because of her friendship with Cross. He characterized Greer as an “operative” for Cross.

One particular incident involving Greer and Geras is material to this case. On June 14, 2010, a situation arose which caused Geras to urgently seek out Greer—namely, Geras testified that a student field trip was taking place off-campus, and Greer, as the transportation supervisor, had failed to arrange for buses to pick up the students. He claims to have received an urgent phone call concerning this situation and went looking for Greer. After being unable to locate her at her workstation or elsewhere in the building, as a last resort, he knocked on the door to the ladies room and called into the bathroom for her. Geras states that he never actually went into the bathroom.

A Board member named Waylyn Hobbs testified that a District investigation into the incident revealed that Geras “did in fact go into the women's bathroom.” However, he clarified that Geras “didn't go completely in, but he opened up the bathroom door and was yelling inside for her to come out.”

Of note, it is undisputed that neither Greer nor any other person was inside the ladies bathroom when this occurred. Greer testified that she was not on the premises at the time.

In this regard, Geras testified that the bathroom in question doubles as a storage room, and that male staff members “routinely go into the ladies bathroom for supplies.” Dr. Garcia, a woman, provided consistent testimony, stating that the door on which Geras knocked does not lead directly into the ladies room, but instead leads into a separate space where the bathroom fixtures are not visible: “There is a bathroom, but there is like a room before the bathroom.” This testimony is uncontroverted.

Geras testified that he was not disciplined for this incident, but that Dr. Garcia prepared a related memo, which was kept in his personnel file. In particular, on or about August 25, 2011, Dr. Garcia prepared a memo entitled “Our Meeting of June 21, 2010,” which states as follows:

I am writing to follow up on the conversation we had on June 21, 2010. As you know, we met and discussed an incident involving Ms. Annette Greer, which occurred on June 14, 2010. As part of our discussion, I expressed to you my belief that you had exercised poor judgment by going to look for Ms. Greer in the ladies bathroom. I expressed to you that it is my expectation that you will ensure that your conduct and interactions with your colleagues remains professional. In the future, you are to send a female employee to look

...