Mazyck v. Metro. Transp. Auth.

• Decision Date: 04 September 2012
• Docket Number: No. 07 Civ. 3561(DAB).,07 Civ. 3561(DAB).
• Citation: 893 F.Supp.2d 574
• Parties: Marshall R. MAZYCK, Plaintiff, v. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, Elliot Sander, William Morange, Kevin McConville and Terrance Culhane, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

893 F.Supp.2d 574

Marshall R. MAZYCK, Plaintiff,

v.METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, Elliot Sander, William Morange, Kevin McConville and Terrance Culhane, Defendants.

No. 07 Civ. 3561(DAB).

United States District Court,

S.D. New York.

Sept. 4, 2012.

Deanna R. Waldron, Rachel Dara Nicotra, Steven J. Hyman, Janet Cohn Neschis, Jonathan Robert Jeremias, McLaughlin and Stern, LLP, Norman H. Siegel, Siegel Teitelbaum & Evans LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiff.

Craig Robert Benson, Stephen Andrew Fuchs, Elias Jay Kahn, Littler Mendelson, P.C., New York, NY, Keith Jay Rosenblatt, Littler, Mendelson, P.C., Newark, NJ, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DEBORAH A. BATTS, District Judge.

Plaintiff Marshall R. Mazyck (“Plaintiff” or “Mazyck”), an African–American male, together with eight African–American plaintiffs and one Hispanic plaintiff, all of whom are current or former employees of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“MTA” or “Defendant”) Police Department (“MTA PD”), commenced this action against the MTA and four MTA executive officers alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”), the New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”), and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983. Plaintiff maintains that the MTA discriminated against him on the basis of his race by denying him career advancement and earning opportunities, subjecting him to a hostile work environment, engaging in a pattern or practice of discrimination, and retaliating against him for his activities as the President of the Fraternal Guardians Organization (“Guardians”) and for complaining to the State Division of Human Rights about alleged discrimination. Defendants now move pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 for Summary Judgment on each of Plaintiff's claims.¹

For the reasons below, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is granted in part, denied in part, and the Court reserves decision in part.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. The Parties

Defendant MTA is a New York State public benefit corporation that provides public transportation services to the Greater New York City area. Defendant Elliot Sander served as the Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer of the MTA from January 1, 2007 to May 7, 2009. Defendant William Morange was MTA Director of Security from July 2003 until December 2010. Defendant Kevin McConville was the Chief of the MTA PD from October 2005 to January 2008. Defendant Terrance Culhane was an Assistant Deputy Chief of the MTA PD from 2004 to July 2010.

Plaintiff Marshall Mazyck began employment as a police officer with the Long Island Railroad Police Department (“LIRR PD”) on December 26, 1980 and was appointed to Detective on September 11, 1991. In 1997, the New York State Legislature created the MTA, and on January 1, 1998, all employees of the LIRR PD, including Plaintiff, were transferred to the MTA PD.

B. Plaintiff's Employment in the Applicant Investigation Unit

Following the formation of the MTA PD in 1998, Plaintiff worked almost exclusively within the Applicant Investigations Unit (“AIU”), a specialized division responsible for conducting background investigations of MTA PD applicants. (Pl. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ I.) Until approximately 2002, Plaintiff occasionally supported the Internal Affairs Bureau (“IAB”) in its investigations. ( Id.)

In early 2002, Plaintiff, along with fellow Plaintiffs Blake Willett, Kenneth Davis and Nzingha Kellman, as well as Charles Billups from the Grand Council of Guardians, arranged to meet with then MTA Executive Director and CEO Katherine Lapp (“Lapp”). (Pl. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ J.) At that meeting, Plaintiff raised several complaints regarding the treatment of minorities within the MTA PD. ( Id.) Several weeks after the 2002 meeting with Lapp, Plaintiff, along with Kenneth Davis and Police Officer Nubia Benoit, African–American, met with MTA PD Director of Security Louis Anemone (“Anemone”), where Plaintiff again raised concerns regarding training, promotions, appointment to specialized units, and disparities in discipline of African–American and Hispanic MTA PD members. (Pl. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ L.) In or about 2002, Plaintiff, along with Darryl Jenkins, African–American, complained to Chief Savage on two occasions, stating that African–American and Hispanic MTA PD members were given fewer opportunities for training and promotions than Caucasian members, and they specifically complained about Terrance Culhane's (“Culhane”) use of the word “nigger” in front of Plaintiff and other officers. (Pl. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ M)

In January 2003, Plaintiff came under the supervision of Sergeant Karen Taylor (“Taylor”). (Pl. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ N.) According to Plaintiff, upon entering the AIU, Taylor told Plaintiff and fellow Plaintiff Lillian Alvarado (“Alvarado”) that she was sent there to “whip [them] into shape.” ( Id.) In her management of the AIU, Taylor instituted a policy requiring that all employees sign in and out of a district log on a daily basis. (Pl. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ CCC.) Plaintiff alleges that Taylor unfairly administered this requirement to closely monitor only the arrival times of Plaintiff and Alvarado. ( Id.) Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that Taylor required him and Alvarado to submit memos documenting late arrivals, but did not do the same for two other employees—William Burke (“Burke”), a Caucasian male, and Benjamin Rosario (“Rosario”), an Hispanic male. (Pl. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ DDD.) Defendants claim Taylor documented the lateness and absenteeism of all members of AIU. (Def. Resp. to Pl. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ DDD.)

Taylor allegedly required Plaintiff to keep his door open at all times, yet did not require Burke and Rosario to do the same. (Pl. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ GGG.) Plaintiff alleges that Taylor chastised him for closing his door even when he was permitted to close his door, such as when taking a meal. ( Id.) Plaintiff further alleges that Taylor assigned Plaintiff and Alvarado menial tasks that she did not assign Rosario or Burke, such as shoveling snow or having a unit vehicle washed. (Pl. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ HHH.) Defendants claim that Burke and Rosario did perform tasks such as washing cars. (Def. Resp. to Pl. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ HHH.) In December 2005, Plaintiff was assigned to uniformed patrol during the Transit Strike, while Burke and Rosario remained in the AIU and were not assigned any uniform tour change. (Pl. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ JJJ.) Plaintiff maintains that the situation caused him stress and when he called out sick the following day, the MTA ordered that his weapons be removed and he be placed on restricted duty. ( Id.)

Plaintiff alleges that Taylor spoke to and treated him harshly on a regular basis. (Pl. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ GGG.) In a March 2006 meeting with all the investigators in the Unit, Plaintiff asked Taylor if there would be any overtime to conduct applicant investigations, to which Taylor responded, in an allegedly “aggressive, rude and unprofessional manner,” that “[Y]ou, [Plaintiff], will not be getting overtime.” ( Id.)

Taylor allegedly interfered with Plaintiff's performance of his job by withholding approval of his reports and by returning them late. (Pl. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ III.) Defendants claim that Taylor was forced to reassignsome of Plaintiff's applications, because Plaintiff fell behind in processing them. (Def. Resp. to Pl. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ III.)

On September 26, 2006, Rosario brought a log compiled by Alvarado to Taylor's attention, which detailed the various late-arrivals of Burke and Rosario and the alleged differential treatment to which Taylor subjected Plaintiff, Alvarado, and fellow Plaintiff Marilyn Armstrong (“Armstrong”). (Pl. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ YYY.) On September 27, 2006 Taylor sent Plaintiff's personnel file to the IAB. ( Id.) Defendants claim Plaintiff's personnel file was sent to IAB at the request of IAB Commanding Officer John D'Agostino (“D'Agostino”), pursuant to MTA's preparation of a response to Plaintiff's SDHR complaint. (Def. Resp. to Pl. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ YYY.)

On December 6, 2006, Plaintiff complained to Taylor, stating, “all your bosses right down to you are racist.” (Pl. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ BBBB.) In response, Taylor allegedly told Plaintiff that those he complained of were “going to bring him down.” ( Id.) Defendants claim that in response to Plaintiff's statement, Taylor replied that Plaintiff should not make untruthful accusations, and would be proven wrong. (Def. Resp. to Pl. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ BBBB.)

On March 27, 2007, Rosario allegedly told Taylor that he overheard Plaintiff on the phone stating: “This continues to be a hostile work environment, and I should have left two years ago.” (Pl. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ BBBB.) Rosario also allegedly told Taylor that Plaintiff complained that “they give all the house niggers overtime.” ( Id.) Rosario later wrote a memo regarding the incident and Taylor referred the matter to Chief D'Agostino. ( Id.) Rosario then filed a discrimination complaint with the MTA's Office of Civil Rights (“OCR”). (Pl. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ CCCC.)

C. AIU Investigation Overtime

Overtime of which the MTA PD is aware in advance is called anticipated overtime, and is distributed on the basis of seniority using a polling system pursuant to the Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”). (Def. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 50.) Generally, detectives within the AIU also receive unanticipated overtime in connection with their investigations. (Pl. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ R.)

In 2004, Taylor instituted a cap on the amount of overtime hours AIU detectives were permitted to work. (Pl. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ R.) Plaintiff alleges that Taylor discriminatorily supervised this ceiling, significantly decreasing the overtime earnings of the outspoken non-Caucasian members of AIU. (Pl. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ S.) Plaintiff further alleges that Taylor would become hostile toward him when he requested overtime to conduct his work. (Pl. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ U.) For example, in a March 2006 meeting to discuss candidates, Plaintiff questioned the fact that Taylor was herself exceeding the overtime cap, and...