Lore v. City of Syracuse
| Decision Date | 30 October 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 5:00-CV-1833-DNH-DEP.,5:00-CV-1833-DNH-DEP. |
| Citation | 583 F.Supp.2d 345 |
| Parties | Therese LORE, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF SYRACUSE; City of Syracuse Police Department; Chief of Police John Falge, in his individual and official capacity; First Deputy Chief Daniel Boyle, in his individual and official capacity; Deputy Chief Robert Tassone, in his individual and official capacity; City of Syracuse Mayor Roy Bernardi; in his individual and official capacity; Lt. Mike Rathbun, in his individual and official capacity; Capt. Mike Kerwin, in his individual and official capacity; Rick Guy, City Corporation Counsel, in his individual and official capacity; Michael Lemm, in his individual and official capacity; and John Doe, in his individual and official capacity, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York |
A.J. Bosman, Esq., Utica, NY, for Plaintiff.
Kevin E. Hulslander, Esq., Gabrielle Hope, Esq., Smith, Sovik, Kendrick & Sugnet, P.C., Syracuse, NY, for Defendants.
Thomas J. Miller, Esq., Office of Thomas J. Miller, Syracuse, NY, for Defendant, Michael Lemm.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION................................................................ 356
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND......................................................... 356
III. DISCUSSION................................................................ 358
A. Motion for Summary Judgment ........................................... 358
B. Plaintiff's Title VII Claims........................................... 359
1. Individual Liability................................................ 359
2. Statute of Limitations.............................................. 359
3. Gender Discrimination Claims Under Title VII........................ 360
a. A Prima Facie Case of Discrimination............................. 361
b. Legitimate, Non-discriminatory Reasons........................... 363
c. Establishing Pretext............................................. 364
4. Retaliation Claims Under Title VII................................. 366
a. A Prima Facie Case of Retaliation............................... 366
b. Legitimate, Non-Retaliatory Reasons ............................ 369
c. Establishing Pretext............................................ 371
5. Hostile Work Environment Claims Under Title VII.................... 375
C. Plaintiff's Claims Against Defendants Pursuant to the New York's
Human Rights Law....................................................... 376
1. A Prima Facie Case of Discrimination............................... 377
a. The Removal as Public Information Officer...................... 377
b. The Transfer to the Technical Operations Section............... 378
c. The Transfer to the Uniform Patrol Division ................... 378
D. Plaintiff's Claims Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ....................... 380
1. Plaintiff's Equal Protection Clause Claim Pursuant to § 1983 .. 380
2. Plaintiff's Due Process Clause Claim Pursuant to § 1983 ....... 381
3. Plaintiff's First Amendment Claim Pursuant to § 1983 .......... 382
E. Plaintiff's Defamation Claim Under New York State Law................. 383
F. Plaintiff's Claim of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress .... 383
G. Plaintiff's Breach of Contract Claim ................................. 384
H. Plaintiff's Claims Against Defendant Lemm and Motion to Amend the
Complaint.............................................................. 384
1. Plaintiff's First Amendment Claim Against Defendant Lemm
Pursuant to § 1983 ........................................... 385
2. Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Second Amended Complaint ......... 385
3. Plaintiff's HRL Cause of Action Against Defendant Lemm ........... 386
IV. CONCLUSION................................................................. 387
V. ORDER ...................................................................... 388
Plaintiff Therese Lore brings suit against defendants City of Syracuse, City of Syracuse Police Department ("SPD"), SPD Chief of Police John Falge, SPD First Deputy Chief Daniel Boyle, SPD Deputy Chief Robert Tassone, Syracuse Mayor Roy Bernardi, SPD Lieutenant Mike Rathbun, SPD Captain Mike Kerwin, Syracuse Corporation Counsel Rick Guy, Michael Lemm, and John Doe. Plaintiff alleges: (1) she was discriminated against on the basis of her gender while working as a SPD police officer in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a) ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("§ 1983"), and the New York Human Rights Law, N.Y. EXECUTIVE LAW § 296 (2000); (2) that she was retaliated against for reporting and complaining of discrimination in violation of Title VII and § 1983; (3) that she was harmed as a result of a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII; (4) that she suffered injury as a result of defendants' defamatory remarks; and (5) that defendants breached a contract negotiated by the Police Officers' Union on behalf of plaintiff and other police officers.
It should be noted from the outset that this case entails a lengthy procedural history since the filing of plaintiff's original complaint in December of 2000. A number of preliminary motions have already been decided, and the parties have engaged in a highly contested discovery period as well as substantial correspondence. Additionally, various requests for deadline extensions were issued and granted. The case was reassigned to the undersigned on February 21, 2008. Oral argument for the present motions was heard on May 2, 2008.
Presently, defendants City of Syracuse, SPD, SPD Chief of Police John Falge, SPD First Deputy Chief Daniel Boyle, SPD Deputy Chief Robert Tassone, Syracuse Mayor Roy Bernardi, SPD Lieutenant Mike Rathbun, SPD Captain Mike Kerwin, and Syracuse Corporation Counsel Rick Guy (hereinafter referred to together as "defendants") move for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Defendant Lemm also moves for summary judgment on additional grounds not asserted by defendants. Plaintiff opposes both motions for summary judgment and files a cross a motion for leave to amend her complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. Defendant Lemm opposes plaintiff's cross motion for leave to amend.
Plaintiff is a female police officer within the SPD. After approximately twelve years of service, plaintiff was promoted to the rank of Sergeant in 1990. Plaintiff remains employed by the SPD and has not been demoted from the rank of Sergeant.
On May 10, 1999, plaintiff was removed from the position of Public Information Officer ("PIO"). On June 7, 1999, plaintiff was transferred to the Technical Operations Section of the SPD, resulting in a change of her responsibilities but no change in her salary or benefits. On or about August 23, 1999, plaintiff was transferred from the Technical Operations Section to a supervisory position in the Uniform Patrol Division of the SPD. The August 23, 1999, transfer did not result in any change of salary, but plaintiff was directed to surrender her SPD issued car, beeper, and telephone. On or about November 9, 1999, a male sergeant was assigned to a position within the SPD that plaintiff had requested.
Plaintiff regularly filed grievances with the Police Officers' Union in regard to the above events. On December 7, 1999, the Union entered into a resolution of plaintiffs grievances. As a result of the negotiated settlement, plaintiff was transferred to the Crime Prevention Unit of the Community Relations Division within the SPD on January 26, 2000. Upon this last transfer, plaintiff was ordered to wear a police uniform while performing her duties.
Plaintiff alleges on February 21, 2000, a male sergeant was transferred to a position within the Community Relations Division for which plaintiff had requested assignment. Plaintiff alleges Defendants reported the position was not available and would not be filled. Defendants deny plaintiffs allegations relating to the February 21 assignment within the Community Relations Division.
On June 9, 2000, plaintiff was removed from the Marine Patrol Unit. On July 3, 2000, plaintiff filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") alleging gender discrimination by way of how she was treated at work and unequal assignments of overtime. On or about July 4, 2000, plaintiff went to the Audit Budget and Control ("ABC") Office and took possession of the pay stubs of three male sergeants. Plaintiff made copies of the pay stubs using a SPD photocopier and returned the pay stubs to the ABC Office. Upon learning of plaintiffs actions, Defendant Boyle directed the ABC Office staff to bar plaintiff from the ABC Office. Plaintiff alleges Defendant Boyle said, "... and since she's suing us, tell her to do it on a[n internal memo], because I don't want to see her."
On August 24, 2000, plaintiff filed a supplemental EEOC claim alleging unlawful retaliation stemming from her decision to file a complaint of discrimination. On September 20, 2000, plaintiff presented copies of the pay stubs at an arbitration proceeding as evidence of unequal overtime assignments for female sergeants as compared to male sergeants. Plaintiff alleges that counsel for the SPD informed her attorney at the arbitration proceeding that the SPD would forego any criminal or administrative charges in exchange for plaintiff's agreement to discontinue her EEOC complaint....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Friel v. Cnty. of Nassau & Nassau Cnty. Police Dep't
...v. Town of Hempstead, No. 10–CV–1928 (JS)(GRB), 2012 WL 4172010, at *12 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 17, 2012) (citing Lore v. City of Syracuse, 583 F.Supp.2d 345, 382 (N.D.N.Y.2008)). Accordingly, the Court denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's sixth cause of action.G. As to Whether ......
-
Adams v. N.Y. State Educ. Dep't
...must raise a hostile work environment claim pursuant to Title VII, the ADEA or possibly the ADA. See, e.g., Lore v. City of Syracuse, 583 F.Supp.2d 345, 375 (N.D.N.Y.2008) (“Hostile work environment claims under Title VII are consistently rejected when the plaintiff neglects to plead facts ......
-
Lore v. City of Syracuse
...that he had made any allegedly harassing telephone call. In a Memorandum–Decision and Order dated October 30, 2008, reported at 583 F.Supp.2d 345 (“ Lore I ”), the district court granted the motions in part and denied them in part. See 583 F.Supp.2d at 388–89. The court denied Lemm's motion......
-
Delia v. Donahoe
...and the August 10, 1999 Notice of Removal rise to level of “materiality delineated in Burlington Northern.” See Lore v. City of Syracuse, 583 F.Supp.2d 345, 367–68 (N.D.N.Y.2008). Turning to the causation prong of the prima facie case, plaintiff has pointed to no direct evidence that the Po......