Mabry v. Neighborhood Defender Serv.

• Decision Date: 31 January 2011
• Docket Number: No. 10 Civ. 4016 (PKC).,10 Civ. 4016 (PKC).
• Citation: 769 F.Supp.2d 381
• Parties: Reginald Antoine MABRY, Plaintiff,v.NEIGHBORHOOD DEFENDER SERVICE and Walter Patrick Jones, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

769 F.Supp.2d 381

Reginald Antoine MABRY, Plaintiff,

v.NEIGHBORHOOD DEFENDER SERVICE and Walter Patrick Jones, Defendants.

No. 10 Civ. 4016 (PKC).

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

Jan. 31, 2011.

Reginald Antoine Mabry, Bronx, NY, pro se.Jacqueline Carmen Gerrald, Janet Cohn Neschis, Steven J. Hyman, McLaughlin and Stern, LLP, New York, NY, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

P. KEVIN CASTEL, District Judge:

Plaintiff Reginald Antoine Mabry brings this action pro se against the Neighborhood Defender Service (“NDS”) and Walter Patrick Jones, Executive Director of NDS, in his individual capacity, pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq., as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12203 et seq., the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”), N.Y. Exec. L. § 290, et seq. , and the New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”), N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8–101, et seq. Plaintiff who continues to be employed by NDS, contends that he was subjected to unlawful discrimination, hostile work environment and retaliation on the basis of age and discriminated against on the basis of disability. Defendants now move to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Fed.R.Civ.P., for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. For the reasons stated below, defendants' motion to dismiss is granted.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, Reginald Antoine Mabry, age 45, is currently employed as the Computer Services Director for defendant, Neighborhood Defender Services (“NDS”). (Compl. ¶¶ 2–3.) NDS, founded in 1991 as a project of the Vera Institute of Justice, is a public interest law firm that provides legal representation regarding criminal matters to indigent residents of Upper Manhattan. ( Id. ¶ 4.) Plaintiff was hired by NDS in 1994 as a Network Technician. ( Id. ¶ 3.) In plaintiff's 17 years with NDS, he has been promoted twice, from Network Technician to Computer Services Manager and subsequently from Computer Services Manager to Computer Services Director—the position he currently holds. ( Id. ¶¶ 2–3.) As Computer Services Director, plaintiff maintains NDS's computer equipment and manages technology improvement, implementations and migrations. ( Id. ¶ 63.)

NDS is funded predominantly by New York City agencies, and also receives some funding from New York State. ( Id. ¶ 4.) NDS's yearly budget is not fixed and is decided by vote of the New York City Council. ( Id. ¶¶ 4, 62.) In 2008, the New York City and New York State agencies that fund NDS instituted significant budget cuts. ( Id. ¶ 111.) “As a result of the budget cuts, NDS instituted an across the board 3% cap on raises for administrative staff.” ( Id.) Prior to these budget cuts, administrators had received 5% raises each year. ( Id. ¶ 88.) As Computer Services Director, plaintiff is a member of NDS's administrative staff. In addition to administrators, NDS also employs attorneys. According to plaintiff's Complaint, NDS hires and promotes attorneys from within its ranks rather than making lateral hires and pays its attorneys based on the number of years out of law school. ( Id. ¶¶ 27–28.) Attorneys' salaries were not affected by the budget cuts. ( Id. ¶¶ 27, 111.)

Prior to June 5, 2008, plaintiff alleges that he was supervised exclusively by Leonard Noisette, then Executive Director of NDS. ( Id. ¶ 3(a).) In early 2008, Noisette gave notice that he was resigning from his position as Executive Director. ( Id. ¶ 11.) Noisette was succeeded as Executive Director by defendant Walter Patrick Jones, age 47, beginning in approximately July 2008. ( Id. ¶¶ 12, 110.) In May 2008, Jones notified all staff members that he would like to meet with each of them individually. ( Id. ¶ 13.) On June 2, 2008, plaintiff met with Jones and Jones' secretary at a “very informal” meeting at which Jones elicited answers from plaintiff to three questions: (1) “What is good about the Neighborhood Defender Service?” (2) “What is not?” and (3) “What can you do to make NDS better?” ( Id. ¶ 15.)

Also at the June 2, 2008 meeting, plaintiff alleges that he informed Jones of his “issues with Thomas Giovanni.” ( Id.) Thomas Giovanni, under the age of 40, is an attorney and criminal team supervisor at NDS. ( Id. ¶¶ 3(a)-(b).) According to plaintiff's Complaint and documents relied on by plaintiff in drafting his Complaint, plaintiff's “issues” with Giovanni stem from Giovanni's behavior towards him when the two worked together:

I have a serious [sic] of complaints that I have spoken to all of you about a pattern of behavior that Thomas Giovanni has followed when we have worked together. The pattern begins with him making complaints or pointing out issues, then I respond and if he doesn't like my response he counters in a condescending unproductive matter [sic] and this even involved him using an [sic] totally workplace inappropriate comments such as ‘When I press Print, I want the Fucking thing to Print—why can't that happen?’ All the while, this is happening, I am working on fixing the core of his complaints. All the while, it seems that he is making me feel that I am acting insubordinate. When at the end of the day 99% if [sic] the problems get solved. At the end of day [sic], I find his conduct unprofessional, and I expected that the organization would have fixed that.

(June 6, 2008 Email, attached at Gerrald Decl. Ex. C.) Plaintiff alleges that he has made several complaints about Giovanni's management style. (Compl. ¶ 19.)

Shortly after the June 2, 2008 meeting with Jones, Giovanni sent plaintiff a letter explaining that Jones asked him to follow-up with plaintiff regarding the resolution of computer problems experienced by Gakia, Jones' secretary. ( Id. ¶ 16.) On June 5, 2008, plaintiff responded back to Giovanni with potential solutions. ( Id. ¶ 17.) That same day, Giovanni responded to plaintiff with additional issues, without relaying the messages to Jones. ( Id. ¶ 18.) Plaintiff alleges that based on this interaction with Giovanni he believed that Giovanni was now directly supervising him. ( Id.) According to the Complaint, plaintiff found it unusual that Giovanni, an attorney, under the age of 40 and a criminal team supervisor, would supervise plaintiff, who is 45 and Computer Services Director. ( Id. ¶ 21.) Plaintiff also found the supervision troubling given the problematic history between himself and Giovanni. ( Id. ¶¶ 19–22.) Plaintiff communicated his concerns regarding Giovanni to NDS's Human Resources Director on June 5, 2008 ( Id. ¶¶ 25, 31; June 5, 2008 Email, attached at Gerrald Decl. Ex. B.) and to Noisette, Jones and the Human Resources Director on June 6.2008. (Compl. ¶ 32; June 6, 2008 Email, attached at Gerrald Decl. Ex. C.)

On June 13, 2008, Jones responded to plaintiff addressing his concerns. (Compl. ¶ 33.) Jones informed plaintiff that he had looked into his allegations concerning Giovanni, by, among other things, reading the last month of email exchange between plaintiff and Giovanni, and “found the emails to be appropriate in all respects.” (June 13, 2008 Email, attached at Gerrald Decl. Ex. D.) Moreover, Jones found the recent interactions between the two with regards to Gakia's computer problems to be not “even remotely hostile, inappropriate or out of line.” ( Id.) Jones also informed plaintiff that Giovanni was a “Team Leader and senior manager” and that Giovanni's “relevant and appropriate requests” should be addressed in a timely manner and without complaint. ( Id.) Jones' concluded: “I trust this will end the matter.” ( Id.)

Plaintiff alleges that prior to this email he had no knowledge that Giovanni was a senior manager. (Compl. ¶¶ 36–39.) Moreover, plaintiff alleges that his complaints were not handled appropriately by NDS. ( Id. ¶¶ 40–44.) Specifically, the Complaint alleges that NDS did not follow the procedure for such claims set forth in its personnel manual, that Jones was not authorized to intervene because he was not impartial, that the Human Resources Director and Executive Director did not investigate before Jones responded and NDS did not make a final finding regarding plaintiff's claims. ( Id.)

During the week of June 23, 2008, Jones requested that plaintiff schedule a “second interview” with him for the coming weeks. ( Id. ¶ 49.) On July 7, 2008, plaintiff requested an agenda for the meeting, but did not receive one. ( Id. ¶ 50.) Additionally, on July 7, 2008 plaintiff submitted to Jones' secretary a Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) form that had been completed by plaintiffs psychologist. ( Id. ¶ 51.) The FMLA form states that. beginning in approximately March 2008, plaintiff began to complain of “anxiety, depressed mood, stress, chronic tension headaches, [and] insomnia.” (FMLA Form at ¶ 4, attached at Gerrald Decl. Ex. F.) The form further states that the duration of plaintiff's conditions is unknown and is “dependant on work situation and stressors.” ( Id. ¶ 5(a).) Finally, the form states that (1) plaintiff is not incapacitated, (2) plaintiff's condition does not require him to take medical leave, (3) plaintiff's condition does not prevent him from performing one or more essential functions of his job, and (4) plaintiff does not need to work intermittently or to work on a less than full schedule as a result of his condition. ( Id. ¶¶ 5(b), 5(c), 7(a), 7(c).) The form does state that plaintiff may need to use his sick days to attend weekly psychotherapy sessions. ( Id. ¶¶ 6(a), 6(c), 7(c).)

Plaintiff and Jones, along with Jones' secretary and Roxanna Gutierrez, an attorney, age 46, met for plaintiff's “second interview” on July 17, 2008. Plaintiff alleges that he requested that the Human Resources Director attend the meeting but that his request was denied. (Compl. ¶¶ 53–54.) At the beginning of the meeting, plainti...