Klaes v. Jamestown Bd. of Pub. Utilities
| Decision Date | 29 March 2013 |
| Docket Number | 11-CV-606 |
| Parties | ROGER KLAES, Plaintiff, v. JAMESTOWN BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITIES, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of New York |
Plaintiff Roger Klaes ("Plaintiff" or "Klaes") commenced the instant employment discrimination and civil rights action against his former employer, Jamestown Board of Public Utilities ("Jamestown BPU"), as well as individual defendants David Leathers ("Leathers"), General Manager of Jamestown BPU, David Watkins ("Watkins"), Director of Human Resources for Jamestown BPU, Chris Rogers ("Rodgers"), Transportation and Distribution Manager for Jamestown BPU, Arline Hazenberg ("Hazenberg"), employee in the Human Resources Department for Jamestown BPU, William Wright, Jr., Esq. ("Wright"), General Counsel for Jamestown BPU, Randy Peterson ("Peterson"), former Deputy General Manager for Jamestown BPU, and Ward Near ("Near"), former director of Human Resources for Jamestown BPU.
Plaintiff asserts claims under Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §12101, et seq ("ADA") and 42 U.S.C. §1983 ("Section 1983"). Plaintiff also brings state law claims for violations of the New York State Executive Law and Section 740 of the New York State Labor Law. Defendants have moved to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint in its entirety pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the reasons that follow, Defendants' motion is granted in part and denied in part.
Plaintiff is a former employee of Jamestown BPU.1 Nowhere in his 356 paragraph amended complaint does Plaintiff provide his job title or his dates of employment. However, based upon the allegations in the amended complaint, the Court is able to ascertain that Plaintiff is an engineer who worked either in the electrical division at Jamestown BPU or closely with the electrical division. The Court is also able to ascertain that Plaintiff began working at Jamestown BPU sometime in 2001, and that he was employed there until in or around March of 2011, when he was served with disciplinary charges and suspended from his position in anticipation of a Section 75 disciplinary hearing pursuant to the NewYork State Civil Service Law.
Plaintiff also alleges that he receives trash services and electrical power services from Jamestown BPU.
Plaintiff alleges that he has a disability with the meaning of the ADA. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that in 1999 he suffered nerve damage in his arms and "structural" damage to his limbs. In April 2008, Plaintiff sustained serious injuries after he fell from a ladder, including a torn rotator cuff, a broken bone in his wrist, and a broken pelvis. In addition, Plaintiff suffers from depression and sleep apnea. He is prescribed prescription pain medication, sleeping pills, and anti-depressants. Plaintiff alleges that Jamestown BPU was aware of his medical conditions as well as the medication he was prescribed.
Plaintiff's job schedule required on-call duty on evenings and weekends. However, Plaintiff's sleep apnea and other sleep difficulties affected his ability to be on-call in the evenings. Plaintiff alleges that beginning in May 2008, he made numerous requests to Defendants for accommodations with respect to his on-call schedule because of his sleep issues and prescription medications for his disabilities. Defendants denied his requests and told him that he was required to be available at all times. According to Plaintiff's complaint, four Jamestown BPU engineers previously rotated evening on-call duties. Plaintiff alleges that sometime in 2009, Jamestown BPU ceased its rotation policy and insteadrequired that Plaintiff and another employee were on-call "twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, all year long." Individual defendants Watkins, Rogers and Leathers instructed Plaintiff not to take his medication when he was on-call, and told Plaintiff that he was required to choose between his job and his medical treatments.2 Plaintiff further alleges that from 2004 through March 2011, Defendants forced him to take time off from work using his sick time benefits and compensatory time benefits, even though he was capable of working.
Plaintiff alleges that from 2001 through August of 2010, defendant Peterson repeatedly accused Plaintiff of having a substance or alcohol abuse problem. Plaintiff complained to defendants Leathers and Watkins about defendant Peterson's allegations. Peterson denied ever making the allegations against Plaintiff, and Plaintiff was reprimanded for lying.
In January of 2009, Plaintiff interviewed for the position of Deputy General Manager. Defendants Peterson, Leathers, and Watkins participated in Plaintiff's interview. Plaintiff was not hired for the position.
Plaintiff alleges that since he began working for Jamestown BPU in 2001, significant workplace safety issues have existed. Some specific issuesreferenced by Plaintiff include lack of proper safety equipment, lack of necessary protective clothing for employees, and lack of appropriate safety procedures. Plaintiff states that it was his job to "know, and enforce, safety rules and regulations." Plaintiff alleges that throughout his employment with Jamestown BPU he attempted to address problems related to workplace safety and improve safety procedure. However, Defendants undermined his efforts and resisted his suggested improvements due to inconvenience and financial constraints.
Specifically, Plaintiff complained to defendant Rogers, the Transmission and Distribution Manager, that Jamestown BPU electrical division staff did not have arc flash suits for protection, did not adhere to confined space safety regulations, and did not use a bomb blanket. Plaintiff informed Defendants that when Jamestown BPU employees were working in confined spaces, they were not using the appropriate tripods or harnesses.
In November 2009, Plaintiff sent an email to his direct supervisor, defendant Rogers, stating his concern that Jamestown BPU employees were not abiding by state and federal regulations for performing electric work in confined spaces. Plaintiff cited various violations that he observed on site visits such as no use of hard-hats, improper or no use of work zone signs, and improper or no use of safety equipment around manholes. Plaintiff and Rogers had a follow-up meeting to address Plaintiff's email. During the meeting, Rogers was hostile to Plaintiff and stated "if we were to follow the rules we wouldn't get anything done"and "they are going to be dead anyway at that point". Plaintiff was told it was his responsibility to enforce safety rules and regulations. However, Plaintiff claims that when he attempted to enforce the use of certain safety measures, he received little to no support from Defendants.
In January of 2009, Defendants hired an outside consultant to provide various types of safety training to the electrical division staff. Since Jamestown BPU was required to conduct an annual safety audit of the utility, Plaintiff wanted to hire the same consultant to conduct a general safety audit and training. With respect to the safety training, Plaintiff alleges that defendants Rodgers, Watkins, Wright and Leathers told electrical division staff to ignore parts of the safety training, including confined space procedures.
With respect to the audit, the consultant worked with Plaintiff to assess various safety-related issues at the utility. The consultant informed Plaintiff that he was concerned about the safety performance of the electrical division staff. Plaintiff arranged a meeting between the consultant and Defendants to discuss these concerns. During the meeting, the consultant outlined his safety concerns and submitted a proposal for an electrical safe work practices assessment by his company, which could be used to develop a safety improvement plan. The consultant informed Jamestown BPU that he could conduct a comprehensive safety audit for $17,000. Defendant Rogers and Watkins later told Plaintiff that the safety audit was too expensive and declined to hire the consultant.
Plaintiff also describes various "preventable" accidents which he reported to Defendants in 2009 and 2010. One of these incidents involved an arc flash accident that resulted in serious injuries to three Jamestown BPU employees.
Plaintiff alleges that in April 2010, other Jamestown BPU employees complained to him regarding various workplace safety violations. Plaintiff claims that these employees were reluctant to bring their concerns to the attention of Defendants for fear of retribution. Plaintiff alleges that one crew in particular regularly violated safety rules, hid accidents, threatened staff members to prevent them from reporting incidents or complaining, and behaved in a reckless and dangerous manner. Plaintiff complained to defendants Rogers, Leathers, Watkins and Wright regarding the crew's behavior. Plaintiff also voiced complaints he had received from other employees. In response, Plaintiff was reprimanded by Defendants.
Plaintiff alleges various behavior on the part of Defendants as retaliation for his safety complaints. Specifically, Plaintiff began receiving poor performance reviews in 2008, and was subject to performance reviews more often than before. Plaintiff alleges that he was "interrogated" in the General Manager's office and the Human Resources office when he mentioned safety issues. Defendant was yelled at and told to do his "fucking job" when he brought safety issues to Defendants' attention. Plaintiff states that he was blamed for the safety problems he complained about and given a disproportionate and overwhelming amount ofwork. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants purposefully withheld information that he needed to complete his work assignments. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants further retaliated against him by prohibiting him from having food or drink in the lunch room, disconnecting the...
To continue reading
Request your trial