Hawkins v. County of Oneida, N.Y.

• Decision Date: 24 July 2007
• Docket Number: No. 5:04-CV-132.,5:04-CV-132.
• Citation: 497 F.Supp.2d 362
• Parties: Antoine HAWKINS, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF ONEIDA, NEW YORK; Oneida County Sheriff'S Department; Daniel Middaugh, in his individual and official capacity as Sheriff; Peter Pavarati, in his individual and official capacity as Undersheriff; William Chapple, in his individual and official capacity as Chief; Lt. Brent Johnson, in his individual and official capacity; Sgt. Mike Sowich, in his individual and official capacity; Dave Vinneau in his individual and official capacity; William Nichols, in his individual and official capacity; John Does, in their individual and official capacities as Employees and Representatives of the County of Oneida, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York

497 F.Supp.2d 362

Antoine HAWKINS, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF ONEIDA, NEW YORK; Oneida County Sheriff'S Department; Daniel Middaugh, in his individual and official capacity as Sheriff; Peter Pavarati, in his individual and official capacity as Undersheriff; William Chapple, in his individual and official capacity as Chief; Lt. Brent Johnson, in his individual and official capacity; Sgt. Mike Sowich, in his individual and official capacity; Dave Vinneau in his individual and official capacity; William Nichols, in his individual and official capacity; John Does, in their individual and official capacities as Employees and Representatives of the County of Oneida, Defendants.

No. 5:04-CV-132.

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

July 24, 2007.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

A.J. Bosman, Esq., Utica, NY, Attorney for Plaintiff.

Gorman, Waszkiewicz, Gorman & Schmitt, Utica, NY (Bartle J. Gorman, of Counsel), Attorneys for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDER

HURD, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Antoine Hawkins ("plaintiff' or "Hawkins") brings this action against the County of Oneida, New York ("County"), the Oneida County Sheriffs Department ("Sheriffs Department"), Oneida County Sheriff Daniel Middaugh ("Sheriff Middaugh"), Undersheriff Peter Pavarati ("Undersheriff Pavarati"), Chief Deputy William Chapple ("Chief Deputy Chapple"), Lieutenant Brett Johnson ("Lt.Johnson"), Sergeant Mike Sowich ("Sgt.Sowich"), Correction Officer Dave Vienneau ("C.O.Vienneau"),¹ Correction Officer William Nichols ("C.O.Nichols"), and other unnamed employees and representatives of the County of Oneida ("Does").

Plaintiff asserts the following claims against each defendant: (1) racially discriminatory employment actions and racially hostile work environment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 ("Title VII"), and the New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL"), N.Y. Exec. Law § 296; (2) racially discriminatory employment actions and racially hostile work environment under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (" § 1983"), 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (" § 1981"), and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; (3) conspiracy to violate civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (" § 1985"); (4) neglect to prevent § 1985 violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1986 (" § 1986"); and (5) common law breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, wrongful termination, negligence, and gross negligence.

Defendants move for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c). Plaintiff opposes. Oral argument was heard on April 13, 2007, in Utica, New York. Decision was reserved.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Summary judgment is granted only if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); Silver v. City Univ. of New York, 947 F.2d 1021, 1022 (2d Cir. 1991). The court will not try issues of fact on a motion for summary judgment, rather it will determine "whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a [fact-finder] or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251-52, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2512, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). "The party seeking summary judgment bears the burden of establishing that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that the undisputed facts establish her right to judgment as a matter of law." Rodriguez v. City of New York, 72 F.3d 1051, 1060-61 (2d Cir.1995). A material fact is one that would "affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law," and a dispute about a genuine issue of material fact occurs if the evidence is such that "a reasonable [factfinder] could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. at 2510; R.B. Ventures, Ltd. v. Shane, 112 F.3d 54, 57 (2d Cir.1997). In determining whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, a court must resolve all ambiguities and draw all reasonable inferences against the moving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 1356, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986); Gibbs-Alfano v. Burton, 281 F.3d 12, 18 (2d Cir.2002).

III. FACTS

As noted above, in determining defendants' motion for summary judgment the facts must be viewed in a light most favorable to plaintiff.

In January 2000, the Sheriffs Department hired Hawkins, an African-American male, as a part-time correction officer at the County jail. On December 28, 2000, the Sheriffs Department appointed him to a full-time correction officer position. On June 26, 2002, the Sheriffs Department terminated his employment.

During the thirty months that plaintiff worked as a correction officer for the Sheriffs Department he was subjected to racist and racially charged treatment. For example, on approximately three occasions, another correction officer, Deputy Baldwin, used the word "nigger" in plaintiffs presence. On another occasion, while Haekins was walking to a staff meeting with a group of his fellow employees, another correction officer, Deputy Shazam, said to plaintiff "We need to take you back to confederate days." (Hawkins Dep. 38:18-19.) While walking with his fellow employees to another staff meeting, Deputy Shazam told Hawkins he was dressed like an inmate and said to the others "Let's take him down to booking; check if he's got any drugs on him." (Hawkins Dep. 36:21-22, Mar. 14, 2006.) Both of these comments were made in the presence of defendant Sgt. Sowich, a sergeant and superior.

In addition, plaintiff has provided a sworn affidavit stating that throughout his employment with the Sheriffs Department his fellow employees persistently used racial slurs including the words "nigger" and "coon," mocked him by using "black slang" such as "yo bro" and "wassup," and made references to "fried chicken" and "black guy with fat white girls." (Pl.'s Aff. ¶¶ 25-26.)

Furthermore, during his employment with the Sheriffs Department plaintiff was investigated by "CID," an internal investigations body, for having sexual relations with an inmate, and produced evidence that CID repeatedly accused him of and questioned him about bringing drugs into the facility and gang-membership. The investigation for allegedly having sexual relations with an inmate was based on a statement made to a correction officer by a female inmate. However, the accusations and investigations related to alleged drug and gang-related activity do not appear to have been based on any legitimate grounds.

Also, plaintiff has testified that an inmate, Joseph Rios ("Rios"), told him that another correction officer, Deputy Carl Watson, said "Hawkins is for the brothers," id. at 51:23 — apparently referring to his belief that Hawkins's duties were or should have been limited to dealing only with African-American inmates; and "he won't be here far long," id. at 51:25 — apparently referring to his belief that Hawkins would not be employed by the Sheriffs Department for long because he is African-American. Plaintiff has testified that Rios told him that another correction" officer, Deputy Lisa Zurich, said that working with plaintiff was like working with the inmates. Defendants have not objected to this testimony on hearsay grounds.²

During his employment with the Sheriffs Department, plaintiff applied for training that would make him eligible for the Sheriffs Emergency Response Team ("SERT"). However, the Sheriffs Department denied plaintiffs application on the ground that, due to a lack of interest, no SERT training was being offered at that time. Plaintiff also applied for tower and weapons training; however, the Sheriffs Department denied those applications on the ground that he was a probationary employee and therefore ineligible for such training.

On August 26, 2001, Hawkins was pulled over by Sheriffs Deputy Scott Riley ("Deputy Riley") for speeding. According to Deputy Riley, during the stop plaintiff acted in a disrespectful manner toward him. Deputy Riley ticketed plaintiff for failure to produce proof of insurance and released him. He then informed the Sheriffs Department that he believed plaintiff acted in a disrespectful manner toward him. As a result, the Sheriffs Department filed a slew of formal disciplinary charges against Hawkins. After a hearing, Hawkins received a written reprimand and his probationary period was extended for a period of six months as punishment for the August 26 incident.

In June 2002, plaintiff allowed an inmate to perform his security tour. The inmate pushed the watch tour button activated by plaintiff while plaintiff remained at his desk. This was observed by one of his fellow correction officers and one of his superiors, Sergeant Geraldine Mietlinkski ("Sgt.Mietlinski"). Sgt. Mietlinski reported what she observed to defendant Lt. Johnson who commenced an investigation into plaintiffs conduct. Hawkins admitted to allowing the inmate to perform his security tour and asked for leniency. As a result of the investigation and hearing, defendant Chief Deputy Chappel recommended to defendant Undersheriff Pavarati that plaintiff, who was in the last few weeks of his probationary period, be terminated.

On June 20, 2002, Pavarati informed Hawkins that his employment with the Sheriffs Department was terminated effective June 26, 2002, for failure to satisfy his probationary period. Plaintiff requested and received an exit interview with Chief Deputy Chappel.

Thereafter, plaintiff filed a complaint of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). Defendants did not respond to plaintiffs EEOC complaint despite being given an opportunity to do so. On June 9, 2003, the EEOC issued a...