Maioriello v. N.Y. State Office for People With Developmental Disabilities
| Decision Date | 30 September 2015 |
| Docket Number | 1:14-CV-0214 (GTS/CFH) |
| Parties | MARY MAIORIELLO, Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK STATE OFFICE FOR PEOPLE WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES, formerly known as New York State Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities; KATHERINE BISHOP, in her Individual and Official Capacity; MAX E. CHMURA, in his Individual and Official Capacity; DIANA JONES RITTER, in her Individual and Official Capacity; DAVID M. SLINGERLAND, in his Individual and Official Capacity; LESLIE MEISNER, in her Individual and Official Capacity; BILL MURRAY, in his Individual and Official Capacity; LESLIE FLEUD, in her Individual and Official Capacity; KATHY LABARGE, in her Individual and Official Capacity; and JOHN DOE(S) and JANE DOE(S); Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York |
APPEARANCES:
BOSMAN LAW OFFICE, L.L.C.
Counsel for Plaintiff
A.J. BOSMAN, ESQ.
MARIA E. LISI-MURRAY, ESQ.
Assistant Attorney General
Currently before the Court, in this retaliation action filed by Mary Maioriello ("Plaintiff") against the New York State Office for People with Developmental Disabilities ("NYS OPWDD"), Katherine Bishop, Max Chmura, Diana Ritter, David Slingerland, Bill Murray, Leslie Fleud,1 and Kathy LaBarge (collectively "Defendants"),2 are the following two motions: (1) Defendants' motion to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (Dkt. No. 6); and (2) Plaintiff's cross-motion for leave to file and serve an Amended Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) (Dkt. No. 13). For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' motion is granted in part and denied in part, and Plaintiff's cross-motion is granted in part and denied in part.
Generally, liberally construed, Plaintiff's Complaint alleges as follows. (Dkt. No. 1.) In April 2010, Plaintiff began her employment with NYS OPWDD as a Developmental Aide Trainee at the facility known as "O.D. Heck." (Id., ¶ 10.) Her duties involved providing support, care, assistance and attention to disabled clients known as "consumers" with regard to activities of daily living. (Id.) During her employment, Plaintiff observed NYS OPWDD staffneglecting, assaulting, and abusing consumers. (Id., ¶ 11.) Specifically, Plaintiff observed staff verbally abusing one consumer, known as "K.C.," by calling him "it," "the thing," "the sparrow," and "the walking plague." (Id., ¶ 12.) Plaintiff also observed K.C. being subjected to physical abuse, such as being hit with sticks and towels as well as having his hands purposely stepped on when he tried to crawl away from a mat on which he was forced to stay. (Id.) In addition, Plaintiff witnessed staff bending K.C.'s fingers backwards to cause him pain without leaving marks. (Id.) Finally, Plaintiff observed staff throwing food onto the floor for consumers to go after and eat off the floor. (Id., ¶ 13.) According to Plaintiff, this was referred to by the staff as "playing fetch." (Id.) Moreover, K.C. was not allowed any food or water outside of meal times, and, if he threw his food, he was not allowed to eat for the rest of the meal. (Id., ¶ 12.)
In response to this misconduct, Plaintiff alleges that she was told to keep her "eyes open and [her] mouth shut." (Id., ¶ 11.) However, on October 20, 2010, Plaintiff reported the abuse to Defendant, Bill Murray, an employee of the Capital District Developmental Disabilities Services Office. (Id., ¶ 14.) As a result of reporting the aforementioned abuse, Plaintiff claims she was subjected to "a campaign of retaliation and harassment that continues to the current time." (Id.) Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that, when she reported the abuse to Defendant Murray, he requested that she make four written statements regarding her observations. (Id., ¶ 16.) Two days later, on October 22, 2010, Plaintiff was contacted again, and was asked to make a fifth written statement concerning her observations of abuse. (Id.) Plaintiff was then placed on paid administrative leave and was told that it was for her own "safety." (Id., ¶ 17.)
Plaintiff alleges that, while on administrative leave, and following her return, in spite of her multiple written statements, she was called into the facility numerous times and interrogated as though she was not to be believed, and was repeatedly asked to recount the abuse she had witnessed to investigators, including Defendants Murray, Fleud, Bishop, and LaBarge. (Id., ¶ 18.) On November 5, 2010, Plaintiff was allowed to return from administrative leave but was transferred from O.D. Heck to the Watervliet Facility. (Id., ¶ 19.) Defendant Fleud visited Plaintiff at Watervliet and told her she was going to be "interrogated" and "grilled." (Id., ¶ 20.) According to Plaintiff, she was advised that the repeated interrogations were necessary for purposes of investigation. (Id., ¶ 20.) Thereafter, Defendants Fleud and Murray contacted Plaintiff and informed her that she was to report to O.D. Heck for another meeting where she was requested to re-enact the abuse she had witnessed involving K.C. being struck with sticks while he was forced to stay on a mat. (Id., ¶ 21.) Plaintiff objected to participating in a re-enactment involving her striking Defendant Murray while being videotaped. (Id.) Despite Plaintiff repeatedly expressing her discomfort with this request, Defendants Murray and Fleud insisted that she participate. (Id.)
Due to the aforementioned events, Plaintiff claims she became overwhelmed by the fear of retribution, retaliation, and the constant scrutiny of her employer. (Id., ¶ 22.) As a result, Plaintiff suffered emotional and mental stress, culminating in her doctor placing her on a medical leave of absence on January 7, 2011. (Id.) During her leave of absence, Plaintiff was notified that her leave would be converted to an "unauthorized leave without pay," without insurance or benefits, beginning on March 3, 2011. (Id., ¶ 23.) According to Plaintiff, on March 3, 2011, she submitted a letter of resignation due to her inability to return to the hostile and intimidating workenvironment and was, in effect, constructively discharged. (Id., ¶ 23-24.) Plaintiff claims that, even after submitting her letter of resignation, she continued to be repeatedly summoned by Defendants for interrogation. (Id., ¶ 24.) Plaintiff later learned that K.C. had been hospitalized, on or about February 28, 2011, and later died, allegedly due to malnourishment, on or about March 30, 2011, further compounding her stress and anxiety. (Id., ¶ 25.)
Based upon the foregoing, the Complaint sets forth the following eight groups of claims: (1) a claim that Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff for advocating on behalf of disabled patients, in violation of the First Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (2) two separate claims that Defendants deprived Plaintiff of a property interest in her employment without due process, in violation of her rights to procedural and substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment and § 1983; (3) a claim that Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff for advocating on behalf of disabled patients, in violation of Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA");3 (4) a claim that Defendants unlawfully interfered with, coerced, and intimidated Plaintiff, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 12203(b) of the ADA; (5) a claim that Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff for reporting abuse of disabled patients to NYS OPWDD, in violation of the Rehabilitation Act; (6) a claim that Defendants' retaliation was unlawful under the New York State Human Rights Law ("HRL"), New York Executive Law § 296(6); and (7) a claim that Defendants violated Plaintiff's right to free speech, pursuant to Article I, § 8 of the New York State Constitution. (Id., ¶¶ 29-58.)
In addition, Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that Defendants violated Plaintiff's rights. (Id. at 12.) Finally, Plaintiff requests injunctive relief restraining Defendants from engaging in further retaliatory treatment, requiring NYS OPWDD to review and correct all discriminatory and retaliatory treatment within its facilities, mandate training and educational programs for employees regarding discrimination and retaliation, and requiring NYS OPWDD to issue annual reports demonstrating its efforts and success in providing a discrimination and retaliation-free environment. (Id.)
Plaintiff's proposed Amended Complaint sets forth factual allegations and claims that are substantially identical to those in her original Complaint. Therefore, for purposes of brevity, the Court will not restate those allegations here. Rather, the Court will note merely that Plaintiff has included allegations in her proposed Amended Complaint that appear to specify the participation of the individual Defendants in the deprivation of Plaintiff's rights and that Plaintiff has a property interest in her health insurance benefits.
It has long been understood that a dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), can be based on one or both of two grounds: (1) a challenge to the "sufficiency of the pleading" under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); or (2) a challenge to the legal cognizability of the claim. Jackson v. Onondaga Cnty., 549 F. Supp.2d 204, 211, nn. 15-16 (N.D.N.Y. 2008) ().
Because such dismissals are often based on the first ground, a few words regarding that...
To continue reading
Request your trial