Phillips v. Orleans Cnty.

• Decision Date: 16 June 2022
• Docket Number: 1:18-cv-00752
• Parties: TROY PHILLIPS, Plaintiff, v. ORLEANS COUNTY, CHARLES NESBITT, JR. in his individual capacity, GERALD GRAY in his individual capacity, DANIEL DONOHUE in his official capacity as President of the Civil Service Employees Association Local 1000, and CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION LOCAL 1000, INC., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of New York

TROY PHILLIPS, Plaintiff,
v.
ORLEANS COUNTY, CHARLES NESBITT, JR. in his individual capacity, GERALD GRAY in his individual capacity, DANIEL DONOHUE in his official capacity as President of the Civil Service Employees Association Local 1000, and CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION LOCAL 1000, INC., Defendants.

No. 1:18-cv-00752

United States District Court, W.D. New York

June 16, 2022

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING THE COUNTY DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(DOCS. 87 & 88)

CHRISTINA REISS, DISTRICT JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.

Plaintiff Troy Phillips brings this action against Defendants Orleans County, Charles Nesbitt, Jr., Gerald Gray, Daniel Donohue, and the Civil Service Employees Association Local 1000, Inc. (“CSEA”), alleging discrimination based on race and age in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. §§1981 and 1983, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”). Pending before the court is a motion for partial summary judgment filed by Defendants Orleans County, Charles Nesbitt, Jr., and Gerald Gray (collectively, the “County Defendants”) on the issues of ratification and waiver with regard to Plaintiff s race-based hostile work environment, disparate treatment, and retaliation claims.^[1] Also pending is Plaintiffs cross-motion for summary judgment to strike the affirmative defenses of waiver and ratification.

1

Plaintiff is represented by Earl Thomas Hall, Esq. The County Defendants are represented by Heather L. Dechert, Esq. and Michael P. McClaren, Esq. Defendants Daniel Donohue and CSEA are represented by Leslie C. Perrin, Esq.

I. Procedural History.

Plaintiff filed a Complaint on July 9, 2018; a First Amended Complaint on July 13, 2018; and a Second Amended Complaint (the “SAC”) on July 16, 2019. The SAC alleges the following claims: Count I: racially hostile work environment in violation of Title VII against Defendant Orleans County; Count II: disparate treatment on the basis of race in violation of Title VII against Defendant Orleans County; Count III: retaliation in violation of Title VII against Defendant Orleans County; Count IV: violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 against Defendant Donohue, in his official capacity, and Defendant CSEA, Count V: violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 against Defendants Nesbitt and Gray, in their individual capacities, and Defendant Orleans County; and Count VI: violation of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634, against Defendant Orleans County.

On July 15, 2019, the court issued an Opinion and Order denying the County Defendants* motion to dismiss and denying Defendants Donohue's and CSEA s motion to dismiss. A scheduling conference was held on December 2, 2020, at which the court bifurcated Plaintiffs claims and stayed all discovery unrelated to the issue of whether Plaintiff released his claims through a settlement agreement.

On October 18, 2021, the County Defendants filed the pending motion for partial summary judgment regarding Counts I-III and V of Plaintiff s SAC. (Doc. 87.) Plaintiff opposed the motion on November 15, 2021, and on December 6, 2021, the County Defendants replied. On October 18, 2021, Plaintiff also filed a motion for partial summary judgment to strike the County Defendants' affirmative defenses of waiver and ratification. (Doc. 88.) The County Defendants opposed the motion on November 15, 2021, and Plaintiff replied on December 6, 2021. A hearing was held on January 14, 2022, at which time the court took the pending motions under advisement.

The County Defendants filed a 136-paragraph statement of undisputed facts. (Doc. 87-6.) In response, Plaintiff filed a sixty-nine-page statement of admissions, partial

2

admissions, and denials. (Doc. 93-1.) Plaintiff further filed a 136-paragraph statement of undisputed facts in support of his motion for partial summary judgment. (Doc. 88-2.) The County Defendants responded with a forty-four-page objection which contained an additional eighty paragraphs of undisputed facts. (Doc. 92-4.) This briefing style is by no means supported by the complexity of the issues raised, which are relatively straightforward and which involve a core set of material facts that are undisputed. See Holtz v. Rockefeller & Co., Inc., 258 F.3d 62, 74 (2d Cir. 2001) (observing that a statement of material facts is intended to “streamline the consideration of summary judgment motions by freeing district courts from the need to hunt through voluminous records without guidance from the parties”); see also Allen v. Dairy Farmers of Am., Inc., 2014 WL 2610613, at *3 (D. Vt. June 11, 2014) (“In light of the voluminous factual record before the court, and the absence of any discernible effort by the parties to narrow the fact[s] .. . before the court, the court will not attempt to set forth all of the undisputed facts but will instead only consider those facts necessary to address the [pending motions.]”) (collecting cases).

II. The Undisputed Facts.

On January 14, 2015, Defendant Orleans County terminated Plaintiffs employment for insubordination and other alleged violations including failure to record time. On or about January 22, 2015, Defendant CSEA, Plaintiffs union, filed a grievance on his behalf protesting his termination. From on or about February 3-9, 2015, Plaintiff attended meetings with CSEA representatives and discussed a potential settlement. On February 9, 2015, in a meeting with CSEA Unit President Ms. Cynthia Troy, Plaintiff signed a written settlement agreement (the “Agreement”) purporting to resolve all of his employment-related claims against Defendant Orleans County.

The Agreement is written in non-technical language and is comprised of a two-page, fourteen-paragraph document. It states that Plaintiff will “release the County, which shall discharge it, its legislators, elected officials, successors and assigns, agents, employees, managers, department heads and supervisors from any and all actions, suits or claims, including attorney's fees, against it arising out of the subject matter of

3

[Plaintiffs] employment with the County ” (Doc. 87-5 at 10, ¶ 11.) The Agreement also states that Plaintiff “acknowledges and agrees that the Union has fully and fairly represented him in the processing of the above-referenced grievance and in the negotiation of this [A]greement[.]” Id. at ¶ 12. In signing the Agreement, Plaintiff acknowledged that he “carefully read each and every provision ... and that he fully understands all of the terms and conditions of this Agreement.” Id. at ¶ 13.

“Plaintiff received a copy of the fully-executed Agreement in the mail” within “a couple weeks” after his meeting with Ms. Troy. (Doc. 87-6 at 18, ¶ 120.) He also received a six-month continuation of his health insurance benefits and a check in the amount of $17, 500 ($16, 863.91 after deductions) from Defendant Orleans County, which he cashed and deposited into his...