Hunter v.
| Decision Date | 31 March 2015 |
| Docket Number | 13-CV-2659 (SLT)(VVP) |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
| Parties | JENNIFER M. HUNTER, Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK CITY HEALTH & HOSPITALS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. |
Plaintiff Jennifer M. Hunter, a social worker employed by the Kings County Hospital Center ("KCHC"), brings this action against her employer, the New York City Health & Hospitals Corporation (the "HHC") and the City of New York (the "City"), alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.; 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985 and 1986, and New York State law. Defendants, all of whom are represented by the Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, now move to dismiss this action pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1), (2) and (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons stated below, the Court grants defendants' motions with respect to all six federal claims alleged in the Amended Complaint, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction with respect to the two remaining claims, and dismisses this action without prejudice to pursuing those two claims in state court.
The following facts are drawn from the Amended Complaint and the exhibits attached thereto and are assumed to be true for purposes of this Memorandum and Order. Plaintiff Jennifer Hunter is an African American citizen of Caribbean ancestry. Amended Complaint, ¶ 9. Since 1990, she has been employed as a social worker at defendant KCHC, one of elevenmunicipal hospitals operated by defendant HHC. Id., ¶¶ 3, 9, 12. Plaintiff has a master's degree in Social Work, has worked as an adjunct professor at both New York University and Long Island College, and has been a clinical instructor in the Department of Psychiatry at SUNY Downstate. Id., ¶ 12. Although she alleges that she is "more experienced and qualified than ... Caucasian employees holding supervisory positions," plaintiff "has not been promoted since her appointment." Id.
On April 16, 2012, plaintiff's supervisor, Bernice Fraser, sent plaintiff an e-mail relating to a probationary employee, Jennifer Jules.1 That e-mail asked plaintiff to "read through Ms. Jules['] corrective plan" and stated: "[Y]our help is needed to monitor her progress." Plaintiff apparently perceived that e-mail as requesting that she "give a negative evaluation to ... Jules, another black employee," id., ¶ 13, and sent Fraser a reply stating that she was "extremely uncomfortable with this particular task ...." Plaintiff noted that she was "not privy to the reason(s) the plan was implemented," that her input was "not requested in addressing the precipitating factors," and that she did "not wish to be involved." Plaintiff closed her e-mail by stating: "Please do not perceive this as a form of insubordination, it is just quite uncomfortable for me to do."
In September 2012, plaintiff received a negative evaluation from her supervisor. Id., ¶ 3. Plaintiff responded to the evaluation by filing a "rebuttal." Id. The Amended Complaint does not attach a copy of the evaluation or rebuttal, but these documents are discussed in the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") Intake Questionnaire and a Charge ofDiscrimination, both of which are included in Exhibit A to the pleading. According to those documents, Eva Sanders, the director of the Social Work Department, gave plaintiff the "opportunity to retract [the] rebuttal and resubmit one that [plaintiff] would feel comfortable having in her personnel file." She further stated that, if plaintiff elected not to do so, she "would only respond to the items that are germane and not the comments that are incendiary and in some cases based on factual inaccuracies."
On or about December 26, 2012, plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC (the "Charge"), alleging race and national origin discrimination and retaliation. Id., Ex. A. The Charge, which is included in Exhibit A to the Amended Complaint, focused primarily on the evaluation, which plaintiff characterized as "a form of retaliation due to [her] repeated verbalization of the importance of having the appropriate tools to identify and adequately work with the Native American Indian population, and not to assume the patients' race, culture, religion and nationality based on their appearance." The Charge also theorized that the evaluation was "based on [plaintiff's] successful efforts in being awarded ... salary that was illegally withheld due to ... Sander's refusal to acknowledge [plaintiff's] vacation days ...."
The Charge accused Sanders of creating a hostile work environment by, inter alia, inappropriately using "her administrative position in an attempt to intimidate" plaintiff into retracting her rebuttal. According to the Charge, the department in which plaintiff works "appears to operate under a cloud of control and intimidation primarily fueled by the fears of relocation, work schedule changes, and termination." As a result, "displeasures are often not verbalized" because of fear that Sanders will retaliate.
At some juncture—either "[w]hen she filed [her] rebuttal" or "[w]hen she filed a complaint with the EEOC," id., ¶ 3—plaintiff was transferred from the inpatient department to the outpatient department. Id., ¶¶ 3, 13. According to plaintiff, working conditions are "harsher and more onerous" in the outpatient department because the hours are longer, the caseload is heavier, and the quality of work less challenging than in the inpatient department. Id., ¶¶ 10, 13. In addition, the transfer deprived plaintiff of the opportunity to work with doctors and to supervise interns. Id., ¶ 10.
On February 13, 2013, the EEOC issued a right-to-sue letter, advising plaintiff that it was closing its file on the Charge. The EEOC stated that it was "unable to conclude that the information obtained [during its investigation] establishes violations" of any discrimination statute. Id., Ex. B. The letter advised plaintiff of her right to commence a lawsuit within 90 days of her receipt of the letter.
On April 29, 2013, plaintiff, proceeding pro se, commenced this action by filing a form complaint (the "Complaint"), which attached copies of the EEOC's Intake Questionnaire, the Charge, and the right-to-sue letter. That Complaint, a copy of which is attached to the Amended Complaint as Exhibit C, named "New York City Health & Hospitals Corporation, aka Kings County Hospital" as the defendant and alleged violations of both Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. (the "ADEA"). Complaint, p. 1. The pleading alleged that plaintiff was "Black/Indian," and listed her national origin as "Jamaican/Arawak," id., ¶ 7, but did not allege plaintiff's age.
Although plaintiff checked a box to indicate that she was alleging "[u]nequal terms and conditions of ... employment," id., ¶ 4, the facts alleged in the omplaint pertained solely to retaliation. The pleading principally alleged that "management" had retaliated against plaintiff in some unspecified way because she "would not participate in their efforts to bring up on charges and terminate Jennifer Jules." Id., ¶ 8. In addition, plaintiff implied that she suffered some form of retaliation because she "confronted management about ... approved time/leave back on 12/11 which they disapproved ...." Id. Plaintiff did not allege a failure to promote her, or provide any facts suggesting such a claim.
On October 16, 2013, Corporation Counsel filed a request for a pre-motion conference on behalf of HHC. Plaintiff never responded to that request. At an initial conference on November 21, 2013, Magistrate Judge Pohorelsky suggested that plaintiff might wish to amend her complaint and granted her leave to do so. See Minute Entry field Nov. 22, 2013. The magistrate judge directed that the amended complaint be filed by January 6, 2014.
On January 29, 2014, an attorney appeared on behalf of plaintiff and filed the Amended Complaint. Like the Complaint, the Amended Complaint alleges a violation of Title VII. However, the Title VII claim—which is contained in the "Fifth Claim for Relief" in the Amended Complaint—principally alleges a failure to promote. Specifically, this cause of action alleges:
The defendant has discriminated against plaintiff because of her race, color and national origin, with respect to the terms and conditions of her employment by refusing to promote to a supervisory position with KCHC, and by refusing to grant plaintiff a meaningful remedy for the violation of her rights ....
Amended Complaint, ¶ 25. The cause of action further implies that this issue was raised in the Charge, id., ¶ 26, and notes that "the EEOC filed a Right to Sue Letter on February 13, 2013." Id. ¶ 27.
Unlike the Complaint, the Amended Complaint alleges violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986 and 1981. The § 1983 claims are set forth in the "First Claim for Relief," which alleges claims against an unspecified "defendant," and the "Seventh Claim for Relief," which alleges a "Monell Claim Against The City of New York for the actions of KCHC." The first cause of action alleges that "[t]he defendant," acting under the color of law, deprived plaintiff of "privileges and immunities secured by the Constitution of the United States, when it decided not to promote plaintiff to the supervisory positions to which she was entitled, and not to permit plaintiff to have access to a meaningful institutional remedy for violation of her rights." Id., ¶ 16. The cause of action then lists various Constitutional rights which were allegedly violated by the unspecified defendant's "decisions." First, it alleges that the defendant violated plaintiff's First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by "basing their [sic] decision, to an impermissible extent, on plaintiff['s] exercise of her right of free speech." I...
To continue reading
Request your trial