Perry v. Half Hollow Hills Cent. Sch. Dist.

• Decision Date: 13 September 2022
• Docket Number: 20-CV-5656 (JMA) (ARL)
• Parties: ROBERT PERRY, Plaintiff, v. HALF HOLLOW HILLS CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, DR. JEFFREY WOODBERRY, MR. WAYNE EBANKS, AND JENNIFER PALUMBO, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

ROBERT PERRY, Plaintiff,
v.
HALF HOLLOW HILLS CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, DR. JEFFREY WOODBERRY, MR. WAYNE EBANKS, AND JENNIFER PALUMBO, Defendants.

No. 20-CV-5656 (JMA) (ARL)

United States District Court, E.D. New York

September 13, 2022

ORDER

JOAN M. AZRACK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

On November 19, 2020 pro se Plaintiff Robert Perry (“Plaintiff' or “Perry”) commenced this action against Defendants Half Hollow Hills Central School District, Assistant Superintendent Dr. Jeffrey Woodberry (“Woodberry'), and Assistant Principal Wayne Ebanks (“Ebanks'), (together, the “District' or “Defendants') alleging discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII, the ADEA, and the ADA. (ECF No. 1.) Defendants now move to dismiss the Complaint in its entirety pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 45, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (“Def's Mot.')) For the reasons stated herein, Defendants' motion is GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND

The following facts, set forth in the Complaint and the attached exhibits, are presumed true for purposes of Defendants' motion to dismiss.^[1]

1

A. Facts

The Plaintiff Mr. Perry was a paraprofessional formerly employed by the District. (See, generally, ECF Nos. 1, 13.) Plaintiff commenced employment with the District in or around September 6, 2009 and resigned February 15, 2019 pursuant to a stipulation of settlement and general release. (ECF No. 45-13 at 7; ECF No. 45-7 at 3.) As a paraprofessional, Plaintiff was assigned to teachers and students in special education settings. (Id.) Among his responsibilities were supporting individual disabled students, assisting teachers and other paraprofessionals, and serving as a bus monitor in an after-school program. (Id.)

During the 2017-2018 school year, Plaintiff alleges that the District engaged in a pattern of discrimination and retaliation towards him on account of his race and gender (“Caucasian male”) and for complaining of a hostile work environment. (ECF Nos. 1, 13 at 9.) Specifically, Plaintiff makes the following allegations:

1. April 2017 Incident

In April 2017, Plaintiff alleges that another paraprofessional Jennifer Palumbo (“Palumbo”) falsely accused him of sexual harassment. (ECF Nos. 1,13 at 8.) During a class session, the paraprofessionals had a conversation amongst themselves about personal fitness. (Id.) Ms. Palumbo asked Plaintiff if he “worked out” to which he “simply said” that he was a personal trainer. (Id.) In response, Ms. Palumbo asked Plaintiff “how would you like to work this out?” while physically gesturing with her body in a suggestive manner. (Id.) The following day, School Principal Michael Catapano and Assistant Principal Ebanks informed Plaintiff that a

2

paraprofessional had made an anonymous complaint concerning an inappropriate comment made by him. (Id.) Some months later, during a school bus ride, Plaintiff alleges that Ms. Palumbo approached him and apologized for falsely accusing him of sexual harassment. (ECF No. 1, 13 at 9.) Ms. Palumbo told Plaintiff that it was other paraprofessionals who “forced her” to make the anonymous complaint about him. (Id.)

2. February 6, 2018 Meeting

On February 6, 2018, Plaintiff and his union representative attended a meeting with Assistant Superintendent Woodberry, Assistant Principal Ebanks and Special Education Director Michelle Melfie (“Melfie”). (Id. at 8.) Plaintiff claims this meeting was prompted by a letter he wrote to Assistant Superintendent Woodberry alleging that he was being mistreated, retaliated against, and subject to a hostile work environment. (Id.; ECF No 45-14 at 9.) Throughout the meeting, Plaintiff stated the Defendants addressed him in an “extremely demeaning, condescending, and threatening” manner. (ECF Nos. 1,13 at 9.) When Plaintiff attempted to explain the incidents involving his interactions with Ms. Palumbo and others, Assistant Superintendent Woodberry and Assistant Principal Ebanks allegedly became defensive, “got heated” and began to yell at him. (ECF No 45-14 at 7.) Plaintiff felt that he was not afforded an opportunity to “clarify his character” or provide his account of the classroom and school bus incidents involving Ms. Palumbo. (ECF Nos. 1,13 at 9.) Sometime during the meeting, Assistant Superintendent Woodberry told Plaintiffthere would be “an investigation” into the event involving Ms. Palumbo. (Id.) Plaintiff, however, claims the District never provided him an update. (Id.)

Following the meeting, Assistant Superintendent Woodberry wrote a letter summarizing the February 6, 2018 meeting. (ECF No. 45-3 at 2, (the “Feb. Woodbury Lttr.”)). In the letter dated February 8, 2018, Assistant Superintendent Woodberry stated that the actual purpose of the

3

February 6^th meeting was to address concerns raised about Plaintiff's work performance. (Id.) According to Assistant Principal Ebanks and Special Education Coordinator Melfie, there were multiple reports from teachers and staff that Plaintiff, among other issues, “neglected to properly monitor students,” was “[un]responsive to teachers' directions or instructions,” and “several reports” that Plaintiff made other staff members feel uncomfortable. (Id.)

Assistant Superintendent Woodberry added that Plaintiff's conduct had prompted teachers and paraprofessionals at another school to specifically request that Plaintiff not be assigned to their students or classrooms. (Id.) There were also similar claims at the other school that Plaintiff had a history of making inappropriate comments. (Id.)

Assistant Superintendent Woodberry concluded the letter directing Plaintiff to correct his behavior, specifically:

You must supervise and work with your 1: 1 students properly refrain from using your cell phone in the classroom during class time, be responsive to teachers directives in the classroom. You must supervise and, avoid making comments that might make others feel uncomfortable including discussions of personal relationships and physical appearances.

(Id.) Plaintiff was also warned that his failure to comply with the stated expectations “[would] be grounds for disciplinary action, up to and including a Section 75 hearing.” (Id.) Plaintiff signed the letter acknowledging receipt but wrote on the letter that he was “100% not in agreement with its contents.” (Id.)

Plaintiff signed the letter acknowledging receipt of it but noted that he was “100% not in agreement” with its contents. (Feb. Woodbury Lttr. at 3.)

3. February 12, 2018 Meeting

The following week, on February 12, 2018, Assistant Principal Ebanks held another meeting with Plaintiff with a paraprofessional representative present. (ECF No. 45-14 at 5.) In the

4

letter summarizing the meeting, Assistant Principal Ebanks stated the purpose of it was to address Plaintiff's duties as a bus monitor in the after-school program. (Id.) Plaintiff purportedly exhibited motion sickness which prevented him from supervising and managing special needs students during their dismissal to their buses. (Id.) At the meeting, Plaintiff disagreed with Assistant Principal Ebanks and insisted that he had performed his bus monitor duties. (Id.) Assistant Principal Ebanks then formally removed Plaintiff from bus monitor duties though Plaintiff had previously informed Ms. Palumbo, a supervisor in the after-school program, that he was no longer able to work after-school. (Id.) Plaintiff signed the letter acknowledging receipt of it and wrote a comment on the letter that the true reason he was no longer available was that he did not feel comfortable working with Ms. Palumbo. (Id.)

On June 22, 2018, Plaintiff received an evaluation from Assistant Principal Ebanks which rated Plaintiff's performance overall as “needs improvement.” (ECF No. 45-4 at 3; ECF No. 4514.) On September 28, 2018, following an incident where a student had a “meltdown” due to Plaintiff's absence from the classroom, Plaintiff was removed from one-on-one student assignments and he was reassigned to his home. (Id.)

4. The First NYSDHR Complaint

On October 2, 2018, Plaintiff filed a verified complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights (“State Division”). (ECF No. 45-4, (the “First NYSDHR Determination”)). The First NYSDHR Complaint charged that the District discriminated against him on the basis of his race and sex, and in retaliation for filing earlier NYSDHR complaints on March 17, 2010 and May 23, 2018 in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”). (Id.)

Before the NYSDHR issued its determination as to Plaintiff's First NYSDHR Complaint, on November 21, 2018, the District charged Plaintiff with four counts of misconduct/incompetence

5

and insubordination pursuant to Section 75 of the Civil Service Law of the State of New York (“Section 75”). (ECF No. 45-6, “Section 75 Charges.”) The Section 75 Charges listed over sixty (60) specifications alleging instances where Plaintiff acted inappropriately and or failed to carry out his duties as a paraprofessional. (Id.)

5. The Settlement Agreement

On February 19, 2019, the District and Plaintiff entered into a settlement agreement and release of claims related to Plaintiff's Section...