Hamilton v. Cnty. of Onondaga

• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York
• Writing for the Court: Hon. Brenda K. Sannes, United States District Judge
• Decision Date: 21 September 2018
• Docket Number: 5:15-cv-01333 (BKS/TWD)
• Citation: Hamilton v. Cnty. of Onondaga, 5:15-cv-01333 (BKS/TWD) (N.D. N.Y. Sep 21, 2018)
• Parties: SEAN HAMILTON, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF ONONDAGA, NEW YORK; ETHAN WARREN; MATT MILLIS; LARRY VANHOLTES; MARK TOTH; FRED ISAACS; and JOHN DOE(S) and JANE DOE(S), Defendants.

SEAN HAMILTON, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF ONONDAGA, NEW YORK; ETHAN WARREN;MATT MILLIS; LARRY VANHOLTES; MARK TOTH;FRED ISAACS; and JOHN DOE(S) and JANE DOE(S), Defendants.¹

5:15-cv-01333 (BKS/TWD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

September 21, 2018

Appearances:

For Plaintiff:

A.J. Bosman

Bosman Law Firm, LLC

201 W. Court Street

Rome, NY 13440

For Defendants:

Robert A. Durr

Onondaga County Attorney

Karen A. Bleskoski, of counsel

421 Montgomery Street, 10th Floor

Syracuse, NY 13202

Hon. Brenda K. Sannes, United States District Judge:

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Sean Hamilton brings this action against his former employer Defendant County of Onondaga (the "County"), as well as his former coworkers or supervisors at the County, Defendants Ethan Warren, Matt Millus, Larry VanHoltz, Mark Toth, Fred Isaacs (the "individual Defendants"), and unidentified individuals (John/Jane Does or "Doe Defendants"). (Dkt. No. 2).Plaintiff, who is African-American, alleges being subjected to "racially offensive language and harassment" during his employment and terminated on the basis of race. (Id. ¶¶ 13-20). He brings claims for: (i) hostile work environment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 ("Title VII"); (ii) hostile work environment under the New York Human Rights Law (the "NYHRL"), N.Y. Exec. Law §§ 290-301; (iii) discrimination under Title VII; (iv) discrimination under the NYHRL; (v) violation of his rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution; (vi) violation of his rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1981; (vii) negligence; (viii) breach of contract; (ix) tortious interference with a contractual or prospective economic relationship; and (x) prima facie tort. (Id. ¶¶ 21-57). Plaintiff seeks, inter alia, compensatory damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief, and declaratory relief. (Id. at 9-10). Defendants move for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. (Dkt. No. 51). For the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted in part and denied in part.

II. FACTS²

A. Plaintiff's Qualifications

Plaintiff is an African-American male who worked for Onondaga County's Department of Transportation (the "DOT") during the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 winter seasons. (Dkt. No. 51-31, ¶¶ 1, 51, 100). In 2012, he obtained a "Class B" commercial driver's license ("CDL"), which is required to drive "Class B" trucks such as those used by the DOT to plow snow during the winter season.³ (Id. ¶ 2; Dkt. No. 51-16, at 21-22).

B. Department of Transportation Workplace

The DOT has administrative offices in downtown Syracuse and four shops (garages) in Jamesville, Marcellus, Camillus, and the North Area. (Dkt. No. 51-31, ¶ 16). Each shop is managed by a highway section crew leader. (Id.).

Brian Donnelly, the Commissioner of the DOT during the relevant time period, made all the final decisions regarding hiring and firing of DOT employees, based on the agency's needs and staff recommendations received. (Dkt. No. 51-31, ¶¶ 14-15). The DOT has two categories of employees: permanent employees, who are represented by a union and protected by a union contract, and temporary employees, including seasonal and part-time employees, who are employed at will and have no entitlement to benefits, seniority rights, or union rights. (Id. ¶ 15). Temporary seasonal employees are not assured an offer of permanent employment. (Id. ¶ 24).⁴

Some temporary seasonal employees serve as Motor Equipment Operators I ("MEO-I") and assist permanent employees during the fall and winter months. MEO-I employees, whether temporary or permanent, must possess at a minimum a Class B CDL license and are expected to drive County-owned vehicles safely and properly operate them so as to limit wear and tear on the machinery. (Dkt. No. 51-31, ¶¶ 19-20). During the winter season, permanent employees, if available, are given priority over temporary seasonal employees in driving snowplows and working overtime. (Id. ¶ 21). Seasonal employees are considered "floaters" because they can be assigned to any task needed on a particular day. (Id. ¶ 53). There is no guarantee that temporary seasonal MEO-I employees will drive a snowplow during the season; they are expected "to assistpermanent employees in whatever manner is required." (Id. ¶ 21).⁵ The DOT does not make it a priority to train temporary employees to drive snowplows. (Id. ¶ 23).

The County maintains policies and procedures against harassment, discrimination, and retaliation that apply to all County employees, including those employed by the DOT. (Id. ¶ 7). Notably, a September 5, 2007 executive order issued by the County Executive states that discrimination, including "ethnic slurs, ethnic jokes or other intimidating, hostile or offensive verbal or physical conduct relating to a person's race," is "unacceptable conduct in the work place and will not be tolerated." (Dkt. No. 51-25, at 3). The executive order charges all "Department Heads and supervisors . . . with the responsibility to prohibit harassment and discrimination, to train employees about harassment and discrimination, and to pursue disciplinary procedures against employees who violate these procedures." (Id. at 4). Further, the memorandum accompanying the executive order specifies that "complaints of any type of harassment are to be reported to an appropriate management official or can be reported directly to the Employee Relations Division of the Personnel department." (Id. at 2).

During their initial orientation, permanent DOT employees receive a copy of the Onondaga County Employees Handbook, which contains provisions regarding harassment, discrimination, and retaliation. (Dkt. No. 51-31, ¶ 8). Further, all County employees may access the County's policies and procedures against harassment, discrimination, and retaliation on the County's intranet and through the County's Department of Personnel; they may also obtain copies of forms to report incidents from the DOT and the Department of Personnel.⁶ (Id.). The DOT requires all permanent full-time employees to attend yearly training on issues ofdiscrimination, harassment, retaliation, and violence in the workplace. (Id. ¶ 10). Defendants Warren, Larry VanHoltz, Toth, and Isaacs testified that they attended training classes on diversity, discrimination, and retaliation. (Dkt. No. 51-31, ¶¶ 27, 35, 40, 49). Although Defendants assert that temporary seasonal employee receive similar training at the start of each season, (Dkt. No. 51-31, ¶ 11), at his deposition, Plaintiff did not recall receiving any training or information on the County's policies against harassment or discrimination, (Dkt. No. 51-16, at 29-31).

C. Plaintiff's 2012-2013 Seasonal Employment

1. Job Responsibilities and Performance

Commissioner Donnelly appointed Plaintiff to the position of temporary MEO-I at the DOT's Camillus shop by letter dated October 23, 2012. (Dkt. No. 51-31, ¶ 51; Dkt. No. 51-17). The letter informed Plaintiff that Defendant Isaacs would be his supervisor, that he would start on November 5, 2012, and that his seasonal employment would end on approximately April 19, 2013. (Dkt. No. 51-31, ¶ 51; Dkt. No. 51-17). Plaintiff was the only African-American employee at the Camillus shop at the time. (Id. ¶ 4).

During the 2012-2013 season, Plaintiff performed various tasks, such as shoveling, salting entrances and walkways around the shop, building maintenance, and cleaning the truck barns. (Id. ¶ 55). He was assigned to these tasks when employees senior to him were available to drive and there was no room for him in the trucks. (Id. ¶ 57). That season, he was also assigned to ride with Defendant Warren on the plow truck, and Isaacs allowed Plaintiff to drive during times of light traffic, weather permitting. (Dkt. No. 51-31, ¶¶ 59-60). Plaintiff testified that the opportunities to drive were not "that frequent." (Dkt. No. 51-16, at 32).

Warren testified that Plaintiff's driving was "[v]ery rough"—that he was rough on the standard transmission, could not get the truck "into gears all the time," would "miss a gear," andwould "grind gears." (Dkt. No. 51-11, at 21, 33-34). According to Warren, Plaintiff "didn't seem like he could get ahold of [driving the truck] all too well." (Id. at 22). Plaintiff denies having "any more difficulties with the truck than anyone else." (Dkt. No. 56-4, ¶ 60 (citing Dkt. No. 56-2, at 14, 19 (Jerrad Hoey, an MEO-1, testifying that he rode with Plaintiff in a six-wheeler truck and did not have comments or criticisms concerning Plaintiff's driving ability))). Warren informed Isaacs that Plaintiff "needed work" on "getting used to a standard transmission," and Isaacs responded that Plaintiff would receive "driver training"—i.e., Plaintiff would drive a truck with another individual to become "comfortable with the truck."⁷ (Dkt. No. 51-11, at 22). Warren observed that Plaintiff improved, although "he was still a little rough with the manual transmission," (id. at 28), so Warren gave him advice on engine revving and wheel speed to make shifting easier, (id. at 27).⁸

Plaintiff also drove snowplows with other employees, some of whom gave him advice on his driving and on up- and downshifting. (Dkt. No. 56-4, ¶¶ 67, 68). Plaintiff testified that, with certain vehicles, "it was hard getting out of one gear into another gear, and it would slightly grind." (Dkt. No. 51-16, at 42). Hoey explained that he and Plaintiff drove "a pretty bad truck," and that "[e]verybody that drove that truck had problems." (Dkt. No. 56-2, at 13). Although Plaintiff concedes that grinding gears harms the transmission of a vehicle, he denies that he ever "harmed" any transmission. (Dkt. No. 56-4, ¶ 70; Dkt. No. 51-11, at 59 (Warren clarifying that he was "not saying that [Plaintiff] stripped gears")). Besides driving, Plaintiff acted as awingman for Warren, who taught Plaintiff how to operate the wing on a plow, and at least six...