Oliver v. N.Y. State Police
| Decision Date | 13 April 2020 |
| Docket Number | 1:19-cv-233 (BKS/DJS) |
| Parties | JEAN OLIVER, Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK STATE POLICE; FRANCIS CHRISTENSEN, in his individual and official capacity; DANIEL PENNY, in his individual and official capacity; THOMAS CAPEZZA, in his individual and official capacity; CLAY LODOVICE, in his individual and official capacity; JOHN HARFORD, in his individual and official capacity; MICHAEL VOLFORTE, in his individual and official capacity; LOIS GOLAND, in her individual and official capacity; and JASON HUGHES, in his individual and official capacity, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York |
Appearances:
Plaintiff pro se:
Jean Oliver
Elma, NY
For Defendants:
Letitia James
Attorney General of the State of New York
Denise P. Buckley
Assistant Attorney General
The Capitol
Albany, NY 12224
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiff pro se Jean Oliver brings this action against the following Defendants: her former employer, the New York State Police ("NYSP"); Francis Christensen, former head of the NYSP Office of Human Resources; Daniel Penny, former head of the NYSP Internal Affairs Bureau ("IAB"); and Thomas Capezza, Clay Lodovice, John Harford, Michael Volforte, Lois Goland, and Jason Hughes, legal counsel for the NYSP.1 (Dkt. No. 1). Plaintiff filed this action in the Western District of New York. Oliver v. NYSP et al., 1:17-cv-01157 (EAW) (W.D.N.Y. filed Nov. 9, 2017). Defendants moved for a more definite statement under Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Plaintiff moved to transfer the action to the Northern District of New York under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). On February 9, 2019, United States District Judge Elizabeth A. Wolford, finding the Complaint to be a "shotgun pleading" with "voluminous factual allegations followed by a list of 20 causes of action, none of which are tied" to the facts alleged, granted Defendants' motion for a more definite statement. Oliver v. New York State Police ("Oliver 2017"), No. 17-cv-01157, 2019 WL 453363, at *10, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18488, at *29-30 (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 5, 2019). Judge Wolford ordered Plaintiff to provide "a more definite statement in which she sets forth the particular facts that support each of her claims within 14 days of entry of this Decision and Order." Id. at *10, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18488, at *30. Judge Wolford also granted Plaintiff's motion to transfer. Id. at *10, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18488, at *29-30.
On April 3, 2019, Plaintiff filed an "Affirmation for a More Definitive Statement." (Dkt. No. 28). In it, she asserts four causes of action: a military status discrimination claim against Defendants Capezza and Hughes under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Act ("USERRA"), 38 U.S.C. § 4301 et seq., (Dkt. No. 28, ¶ 30); a First Amendment retaliation claim against all Defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, (id. ¶¶ 28-29); hostile work environment,gender discrimination, and retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL"), N.Y. Exec. Law § 290 et seq., (id. ¶¶ 16-27); and conspiracy, and failure to prevent conspiracy, claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986, (id. ¶¶ 19-23). Presently before the Court is Defendants' motion to dismiss the Complaint under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). (Dkt. No. 31). Plaintiff opposes this motion. (Dkt. No. 34). For the reasons that follow, Defendants' motion is granted.
In her Decision and Order, Judge Wolford set out, and the Court incorporates here, the factual background, as alleged in the Complaint, including Plaintiff's employment with the NYSP beginning in 1997, promotion to investigator, and assignment to the Community Narcotics Enforcement Team West ("CNET West"). Oliver 2017, 2019 WL 453363, at *1-2, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18488, at *4-10. Following a disciplinary hearing on June 30, 2015 and July 1, 2015, Plaintiff's employment was terminated. (Dkt. No. 28, at 8, 18-19). The following additional facts are relevant to the disposition of Defendants' motion.
On November 13, 2013, Plaintiff—who was assigned to CNET West at the time—filed a formal "EEO complaint" against her supervisor alleging that he subjected her to gender discrimination and harassment. (Dkt. No. 1, ¶ 16). Members of the NYSP Office of Human Resources and Internal Affairs Bureau ("IAB") advised Plaintiff that "all EEO complaints had tobe filed as Level 4 Personnel Complaints," which would be investigated by the IAB. (Id. ¶ 17). Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Christensen "turned her EEO complaint [over] to Defendant Penny," who "re-designated Plaintiff's EEO complaint as a Personnel Complaint" "in order to cloud the facts surrounding the EEO violations and improprieties" Plaintiff alleged "were taking place in CNET West." (Dkt. No. 28, at 3). Defendant Penny "permitted biased, unqualified, and untrained IAB West Investigators" to conduct the investigation into Plaintiff's personnel complaint. (Id.). As Defendants "were aware," Plaintiff reported a conflict when Defendant Penny assigned IAB West investigators "to investigate their long-time business friends" in CNET West. (Id.). Following a "fraudulent" investigation, the IAB notified Plaintiff that "the majority of her complaints were determined to be unfounded." (Dkt. No. 1, ¶¶ 31-32).
On April 25, 2014, Plaintiff, who had also filed an internal complaint of retaliation, participated in an interview with the IAB as part of the investigation into her complaint.3 (Id. ¶ 33). After this interview, Plaintiff was "accused of stealing files" and "forced to submit to a 'voluntary transfer' into Troop 'A' under the threat of a personnel complaint." (Id.). Within "one month" of her transfer, Defendants Penny, Christensen, and others issued "the highest and most serious level Personnel Complaint against Plaintiff" "based on false allegations which were made against Plaintiff by the very same supervisors who were the subjects of Plaintiff's EEO and retaliation complaint." (Id. ¶ 34). Plaintiff alleges that the personnel complaint investigative report "used in support of the administrative charges lodged against Plaintiff" contained "blatant inaccuracies and contradiction[s]," but that Defendant Penny approved the investigative report and forwarded it to Defendants Capezza, Harford, Goland, and Hughes "to use against Plaintiffin every legal venue where Plaintiff would be forced to seek relief." (Dkt. No. 28, at 4-5). This had "a cascading effect as it related to the continued acts of retaliation Plaintiff suffered." (Id. at 5).
On January 23, 2015, Plaintiff submitted "unaltered" appeals "relative to two New York State/New York Police Investigators Association (NYS/NYSPIA) grievances" to Defendants Volforte and Capezza, regarding "retaliation" and "misconduct" she "was being subjected to" by the "lead IAB investigators." (Dkt. No. 1, ¶ 37). Defendants Volforte and Capezza maintained "as their only recorded copy," "altered" versions of Plaintiff's appeals that omitted "an entire paragraph in which Plaintiff cited misconduct on the part of IAB." (Id.). After Defendant Harford received the "unaltered" appeals, he adjourned the scheduled February 12, 2015 hearing regarding these appeals and rescheduled it for April 21, 2015—after the disciplinary hearing on the administrative charges against Plaintiff, which was scheduled for April 13, 2015. (Id.). Plaintiff alleges this was intentional and would allow the NYSP "to terminate Plaintiff before any hearing on these appeals could ever take place." (Id.).
On or about January 29, 2015, Plaintiff was "personally served" with a document Defendant Harford had written regarding the process of appointing three hearing board members who would preside over Plaintiff's disciplinary hearing, one of whom was a "close personal friend" of Plaintiff's supervisor. (Id. ¶ 38). Plaintiff alleges this was an "act of intimidation and coercion." (Id.).
On April 17, 2015, Plaintiff filed a grievance regarding an allegedly improper performance evaluation by a supervisor, after she learned that Defendant Christensen had dismissed her prior grievance on this issue. (Id. ¶ 40). In May 2015, Plaintiff had the grievance hand-delivered to an individual who worked under Defendant Christensen. (Id.). The NYSP,however, "withheld this grievance until Plaintiff could be terminated as a means to keep Plaintiff from reporting" Defendant Christensen's misconduct. (Id. ¶ 40).
On April 28, 2015, Plaintiff and Defendant Goland met for what Plaintiff "believed was a mediation session."4 (Id. ¶ 39). Defendant Goland "wave[d] the pages of charges against Plaintiff" and informed her that "since this was a Level 4 Personnel Complaint, Plaintiff could be terminated for being found guilty of any one of these charges." (Id.). Defendant Goland told Plaintiff that unless she agreed to the terms Defendant Goland would be sending to Plaintiff's attorney, Goland "would be serving Plaintiff with amended charges and proceed with [the] disciplinary hearing against Plaintiff." (Id.). Following this meeting, Defendant Goland emailed Plaintiff's attorney "indicating that not only would Plaintiff be required to lie and plead guilty to . . . the fabricated charges filed against Plaintiff but Plaintiff would also be required to dismiss her pending EEOC complaint, her pending grievances, and her pending federal lawsuit," Oliver 2015. (Id.). In exchange, the NYSP would assign "an undisclosed punishment, which would be less than termination." (Id.). Following their meeting, Plaintiff filed a grievance and improper practice charge against Defendant Goland. (Id.). In response, Defendant Goland directed Plaintiff's union representative to advise her that Defendant ...
To continue reading
Request your trial