Laverpool v. New York City Transit Authority
| Decision Date | 31 October 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. CV 90-2327 (ADS).,CV 90-2327 (ADS). |
| Citation | 835 F. Supp. 1440 |
| Parties | Frederick B. LAVERPOOL, Sr., Andrew Wilder, Jr., Percy Jackson, Lamont Gill, Keldric C. Browne, Jr., and Alton Jones, Plaintiffs, v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY and Robert F. Kiley, individually as in his official capacity as Chairman of the Metropolitan Transit Authority, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Frederick B. Laverpool, Sr., pro se.
Edmonds, Torres, Martinez & Mazza, New York City (Anthony Mazza, of counsel), for plaintiffs Wilder, Jackson, Gill and Jones.
Keldric C. Browne, Jr., pro se.
Albert C. Cosenza, Gen. Counsel for New York City Transit Authority, Brooklyn, NY (Evelyn Jonas, Edward F. Zagajeski, of counsel), for defendants.
The plaintiffs rested their case on October 18, 1993, with the exception of certain exhibits, namely a Department of Transportation Report and a summary of the information contained in the Transit Authority drug test computer printout (Plaintiff's Exhibit 10). The defendants New York City Transit Authority ("Transit Authority") and Robert F. Kiley move, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a), for a judgment as a matter of law dismissing the case.
On October 19-20, 1993, the Court rendered its decision on the motion for judgment as a matter of law from the bench. The following constitutes a written memorialization of that decision. The full decision of the Court consists of the transcript of the oral recitation, together with this written memorialization.
The original complaint in this action was filed on or about July 6, 1990. The plaintiffs were originally represented by C. Vernon Mason, Esq. who was relieved as plaintiffs' counsel on or about June 13, 1991. A second amended complaint was filed on or about July 13, 1991 by the plaintiffs, who were, at that time, appearing pro se. The second amended complaint alleges that the defendants implemented a drug testing policy that caused the Transit Authority to deprive them of their civil rights by discharging them for testing positively on drug tests (Second Amended Complaint, at ¶¶ 2-7). On October 9, 1992 the Court denied the plaintiffs motion for class action certification.
Presently four of the plaintiffs, Wilder, Jackson, Jones, and Gill, are represented by counsel, Anthony Mazza, Esq. The plaintiffs Laverpool and Browne are proceeding pro se.
Since the plaintiff Browne had neither appeared at this trial, nor presented any evidence as of October 18, 1993, the Court granted the motion by the defendants to dismiss the action of the plaintiff Keldric Browne for the failure to prosecute (See Minnette v. Time Warner, 997 F.2d 1023, 1027 2d Cir.1993 addressing dismissal for failure to prosecute) and for failure to prove a prima facie case as to any cause of action.
On October 19, 1993, the plaintiff Browne appeared at the trial and requested that the Court vacate the default and permit him to present evidence at the trial. At this point, the Court suspended its oral recitation of the decision on the motion for judgment as a matter of law. Thereafter, Court granted the application of the plaintiff Browne to vacate his default and on October 20, 1993 Browne testified before the jury. After Browne's testimony, the Court took a recess and then rendered its oral decision on the motion for judgment as a matter of law.
In this analysis of the defendants' motion for a judgment as a matter of law as to the plaintiffs, Laverpool, Wilder, Jackson, Gill, Jones, and Browne, the Court will review the claims asserted by each of the six plaintiffs. The second amended complaint sets forth the following seven federal causes of action, in addition to pendent state law claims: (1) Section 1983 claim and state law claims for the deprivation of his job without procedural due process of law; (2) Section 1983 claim for an unreasonable search and seizure due to the drug testing procedures; (3) Section 1983 claim based on equal protection violations; (4) Section 1985 Civil Rights Conspiracy; (5) Civil RICO; (6) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; and (7) Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
The plaintiffs Laverpool, Wilder, Jackson, Gill, Browne, and Jones originally asserted three claims for Section 1983 violations: (1) Deprivation of their jobs without procedural due process of law; (2) Unreasonable search and seizure due to the drug testing procedures; (3) Equal protection violations. Additionally, these plaintiffs originally asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1985, the civil rights conspiracy statute.
On April 30, 1993, the Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing all the Section 1983 and Section 1985 claims of the plaintiffs Gill and Jones based upon the defense of the statute of limitations. Additionally, on October 19, 1993, counsel for the plaintiffs Wilder, Jackson, Gill, and Jones stated on the record that their Section 1985 cause of action was withdrawn.
Accordingly, only the plaintiffs Laverpool, Wilder, Jackson, and Browne have a Section 1983 cause of action, and only the plaintiffs Laverpool and Browne have a Section 1985 cause of action.
The plaintiffs Laverpool, Wilder, Jackson, Gill, Browne, and Jones originally asserted a claim under the Civil RICO statute. On October 18, 1993, counsel for the plaintiffs Wilder, Jackson, Jones, and Gill informed the Court that the claims asserted by these plaintiffs under the Civil RICO statute are withdrawn. Accordingly, the only plaintiffs who are still asserting a cause of action under Civil RICO are Laverpool and Browne.
The plaintiffs Laverpool, Wilder, Jackson, Gill, Browne, and Jones originally asserted a claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. On October 18, 1993, counsel for the plaintiffs Wilder, Jackson, Jones, and Gill informed the Court that the claims asserted by these plaintiffs under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are withdrawn. Accordingly, the only plaintiffs who are still asserting a cause of action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are the plaintiffs Laverpool and Browne.
The plaintiffs Laverpool, Wilder, Jackson, Gill, Browne, and Jones originally asserted a claim under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. On October 18, 1993, counsel for the plaintiffs Wilder, Jackson, Jones, and Gill informed the Court that the claims asserted by these plaintiffs under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 are withdrawn.
In addition, the Court notes that the claims of the plaintiffs Jones and Gill under this statute are barred by the statute of limitations. The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 is governed by the state statute of limitations for personal injury actions (see Morse v. University of Vermont, 973 F.2d 122, 127 2d Cir.1992) which is three years in New York (See N.Y.C.P.L.R. 2145). The claim of plaintiff Jones accrued on September 9, 1985, the date his employment application was rejected, and the claim of plaintiff Gill accrued on May 15, 1986, the date he was dismissed as a result of the positive drug test. Since both of these dates are more than three years prior to June 6, 1990, the date this action was commenced, the claims of Jones and Gill are barred by the statute of limitations.
Additionally, the plaintiff Laverpool stated, in open Court, that he is not seeking relief pursuant to this statute. Therefore, the only plaintiff with this cause of action is the plaintiff Browne.
The Court will now address the claims asserted by the remaining plaintiffs, as to the remaining causes of action.
The plaintiff Frederick Laverpool ("Laverpool"), was a Special Inspector with the Transit Authority and a former president of the Special Inspector's Benevolent Association. During his time as union president he "began an investigation, questioning irregularities and inconsistencies" in the Transit Authority's drug testing policies (Second Amended Complaint, at ¶ 204). Laverpool was tested for drugs on May 4, 1988 and was informed that his test was positive on May 8, 1988. Laverpool was dismissed on June 9, 1988. The second amended complaint alleges a scheme in which the Transit Authority drug tested Laverpool in an attempt to get rid of him. This "scheme" was furthered by the allegation that the Transit Authority "bribed" the arbitrator of the employment disputes by offering him an "$80,000 per annum job" (Second Amended Complaint, at ¶ 211).
The second amended complaint alleges that the plaintiff Andrew Wilder, Jr. ("Wilder") was involved in a passenger-train incident on June 25, 1987 and based upon this incident was required to submit to a drug test (Second Amended Complaint, at ¶¶ 218-19). There is the further allegation that the Train Operator, who was a white male, was not given a drug test, but Wilder, who is black was tested and the test was positive (Second Amended Complaint, at ¶ 220). Wilder was then assigned to another job, as a Mail Clerk, and was directed on or about January 5, 1988 to submit to another drug test in which Wilder tested positive (Second Amended Complaint, at ¶¶ 223-24). Wilder was discharged on January 18, 1988 (Second Amended Complaint, at ¶¶ 225).
The second amended complaint alleges that the plaintiff Percy Jackson ("Jackson") began his employment with the Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority ("MaBSTOA") in 1978 as a bus driver (Second Amended Complaint, at ¶ 230). On or about March 25, 1988, he was required to submit to a drug test during his annual physical examination (Second Amended Complaint, at ¶ 231). He tested positive and because he feared losing his job participated in the Employee Assistance Program ("EAP") (Second Amended Complaint, at ¶¶...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
M.O.C.H.A. Soc'y, Inc. v. City of Buffalo
...with evidence “that white employees were treated in any manner differently than black employees.” Laverpool v. New York City Transit Authority, 835 F.Supp. 1440, 1459 (E.D.N.Y.1993), aff'd,41 F.3d 1501 (2d Cir.1994). Despite more than ample opportunity to do so during the interminably long ......
-
Perez v. Metro. Transp. Auth.
...work after an extended absence or suspension; and (5) they resume work after an incident while on duty." Laverpool v. N.Y. City Transit Auth., 835 F. Supp. 1440, 1456 (E.D.N.Y. 1993); see also Beharry v. M.T.A. N.Y. City Transit Auth., No. 96-CV-1203(FB), 1999 WL151671, at *12 (E.D.N.Y. Mar......
-
Jones v. Associated Universities, Inc.
...genuine dispute over whether he was discharged solely because of his disability. See 29 U.S.C. § 794(a); Laverpool v. New York City Transit Auth., 835 F.Supp. 1440, 1465 (E.D.N.Y.1993) (Granting defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law dismissing Rehabilitation Act claims on the g......
-
Knighton v. City of Syracuse Fire Dept.
...the exercise of constitutional rights, or by a malicious or bad faith intent to injure the person[.]'" Laverpool v. New York City Transit Auth., 835 F.Supp. 1440, 1459 (E.D.N.Y.1993) (internal quotation omitted); see also Birmingham v. Ogden, 70 F.Supp.2d 353, 371 (S.D.N.Y.1999). "Intent is......