Heckman v. State University of New York, 86-CV-455
| Decision Date | 09 May 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-CV-455,86-CV-546.,86-CV-455 |
| Citation | 737 F. Supp. 177 |
| Parties | Charles W. HECKMAN, Plaintiff, v. STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK COLLEGE AT BROCKPORT and Research Foundation of the State University of New York, Inc., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York |
Rodney A. Richards, Binghamton, N.Y., for plaintiff.
Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen., State of N.Y., Albany, N.Y. (Lawrence L. Doolittle, of counsel), for defendant SUNY-College at Brockport.
Kohn, Bookstein & Karp, Albany, N.Y. (Edward L. Bookstein, of counsel), for defendant Research Found.
In response to an amended complaint filed by Charles W. Heckman, a retired Air Force captain and a veteran of the Viet Nam War, alleging discrimination on account of age in connection with defendants' failure to hire plaintiff for the position of Aquatic Biology Post Doctoral Research Associate, a position to be funded by a grant from the New York State Electrical and Gas Company (NYSEG), defendants SUNY-College at Brockport (SUNY-Brockport) and Research Foundation of the State University of New York, Inc. (Research Foundation) have each moved for summary judgment. Briefly, SUNY-Brockport argues (a) that the cause of action asserted under 42 U.S.C. § 6102 must be dismissed because the position for which plaintiff applied was not part of a federally-funded program and (b) that the cause of action under the ADEA must be dismissed because it was not the proposed employer for the position in question, and, hence, not within the scope of 29 U.S.C. § 623, and because plaintiff is collaterally estopped from litigating his federal age discrimination claim by virtue of the finding of "no probable cause" by the New York State Division of Human Rights (SDHR). Defendant Research Foundation predicates its summary judgment motion solely on the ground that plaintiff is collaterally estopped from litigating his federal age discrimination claim because of the "no probable cause" finding by the SDHR. For the reasons that follow, the court grants the motion of SUNY-Brockport for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 6102 but otherwise denies the remainder of both defendants' motions.
At some point in the first half of 1984, the Research Foundation "for and in conjunction with SUNY College at Brockport" submitted a proposal to NYSEG for the funding of a 37-month project relating to the thermal ecology of Lake Ontario fishes. The project was to be administered through the Research Foundation, an educational, non-profit corporation chartered by the New York Board of Regents in 1951, by members of the SUNY-Brockport Biology Department; the principal investigator of the project was to be Dr. James M. Haynes, Associate Professor in SUNY-Brockport's Biology Department. In early June 1984, SUNY-Brockport, through a panel consisting of the head of the Biology Department, two additional faculty members and a female minority student, began to review applications for the position—which had been advertised in various professional journals —of Aquatic Biology Post Doctoral Research Associate for the project. Plaintiff, who at the time was 43 years old, submitted his application for the position in early June which, because it had been sent from Germany where plaintiff was then located, was not received in full by SUNY-Brockport until late June by which time the panel had already developed a list of 10 finalists from some 27 applicants. Plaintiff's application was reviewed by the panel nonetheless. However, on August 2, 1984, Dr. Haynes informed plaintiff by letter that a Dr. Joseph K. Buttner had been offered and had accepted the position.
Disgruntled, on August 15, 1984, plaintiff filed an age discrimination charge against SUNY-Brockport with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission which then filed the charge with the New York State Division of Human Rights. See August 21, 1984 Letter from ADEA Supervisor Richard Alpert to Plaintiff. Thereafter, on January 3, 1985, the EEOC received an age discrimination charge against the Research Foundation filed first with the SDHR. See January 7, 1985 Letter from EEOC Area Director Sidney Harris to Plaintiff. On September 26, 1985, the SDHR commenced a field investigation at SUNY-Brockport talking to Drs. Lawrence Kline, James Haynes and Joseph Makarewicz, all of whom, as members of the Biology Department, were on the selection panel; on October 10, 1985, the SDHR conducted a telephone interview with the student member of the panel. On September 30, 1985, the SDHR issued a "field investigation report" on the charges filed by plaintiff; the SDHR rendered a "no probable cause" finding in both cases on November 26, 1985 and so informed plaintiff in writing on December 18, 1985. See December 18, 1985 Letter from SDHR Regional Director Forrest Cummings, Jr. to Plaintiff.
Subsequently, plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed two actions in this court which were thereafter consolidated. Pursuant to an order of this court filed on February 27, 1989, plaintiff, who had by then secured counsel, was given permission to amend his pleadings to assert age discrimination claims under 29 U.S.C. § 623 and 42 U.S.C. § 6102. Defendants have moved for summary judgment dismissing these claims.
As provided by 42 U.S.C. § 6102 (1983), "no person in the United States shall, on the basis of age, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under, any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." Even assuming that section 6102 creates a private right of action, see Stephanidis v. Yale University, 652 F.Supp. 110, 112-113 (D.Conn.1986), aff'd without opn., 814 F.2d 654 (2d Cir. 1987), plaintiff's cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 6102 must be dismissed because the program under which the position of Aquatic Biology Post Doctoral Research Associate had been created was to be supported privately by funds from NYSEG and not publicly by funds from the Federal government.
29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1). SUNY-Brockport argues that, in the present case, the State University of New York was not the proposed employer for the position for which plaintiff applied and, in fact, plaintiff had never applied to SUNY itself but had actually applied to the Research Foundation, the real employer, and that therefore SUNY-Brockport cannot be considered an employer within the scope of the ADEA. In support of this position, SUNY-Brockport relies on the fact that the position for which plaintiff applied was to be funded by NYSEG. In the court's view, based on the documents in the record, this argument lacks merit.
Although, as observed in Sweeney v. Research Foundation of State University of New York, 711 F.2d 1179 (2d Cir.1983), the Research Foundation itself is an educational, non-profit corporation chartered by the New York Board of Regents in 1951 to, among other things, receive and administer grants for the benefit of the State University of New York, id. at 1181, the record reveals that the post doctoral research associate for the project to be funded by NYSEG was to be, and was in fact, hired by a panel of members...
To continue reading
Request your trial