Petrone v. Hampton Bays Union Free Sch. Dist.
| Decision Date | 10 July 2013 |
| Docket Number | 03-CV-4359 (SLT) (ARL) |
| Parties | JOHN PETRONE, Plaintiff, v. HAMPTON BAYS UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Plaintiff John Petrone brings this action against his former employer, the Hampton Bays Union Free School District ("HBUFSD" or "District"), principally alleging that the District violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 by failing to provide him with a reasonable accommodation for, and forcing him to resign because of, his mental illness. Defendants now move for summary judgment. For the reasons stated below, defendants' motion is granted with respect to all federal claims and this Court declines to exercise pendent jurisdiction with respect to plaintiff's state law claims.
Except as otherwise indicated, the parties agree on the following facts. Plaintiff began working at the District's secondary school as a student teacher in January 2001. Defendants' Statement of Undisputed Material Facts Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 56.1 ("Def. 56.1 Statement") at ¶1; Plaintiff's Counter-statement of Material Facts Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 56.1 ("Pl. 56.1 Statement") at ¶1. In May 2001, at or about the time plaintiff concluded his stint as a student teacher, the District hired plaintiff as a full-time Social Studies teacher for the 2001-2002 school year. Def. 56.1 Statement at ¶¶1-2; Pl. 56.1 Statement at ¶¶1-2.
At the time he was hired, plaintiff was taking a medication to combat nervousness which plaintiff frequently experienced in connection with public speaking. Def. 56.1 Statement at ¶4; Pl. 56.1 Statement at ¶4. A psychiatrist had first prescribed that medication to plaintiff sometime in 2000, but plaintiff was unaware that he suffered from any mental impairments. Def. 56.1 Statement at ¶¶5, 7; Pl. 56.1 Statement at ¶¶5, 7. Accordingly, plaintiff never advised any member of the District's hiring committee - which included defendant Dr. J. Bruce McKenna, then the Superintendent of HBUFSD, and Samuel McAleese, then the Assistant Principal of HBUFSD's secondary school - that he had a medical condition that might affect his ability to teach. Def. 56.1 Statement at ¶¶3, 8; Pl. 56.1 Statement at ¶¶3, 8.
Around the time he began working full-time, plaintiff stopped taking his medication because the Veterans Administration ("VA") Hospital at which his psychiatrist worked did not have evening hours. Def. 56.1 Statement at ¶9; Pl. 56.1 Statement at ¶9. According to plaintiff, "[i]n or about October, 2001, [he] began to feel extremely anxious and tense on a regular basis for no discernable reason." Affidavit of John Petrone dated Mar. 18, 2010 ("Petrone Aff.") at ¶11. He also developed insomnia. Whereas he had been able to sleep 7 or 8 hours a night prior to October 2001, he was sleeping only about 5 hours a night by early October, only 3 to 4 hours in November, and 2 to 3 hours a night in December 2001. Id. at ¶¶15-18.
At first, plaintiff's symptoms did not manifest themselves in the classroom, aside from occasions in which his face would become flush. Def. 56.1 Statement at ¶12; Pl. 56.1 Statement at ¶12. However, by the start of January 2002, plaintiff was experiencing "intensified feelings of panic attacks, breathing problems, muscle tremors, and sweating." Def. 56.1 Statement at ¶13; Pl. 56.1 Statement at ¶13. Despite these symptoms, plaintiff managed to work during the firstweek of January 2002. Def. 56.1 Statement at ¶14; Pl. 56.1 Statement at ¶14. By the start of the next week, however, plaintiff felt his panic attacks were becoming "extreme" and realized he needed help. Def. 56.1 Statement at ¶15; Pl. 56.1 Statement at ¶15.
On January 9, 2002, plaintiff sought treatment from Dr. William S. Packard, a psychiatrist, who diagnosed plaintiff with Generalized Anxiety Disorder ("GAD") and Panic Disorder ("PD"). Def. 56.1 Statement at ¶18; Pl. 56.1 Statement at ¶18. Dr. Packard believed that plaintiff's symptoms were "severe," and prescribed medication. Def. 56.1 Statement at ¶19; Pl. 56.1 Statement at ¶19. Nonetheless, plaintiff attempted to return to work on Thursday, January 10, 2002. Def. 56.1 Statement at ¶20; Pl. 56.1 Statement at ¶20. As plaintiff walked across the parking lot toward the school, he suffered a "panic attack." Id. Plaintiff went home and, later that day, consulted Dr. Packard. Def. 56.1 Statement at ¶¶20, 22; Pl. 56.1 Statement at ¶¶20, 22. Dr. Packard told plaintiff to take time off from work to allow the medication to stabilize him. Def. 56.1 Statement at ¶22; Pl. 56.1 Statement at ¶22. Dr. Packard did not tell plaintiff how long he would need to be absent, indicating that the medication worked differently for different people. Def. 56.1 Statement at ¶23; Pl. 56.1 Statement at ¶23.
Plaintiff then called Stephen Lerner, a union representative, to ask what he should do if he needed to be out of work for a while. Def. 56.1 Statement at ¶24; Pl. 56.1 Statement at ¶24. Lerner advised him to contact Loretta Cahill, the District's personnel assistant, regarding the District's leave policy. Id. According to plaintiff, Lerner also advised him of a provision in the collective bargaining agreement between the District and the Hampton Bays Teachers' Association relating to additional sick days. Deposition of John Petrone dated Dec. 23, 2004(the "2004 Petrone Dep.") at 112-13.1 Under that collective bargaining agreement, plaintiff was entitled to ten sick days per year. Def. 56.1 Statement at ¶28; Pl. 56.1 Statement at ¶28. However, the agreement allowed a teacher to request ten additional days, which could be granted at the District's discretion. Def. 56.1 Statement at ¶29; Pl. 56.1 Statement at ¶29.
Plaintiff called Cahill on January 10, 2002, but did not disclose to Cahill the nature of his illness, saying only that he was ill and might need to be out for a while. Def. 56.1 Statement at ¶25; Pl. 56.1 Statement at ¶25. Cahill instructed plaintiff to get a note from his doctor. Def. 56.1 Statement at ¶26; Pl. 56.1 Statement at ¶26. However, plaintiff did not obtain that note until January 16, 2002, when he visited Dr. Packard for the second time.
On January 11, 2002, plaintiff wrote a letter to defendant McKenna, the District Superintendent, requesting ten additional sick days. Def. 56.1 Statement at ¶30; Pl. 56.1 Statement at ¶30. That letter - a copy of which is attached to the Declaration of Maurizio Savoiardo dated March 12, 2010 (the "Savoiardo Declaration") as Exhibit J - did not reveal the nature of plaintiff's illness. Rather, it stated that a letter would "be forthcoming to your office from . . . William S. Packard, M.D. detailing [the] ailment."
On January 16, 2002, plaintiff visited Dr. Packard for a second time. According to Dr. Packard, plaintiff said that he was feeling "much better," that he was sleeping "okay," and that his appetite had improved. Deposition of Dr. William S. Packard dated May 13, 2005 (the "Packard Dep.") at 15.2 Plaintiff also reported that he was "[l]ess nervous overall," although he was still "trying to stay home and be calm." Id. Dr. Packard observed that plaintiff "look[ed] much less anxious," but also observed that plaintiff exhibited some "fidgeting and restlessness."Id. The doctor increased plaintiff's daily dose of Paxil from 20 to 30 milligrams, and increased his dose of Xanax from three to four milligrams per day. Id. at 15-16.
On January 16, 2002, Dr. Packard penned a four-sentence note addressed "To Whom it Concern." Def. 56.1 Statement at ¶33; Pl. 56.1 Statement at ¶33. That note - a copy of which is attached as Exhibit L to the Savoiardo Declaration - stated that plaintiff had been under Dr. Packard's care since January 9, 2002, and had been diagnosed with GAD and PD. Id.; Savoiardo Declaration, Ex. L. The note further stated that plaintiff was being treated with Paxil and Xanax and was "currently unable to work." Id. While the note stated that plaintiff had another visit scheduled for January 29, 2002, Savoiardo Declaration, Ex. L, it offered no estimate of when, if ever, plaintiff could return to work. Def. 56.1 Statement at ¶34; Pl. 56.1 Statement at ¶34. Nevertheless, the District granted plaintiff's request for ten additional sick days on January 16, 2002. Def. 56.1 Statement at ¶31; Pl. 56.1 Statement at ¶31.
On January 22, 2002, McKenna called Dr. Packard to ask when plaintiff would be able to return to work. Def. 56.1 Statement at ¶36; Pl. 56.1 Statement at ¶36. Dr. Packard was unable to provide an "anticipated timetable for plaintiff's return," telling McKenna it was "too early to tell." Def. 56.1 Statement at ¶¶37, 39; Pl. 56.1 Statement at ¶¶37, 39. The District never received any further information from Dr. Packard. Def. 56.1 Statement at ¶38; Pl. 56.1 Statement at ¶38.
In late January/early February 2002, McAleese - then the principal of the secondary school - attempted to contact plaintiff on multiple occasions to inquire about his condition. Def. 56.1 Statement at ¶42; Pl. 56.1 Statement at ¶42. McAleese was not only concerned about plaintiff, but was concerned about the impact that the "lack of continuity in the classroom" might have on plaintiff's students' performance on their Regent's examinations. Def. 56.1 Statement at¶43; Pl. 56.1 Statement at ¶43. Plaintiff claims that he made "several attempts" to telephone McAleese and that his telephone records indicate that he attempted to call McAleese three times in January 2002: on January 7, 14 and 24, 2002. Petrone Aff. at ¶¶34-35.
Although plaintiff may have attempted to telephone McAleese on three occasions, he spoke with McAleese only once. Def. 56.1 Statement at ¶44; Pl. 56.1 Statement at ¶44. By the time of his December 2004 deposition, plaintiff could not recall the exact date on which the conversation took place, but believed that it was within two weeks of his January 11, 2002,...
To continue reading
Request your trial