Kelly v. N.Y. State Office of Mental Health

• Decision Date: 09 August 2016
• Docket Number: 13-CV-3383 (KAM)(SLT)
• Citation: 200 F.Supp.3d 378
• Parties: Sharon KELLY, Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF MENTAL HEALTH and New York City Children's Center (Formerly Known as Brooklyn Children's Center), Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

200 F.Supp.3d 378

Sharon KELLY, Plaintiff,

v.NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF MENTAL HEALTH and New York City Children's Center (Formerly Known as Brooklyn Children's Center), Defendants.

13-CV-3383 (KAM)(SLT)

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

Signed August 9, 2016

Sharon Kelly, Brooklyn, NY, pro se.

Sania Waheed Khan, Jane R. Goldberg, State of New York, Office of Attorney General, New York, NY, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

MATSUMOTO, United States District Judge

Plaintiff Sharon Kelly, a registered nurse proceeding pro se , commenced this action against her former employers the New York State Office of Mental Health ("OMH") and the Brooklyn Children's Center ("BCC") (collectively, "defendants")¹ asserting that defendants discriminated against her on the basis of her disability in violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (the "Rehabilitation Act" or the "Act"), 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. She also alleges that she was retaliated against for exercising her rights under the Rehabilitation Act. Defendants have moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 52, Second Amended Complaint ("Compl.")) for failure to state a claim. For the reasons set forth herein, defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

I. Factual Background

The following facts derive principally from the Second Amended Complaint and are presumed true for purposes of resolving defendants' motion to dismiss. See Kassner v. 2nd Ave. Delicatessen Inc. , 496 F.3d 229, 237 (2d Cir.2007). Despite defendants' characterization of their motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), the court also occasionally cites to plaintiff's opposition affirmation (ECF No. 60, Plaintiff's Affirmation in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss ("Pl. Opp'n")) in detailing the factual background to this action because the Second Amended Complaint is occasionally difficult to comprehend. See Jackson v. Elmhurst Hosp. Ctr. , No. 10–CV–5248, 2012 WL 868965, at *3 n. 4 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 14, 2012) ("Though generally the Court will not consider factual allegations first submitted in an opposition motion, the mandate to read a pro se plaintiff's papers liberally makes it appropriate to consider plaintiff's additional allegations here, where they are useful in deciphering her complaint." (collecting cases)). Further, it is appropriate for the court to consider the New York State Division of Human Rights ("DHR") decision rejecting plaintiff's claims (and discussed in further detail below) on this motion to dismiss, because it is referenced in the operative complaint. (See Compl. 37.) See Hughes v. Xerox Corp. , 37 F.Supp.3d 629, 636 (W.D.N.Y.2014) ("While matters outside the four corners of a complaint are not typically relevant for consideration on a motion to dismiss, materials that are expressly referenced in the complaint and submitted by the parties in connection with the underlying motion, such as the [U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission] charge and DHR complaint at issue in the present motion, may be considered by the Court in connection with the pending motion." (citing Brass v. Am. Film Techs., Inc. , 987 F.2d 142, 150 (2d Cir.1993) )).

In 2009, plaintiff began working as a registered nurse at BCC, a facility operated by OMH that provides behavioral health care services to children with serious emotional disturbances. (Compl. 2.)²

The events described in plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint began in August 2011. (Id. ) On August 22, 2011, plaintiff's coworker Rexford Cox allegedly falsely accused plaintiff of "hitting him in the head with a lunch tray." (Id. 2, 5; see also id. , Ex. C; ECF No. 58, Sania Khan Affirmation ("Khan Aff."), Ex. A, DHR Determination and Order After Investigation ("DHR Op.") at 2.) Plaintiff alleges that fear of criminal repercussions stemming from the purportedly false accusation led her to "experience[ ] mental anguish," caused her blood pressure (for which she took medication) to become elevated, and aggravated her hypertension. (Compl. 20-21.) Three days later, on August 25, 2011, plaintiff sought time off from one of her supervisors, Maryland Johnson, citing "[m]ental [s]tress" on the request form. (Id. 3-4, 33; DHR Op. at 2.) Johnson granted plaintiff's request, but allegedly told plaintiff that "this is the last time I will ever sign any paper for you." (Id. 3, 33.)

On the morning of September 1, 2011, plaintiff attended a staff meeting. (Id. 3; id. Ex. B.) During the meeting, Johnson allegedly told plaintiff that "good nurses were here and had to leave, you can take up your bag and leave now." (Id. 3.) Plaintiff contends that the comment caused her to "bec [o]me ill," after which she sought to leave the meeting. (Id. ) Before she could leave, she felt weak, "knelt down on the floor weeping," and had a "mental breakdown." (Id. ) Plaintiff's co-worker, "Ms. Duke," subsequently "grabbed [p]laintiff's head, and held [p]laintiff's head in her hands, against [p]laintiff's will and over her objections." (Id. ; see also id. Ex. B) According to the Second Amended Complaint, plaintiff and Duke had previously attended the same church and "Duke was aware that [plaintiff] did not allow anyone to handle [her] head." (Id. 3.) Duke allegedly "refused to let go until another nurse yelled at her to release [p]laintiff's head." (Id. )

Plaintiff states that she asked a receptionist to call 911 after the incident, but "[d]efendants failed and refused to do so." (Id. 4, 27; see also Pl. Opp'n at 16.) Instead, defendants sent a psychologist to speak with plaintiff. (Compl. 4.) Later on the same day, plaintiff filed a form titled "Brooklyn Children's Workplace Violence Reporting Form," describing Johnson's comments and Duke's alleged assault. (Id. 7; see also id. Ex. B.) Plaintiff alleges, however, that although a supervisor signed the form, an unnamed "police officer ... refused to sign the form." (Id. 6-7, 16.) Plaintiff claims that defendants refused to investigate her complaint about the assault. (Id. 7-8, 21-23, 28, 30.)

On September 4, 2011, plaintiff was examined as a walk-in patent at the Kings County Hospital emergency room, where she was diagnosed with "[u]nspecified essential hypertension" and discharged a few hours later. (Id. 4; see also id. Ex. K.) According to a physician's report attached to the Second Amended Complaint, plaintiff complained of "stress at work" and hypertension, but denied "chest pain, headache, [shortness of breath], numbness, weakness, tingling [and] other symptoms." (Id. ) The doctor's report concluded that plaintiff was "not having any symptoms due to [her] elevated blood pressure." (Id. ) Plaintiff alleges that she began seeing a psychologist—who diagnosed her with anxiety and depression—on September 15, 2011. (Compl. 4.) On September 19, 2011, plaintiff alleges that she again informed defendants of "her disability," describing it on a time off request form as "Mental Stress." (Id. 4-5.) In addition to mental stress, plaintiff alleges that she "became disabled under the law" in the "Fall of 2011," and that her "[d]iagnosis of [hypertension ] was made known to [defendants] for more than a year before" August 2011. (Compl. 2, 4.)

On October 14, 2011, plaintiff alleges that she was ordered to work in the same room as Duke. (Id. 8-9, 15.) Because plaintiff found it "painful to sit and work with Ms. Duke after the assault," she contacted a supervisor, Michael Harrigan. (Id. 15-16; see also Pl. Opp'n at 7.) Plaintiff told Harrigan that she "was going to lock [her]self in the crash cart room until the matter was addressed." (Compl. 16, 23, 25, 29; see also id. Exs. E, H.) Plaintiff does not clarify whether she ultimately worked with Duke on October 14, 2011. Plaintiff alleges that Harrigan subsequently assigned her and other nurses additional work to punish plaintiff for her complaint. (Id. 26-27; Pl. Opp'n at 21, 28.) Plaintiff alleges that at some point in the "middle of October 2011," she told Harrigan that she "was ready to have a meeting" with Johnson and Duke about the September 1, 2011 event, though the meeting apparently never occurred. (Compl. 29; id. Ex. C; Pl. Opp'n at 20.)

On October 27, 2011, plaintiff had a meeting with a different supervisor, Wendy McIntosh. (Compl. 26; id. Exs. H-I.) McIntosh told plaintiff that plaintiff "should take some time off so [McIntosh could] train another nurse." (Id. 30.) Plaintiff contends that the remark was effectively an attempt to force plaintiff's resignation so that she could be replaced. (Id. 9, 30.) On October 31, 2011, plaintiff alleges that she made a verbal complaint to a human resources department official about McIntosh's comment. (Id. 9, 30.) Plaintiff also alleges that she requested certain accommodations at the October 27, 2011 meeting. She alleges that she asked McIntosh to have defendants: (1) investigate her internal complaints and take remedial action; (2) ensure that she was not assigned to work with Duke;³ (3) permit her to continue her medical treatment without interruption; and (4) allow plaintiff to "voice [ ] her concerns and be listened to." (Id. 5-8, 32-33.)

In a December 2011 e-mail exchange between plaintiff and McIntosh regarding the October 27, 2011 meeting, McIntosh wrote to plaintiff that she intended to help plaintiff because plaintiff "sounded very distress[ed] so [McIntosh] felt it appropriate to advi[s]e [plaintiff] to consider taking some time off." (Id. Ex. H.) McIntosh explained further: "Remember I did not tell you to take time off I told you to consider it. If you had taken extensive leave because of what you were experiencing, yes I would have to orient someone else to work the clinic until you return because Ms. Duke cannot work alone." (Id. (emphasis in original).) Separately, at some point in December 2011, plaintiff alleges that Juliet Skeete, another supervisor, told her: "If I am at a place and no one wants me there, I would not hang around, I would leave."⁴ (Id. 18, 22, 26, 34.) Skeete's comment caused plaintiff to cry. (Id. 1...