Johnson v. N.Y. State Dep't of Corr. & Cmty. Supervision
| Decision Date | 26 February 2021 |
| Docket Number | 11-CV-79S |
| Parties | BERTHA A. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION and SUPERINTENDENT WILLIAM POWERS, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of New York |
In this action, Plaintiff Bertha A. Johnson, an African American female, alleges that her employer, Defendant New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision ("DOCCS"), and Defendant Superintendent William Powers discriminated and retaliated against her in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. ("Title VII"), and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Presently before this Court are Defendants' motion for summary judgment, Johnson's cross-motion for summary judgment, and related motions to strike. (Docket Nos. 117, 140, 146, 148.) For the following reasons, Defendants' motion is granted in part and denied in part, and Johnson's motion is denied as untimely.
This case has a long and convoluted history. Johnson initiated the action pro se against the "NYS Dept. of Correctional Svs-Albion Correctional Facility" on January 26, 2011. (Docket No. 1.) She then filed a series of supplemental exhibits and a proposed supplemental complaint that expanded the claims and parties. (Docket Nos. 24, 26-28.) To allay the confusion caused by these piecemeal submissions, this Court directed Johnson to file an amended complaint incorporating her various allegations into a single, operative document. (Docket No. 30.) Johnson complied and filed her amended complaint on January 18, 2012, this time naming DOCCS and several individuals as defendants. (Docket No. 32.) She then again sought to supplement her pleading, resulting in the filing of a second amended complaint on February 27, 2012. (Docket Nos. 31, 35, 36.)
The second amended complaint revived the initial confusion this Court sought to allay. Johnson identified DOCCS, Albion Correctional Facility, and the New York State Department of Civil Services as the defendants in the caption, yet named 14 individuals as defendants in the body of the pleading, casting doubt on whom she actually intended to sue. (Docket Nos. 36, 41.)
After screening the pleading pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B),1 this Court determined that Johnson stated viable claims against DOCCS and three of the identified individuals as follows: (1) employment discrimination on the basis of race and gender in violation of Title VII against DOCCS; (2) interference with rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 ("FMLA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601 et seq. against DOCCS; (3) retaliation in violation of Title VII, FMLA, and the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq. against DOCCS; (4) state law negligence and breach-of-contract against DOCCS; (5) state law assault against Defendant Lieutenant Wojcinski; and (6) state law unlawful imprisonment against Defendants Sergeant Brown and Captain Scalise. (Docket No. 41.) This Court dismissed the rest of the claims, terminated the remaining defendants, and ordered service of the summons and second amended complaint on Defendants Lieutenant Wojcinski, Sergeant Brown, and Captain Scalise. Id.
Motion practice concerning the second amended complaint then commenced. DOCCS first moved to dismiss each of Johnson's claims against it (except for her Title VII claims) on Eleventh Amendment immunity grounds, which this Court granted on September 12, 2012. (Docket Nos. 42, 49.) Johnson thereafter moved for additional time to serve the individual defendants, which this Court granted on October 19, 2012. (Docket Nos. 50, 51.) The individual defendants then moved to dismiss the second amended complaint for lack of jurisdiction. (Docket No. 53.)
It was at this time that Johnson's counsel appeared in the case. (Docket No. 55.) Counsel opposed the individual defendants' motion to dismiss and cross-moved to amend the complaint. (Docket Nos. 60, 61, 63.) On May 1, 2013, this Court denied without prejudice Johnson's motion to amend, finding numerous deficiencies in the proposed third amended complaint, and reserved decision on the motion to dismiss pending the possible filing of a third amended complaint. (Docket No. 66.)
On June 7, 2013, Johnson filed a second motion to amend her complaint, which Defendants opposed. (Docket Nos. 67, 69.) After full briefing, this Court granted Johnson leave to file a third amended complaint against DOCCS and SuperintendentWilliam Powers, and granted the individual defendants' motion to dismiss the claims against them as barred by Correction Law § 24. (Docket Nos. 71, 75.)
Johnson filed her third amended complaint on October 11, 2013. (Docket No. 72.) It remains the operative pleading. The third amended complaint names two defendants: DOCCS and Superintendent William Powers. It alleges two Title VII claims against DOCCS and one Equal Protection claim against Powers. As to DOCCS, Johnson alleges in her first cause of action that it discriminated against her on account of her race by subjecting her to disparate treatment and a hostile work environment, and, in her second cause of action, that it retaliated against her for engaging in protected activity. (Third Amended Complaint, Docket No. 72, ¶¶ 74-80.) As to Powers, Johnson alleges in her third cause of action that he violated her Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection of the laws. Id. ¶¶ 81 -84.
After each defendant answered the third amended complaint, the case proceeded to the assigned magistrate judge for supervision of all pretrial matters, including discovery. (Docket Nos. 73, 77, 78.) On May 27, 2014, the parties appeared before the magistrate judge and requested an extended discovery schedule, which the magistrate judge granted. (Docket No. 82.) The parties thereafter engaged in discovery under multiple case-management orders between June 2, 2014, and October 31, 2016. (Docket No. 114.)
On January 13, 2017, Defendants filed the pending motion for summary judgment together with all required and supporting documents. (Docket No. 117.) Johnson's response to the motion was due by February 13, 2017, but counsel twice soughtextensions due to workload and medical reasons, which defense counsel and this Court accommodated. (Docket Nos. 119, 120, 121, 122.) By approved stipulation, Johnson's response deadline was extended to July 31, 2017, with Defendants' reply due by August 31, 2017. (Docket No. 122.)
On July 31, 2017, Johnson's counsel filed her own declaration (with 31 attached exhibits) and the affidavit of Lynn Hanesworth (with 2 attached exhibits). (Docket Nos. 123, 124.) Hanesworth was one of Johnson's co-workers. This was the entirety of Johnson's timely response.
Eight days later, Johnson's counsel moved for an extension until August 14, 2017, to complete the filing of Johnson's response, explaining that a family emergency prevented her from completing the response by July 31, 2017. (Docket No. 125.) Defendants' counsel consented to the extension, which this Court granted together with a concomitant extension of Defendants' time to file a reply to September 14, 2017. (Docket No. 126.) But despite receiving this extension, counsel failed to complete Johnson's response and, in fact, made no filings by the August 14, 2017 deadline.
On August 25, 2017, 11 days after the deadline, Johnson's attorney filed the affidavit of Loretta Jackson (with 1 exhibit). (Docket No. 128.) Jackson is a former inmate of the Albion Correctional Facility. Four days later, Johnson's counsel again moved to extend her time to complete the response for reasons stated in an in camera submission she claimed to have sent to chambers. (Docket No. 129.) Defendants opposed the motion, and this Court never received any in camera submission.2 (DocketNos. 130, 138.) Nonetheless, with that opposed motion pending, Johnson's counsel continued her piecemeal response to Defendants' motion for summary judgment, filing her own supplemental declaration (with 3 exhibits) and an affidavit from Johnson (with 234 exhibits). (Docket Nos. 132, 134-136, 161-168.)
On September 12, 2017, Defendants filed their reply memorandum and moved to strike the Jackson affidavit (Docket No. 128), Johnson's counsel's supplemental declaration (Docket No. 132), and Johnson's affidavit (Docket Nos. 134-136) on timeliness and substantive grounds. (Docket Nos. 139, 140.) Johnson opposed the motion in a sealed submission. (Docket No. 170.) That same month, Johnson moved to seal certain exhibits to Johnson's affidavit3 and to file a memorandum of law in excess of 25 pages.4 (Docket Nos. 142, 143.)
On September 18, 2017, Johnson filed her Rule 56 Statement of Material Facts and a supplemental affidavit from Johnson (with 13 exhibits). (Docket Nos. 146, 146-1, 146-2, 147.) The next day, Johnson filed her memorandum of law. (Docket No. 148.) The parties then engaged in mediation in November and December 2017, which proved unsuccessful. (Docket No. 159.)
On March 30, 2018, in the interests of advancing the case, and to accommodate Johnson's counsel's family emergencies and personal circumstances, this Court granted Johnson's motion to file her summary judgment response out of time and deemed each of her responsive submissions timely filed. (Docket Nos. 129, 160.) It further directed that the documents Johnson served on Defendants and submitted in camera be filed under seal, including the exhibits to Johnson's affidavit (Docket No. 134). (Docket No. 160.) Finally, this Court denied Defendants' motion to strike Johnson's submissions (Docket No. 140) on timeliness grounds, but noted that it would "revisit arguments made in Defendants' motion as necessary in the context of reviewing and adjudicating the pending motion for summary judgment." (Docket No. 160.) The Clerk of Court thereafter filed the sealed submissions on April 2, 2018, at which time the motion was...
To continue reading
Request your trial