Louis v. Metro. Transit Auth.

Decision Date06 November 2015
Docket NumberNo. 12–CV–6333 (ILG)(JO).,12–CV–6333 (ILG)(JO).
Citation145 F.Supp.3d 215
Parties Maria LOUIS, Plaintiff, v. The METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY, et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

Frederick K. Brewington, North Hempstead Town Attorney's Office, Manhasset, NY, Gregory Calliste, Jr., Law Offices of Frederick K. Brewington, Hempstead, NY, for Plaintiff.

Valerie K. Ferrier, MTA Bus Company, New York, NY, Dara A. Olds, James F. Horton, Suzanne Emily Aribakan, New York City Law Department, New York, NY, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

GLASSER

, Senior District Judge:

Plaintiff Maria Louis (Louis) brought suit against the Metropolitan Transit Authority Bus Company (MTA) and its bus driver, Stephen Wright (collectively “MTA Defendants), as well as the City of New York (“City”) and its police officer, Crystal Martin (collectively “City Defendants), under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

, asserting claims based on the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Plaintiff, a Muslim woman, claims that she was ejected from a public bus because she was wearing a burqa. After discovery, the MTA Defendants and City Defendants moved for summary judgment. Plaintiff opposed the MTA Defendants' motion. For the following reasons, the City Defendants' motion is GRANTED. The MTA Defendants' motion is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part.1

1. Factual Background

1.1 May 26, 2012 Dispute

On the morning of May 26, 2012, Louis was a passenger on a Q110 bus in Queens. Louis Dep. at 68;2 Wright Dep. at 33–34.3 A devout Muslim, Louis was wearing a burqa (a veil that covers the entire body), a symbol of her religion. Louis Dep. at 19, 70. Louis testified that she was standing in the passenger area at the front of the bus, one seat's length behind Defendant Wright, the bus driver. Id. at 72–74, 76, 83.

Louis claims that during the ride, Wright called her “scary” and said “nobody can see her.” Hrg. at 27; Dep. at 70–71, 81–82. She testified that, in response, she told Wright that she is a Muslim and has a right to practice her religion. Dep. at 82. She claims that Wright then stopped the bus and ordered her to leave. Id.; Hrg. at 27. Louis refused and called 911 to report discrimination. Louis Dep. at 83–85, 101.

Wright tells a different story. He claims the dispute began when he told Louis to step behind the white line at the front of the bus. Dep. at 42–43, 46. Wright swears that Louis was standing on the line, id. (which is unlawful4 )—but Louis denies that. Louis Dep. at 76–77. Wright, however, insists that Louis repeatedly refused to step back, became angry, and loudly accused him of discrimination. Dep. at 42–44, 46–48. Wright testified that although he felt threatened by Louis' behavior, he did not respond. Id. at 47–48, 103–104. He simply got off the bus and called MTA dispatch. Id. at 47.5

There is a recording of Wright's call. At the start, Wright can be heard saying, “I don't know if she would stab me in the back.” Audio: Call from Stephen Wright to MTA Bus Dispatch (May 26, 2012) (“Call Audio”)6 ; accord Wright. Dep. at 105, 124. To the dispatcher, Wright says:

I got a situation.... [A passenger] dressed head to toe ... comes standing right up beside me. I was very uncomfortable because I don't know if it is a man; I don't know if it's a woman; I don't know what it is. So I just asked this person ... [to] step to the back [or middle] of the bus or ... [to] a seat on the bus. But [it got] right up on to me ... and I can't tell what it is ... So I stopped the bus....

Call Audio.

In response, the dispatcher asks whether Wright stopped the bus because he could not determine a passenger's gender. Id.

Wright responds, “No. No. No. The person is right up beside me [and] the driver's seat. And that bus is empty ... with seats everywhere ... and [she] is dressed from head to toe ... I can't distinguish nothing.” Id.

The next few seconds of the call are inaudible. Id. In his deposition, Wright testified that he told the dispatcher that Louis was irate. Dep. at 49–50, 105. But he concedes that during the call he did not mention the white line. Id. at 49–50, 110–113. At the end, the dispatcher agrees to send a supervisor to assist Wright. See Call Audio.

The police—Defendant Martin and her partner—responded to Louis' 911 call. They spoke to Louis first. Louis Dep. at 97–99; Wright Dep. at 57. Louis gave a statement and reported that she was a victim of discrimination. Louis Dep. at 98. When the police asked if she wanted to stay on the bus, Louis said yes. Id. According to Louis, during the exchange, one of the officers said, “I wish I could see [Louis'] face.” Id. at 97.

The officers then spoke to Wright, outside the bus. Louis Dep. at 98–99; Wright Dep. at 59. Wright told them that because of Louis' reaction to his order to step back, he felt unsafe and wanted her off the bus. Id. at 60–61, 104–105. At the officers' request, Wright produced a free bus transfer pass for Louis. Id. at 62.

Louis, still on the bus, started to record a video. Louis Dep. at 99. The video shows Martin enter the bus and say [Wright] wants you off the bus.... If he's not comfortable with you on the bus, he has every right to express so.” Video: Maria Louis Cellphone Video (May 26, 2012). Martin gives Louis the transfer pass and tells her to leave. Id. Louis grudgingly complies, walking to a cab. Id.; see Louis Dep. at 99–100.7

Wright drove away before his supervisor arrived. Wright Dep. at 63–64.

1.2 Aftermath

A few days after May 26, 2012, Louis complained to the MTA by phone and in writing. Louis Dep. at 111, 137–40.8 Several weeks later, on June 22, 2012, Louis filed a notice of claim against the MTA (amended July 27, 2012).9 Ultimately, Wright was reprimanded by the MTA for leaving the scene on May 26, 2012 before his supervisor arrived. Wright Dep. at 19–20, 23, 64.

Louis claims that after May 26, 2012, she stopped riding the Q110 bus, and approximately one year later, in May or June 2013, moved to Philadelphia. She testified that she did not feel safe in New York and that the place to which she was moving has a larger Muslim population. Dep. at 12–13, 15; Hrg. at 69–70.

As for physical, mental, emotional, and other injuries, Louis claims to have suffered trauma, which caused headaches, high blood pressure

, depression, anxiety, and weight loss. She testified that she can no longer read, write, or work, among other things. Dep. at 30, 153–54; Hrg. at 5–8, 30–31, 50–51, 64.

1.3 MTA Policies

Although there is some evidence of the MTA's policies regarding training and driver authority, the facts are incomplete.

Wright testified that when he started working for the MTA in 2003, he was trained in customer relations. Wright Dep. at 9.

The record contains excerpts from the MTA Department of Buses Rules and Regulations (“Rules”)10 and Student Bus Operator Instruction Manual (“Manual”).11 The Rules require, among other things, drivers to “treat all customers ... with courtesy, avoid argument and exercise patience, forbearance and self-control,” and “be attentive without being offensive.” Rule 10(c). They prohibit drivers from using “loud, uncivil, indecent, or profane language even under the greatest provocation.” Rule 10(d).

The Rule governing ejectment states:

(a) In case of ejectment of a customer, no more force must be used than is necessary to remove the customer from the car, bus, or System property. No blows must be struck nor weapons used by employees, unless absolutely necessary for the defense of themselves or other persons, and under all circumstances care must be taken for the safety of customers. When the customer voluntarily leaves ... or shows willingness to do so, no hand must be laid on such person except to give needed assistance.
(b) When an ejectment or arrest is made, a full report must be made as in accident cases. Equal care must be taken to obtain names and addresses of witnesses, particularly the district/precinct number of the police officer, if any, assisting in an ejection or arrest.

Rule 31 (emphasis added).

The Manual states that before removing a bus from service, drivers must receive authorization from their dispatcher. Manual at 120. It also details procedures for reporting incidents. Id. at 152–55.

Martin's deposition testimony explains the role of police officers. Martin testified that she has not been trained in removing passengers; that she has discretion to remove passengers for safety reasons; and that she has never had to override a driver's decision to eject a passenger. Dep. at 25–26, 39–40, 42. She testified that passengers who do not comply with safety rules “do not have a right to remain on the bus,” and that the bus driver “has that determination.” Id. at 62. When there is a dispute, rather than “automatically ask the [passenger] to leave,” Martin usually speaks to the passenger and driver and attempts to negotiate a resolution. Id. at 62–63. Martin claims that she does not necessarily side with the driver, and that she would not support ejecting a passenger who only wore a burqa or stood on the white line. Id. at 71–73. However, Martin testified that if a driver were to refuse to drive with a particular passenger, she would have no “choice but to ask [the passenger] to leave.” Id. at 72.

1.4 Procedural History

Plaintiff commenced this action on December 26, 2012.12 On March 19, 2015, the MTA Defendants and City Defendants moved for summary judgment. Dkt. Nos. 64–68. Plaintiff opposed only the MTA Defendants' motion. Dkt. No. 71.

2. Legal Background

Summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a)

. “An issue of fact is genuine if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Fincher v. Depository Trust & Clearing Corp., 604 F.3d 712, 720 (2d Cir.2010) (citations and quotation omitted). “A fact is material if it might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Hulett v. City of Fowler, 5:14-CV-152.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York
    • 30 de maio de 2017
    ...follow that Sup'r Robinson, a Centro employee, acted "under color of state law" during the incident. Cf. Louis v. Metro. Transit Auth., 145 F.Supp.3d 215, 223 (E.D.N.Y. 2015) (concluding public bus driver acted under color of state law for purposes of § 1983 when he ejected passenger with p......
  • Skates v. Inc. Vill. of Freeport
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • 28 de junho de 2017
    ...related to her activity in connection with the election.5 See Kilduff , 53 F.Supp.3d at 617 ; see also Louis v. Metro. Transit Auth. , 145 F.Supp.3d 215, 224 (E.D.N.Y. 2015) ("A plaintiff must prove that the defendant acted with specific intent to punish the protected activity ...."); Rebro......
  • Defalco v. Mta Bus Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • 11 de setembro de 2018
    ...the authority of state law,’ or (2) ‘under pretense of law’ by purporting to act with official sanction." Louis v. Metro. Transit Auth. , 145 F.Supp.3d 215, 223 (E.D.N.Y. 2015) (quoting Sazon Inc. v. N.Y. , No. 11-CV-3666 (HB), 2011 WL 5910171, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 28, 2011) ). However, "[m......
  • JIe Yin v. NFTA
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of New York
    • 19 de maio de 2016
    ...that she was free to leave, and as a result, a seizure occurred. Compare Louis v. Metro. Transit Auth. , No. 12–CV–6333 (ILG)(JO), 145 F.Supp.3d 215, 228, 2015 WL 6814739, at *9 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 6, 2015) ("Although Plaintiff was ejected from the bus, she was ‘free to go anywhere else,’ and De......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT