Powell v. Dep't of Educ. of N.Y. & the Bd. of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of N.Y.
| Decision Date | 30 September 2015 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 14 CV 2363 (PKC) |
| Parties | LINDA POWELL, Plaintiff, v. THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK and THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Plaintiff Linda Powell ("Plaintiff" or "Powell") brings this action against her former employer, Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of New York ("BOE" or "Defendant").1 She alleges that the BOE discriminated against her, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), and retaliated against her, in violation of the ADA and the Family Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"). The BOE moves to dismiss the Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("FRCP").
For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the BOE's motion in part and denies it in part. Specifically, the Court dismisses with prejudice Plaintiff's ADA retaliation claim forfailure to state a claim. Plaintiff's FMLA retaliation and ADA discrimination claims, however, survive.
When considering a motion to dismiss pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6), the Court may consider "the complaint, documents attached to the complaint as exhibits, and documents incorporated by reference in the complaint." DiFolco v. MSNBC Cable L.L.C., 622 F.3d 104, 111 (2d Cir. 2010) (citing Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 153 (2d Cir. 2002); Hayden v. County of Nassau, 180 F.3d 42, 54 (2d Cir. 1999)). "Even where a document is not incorporated by reference, the [C]ourt may nevertheless consider it where the complaint 'relies heavily upon its terms and effect,' which renders the document 'integral' to the complaint." Chambers, 282 F.3d at 153 (citing Int'l Audiotext Network, Inc. v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 62 F.3d 69, 72 (2d Cir. 1995)). The Court may also take judicial notice of public records integral to the complaint but not attached to it, so long as the Court does not use such records to establish the truth of the matter asserted therein. Roth v. Jennings, 489 F.3d 499, 509 (2d Cir. 2007).
Here, the BOE attached several exhibits to its motion. (See Dkt. 16, Osmond Decl.; Dkt. 17 (exhibits)). Plaintiff did not attach any exhibits to her Amended Complaint, so the Court must determine whether it may properly consider Defendant's exhibits. Exhibit A provides Plaintiff's employment history and the relevant codes associated with her medical leave, return from leave, and what the BOE terms "disability retirement". (Dkt. 16 at ECF 1-2; Dkt. 17 at ECF 1-4.) The Amended Complaint provides the approximate dates of Plaintiff's employment with the BOE, her medical leave, and her return from leave. (See Am. Compl., ¶¶ 6, 7, 9.) It does not give the date of her constructive discharge, nor does it allege how the BOE viewed her discharge. Thus,the Court considers Exhibit A only to the extent it confirms, or supplies, dates of events referenced in the Amended Complaint.
Exhibit B is Plaintiff's Notice of Claim against the City. Exhibit C provides Plaintiff's New York State Division of Human Rights ("NYSDHR") complaint and the NYSDHR's determination and order following investigation ("NYSDHR Order"). Both Plaintiff's Notice of Claim and NYSDHR complaint are incorporated by reference in the Amended Complaint and, therefore, properly before this Court. (See Am. Compl., ¶¶ 2, 26.) However, the Complaint does not incorporate the NYSDHR Order by reference; thus, the Court takes judicial notice of the NYSDHR Order only for the fact of its existence, not for the truth of the matter asserted therein.
Finally, Defendant attaches, as Exhibit D, an excerpt of the collective bargaining agreement applicable to Plaintiff's employment. The Court finds this document is not properly before the Court because it is not incorporated by reference in the Amended Complaint and Defendant does not assert that it is a public record.2 The Court therefore does not consider Exhibit D.
Plaintiff began working for the BOE as a teacher in or around 1998, and received tenure in 2003. She most recently taught at the Women's Academy of Excellence, X282, in the Bronx, New York. (Compl., ¶ 6.)
While employed at X282, Plaintiff suffered from a number of medical conditions, which she contends constituted disabilities or perceived disabilities within the meaning of the ADA. Her medical conditions included irritable bowel syndrome, Barrett's Esophagus, heart palpitations, depression, incontinence, and post-traumatic stress disorder.4 (Compl., ¶¶ 3, 7.)
In 2012, Plaintiff took an eight-month leave of absence for her medical issues. (Compl., ¶ 7.) Plaintiff requested, and was granted, leave under the FMLA for a portion of her leave of absence. (Compl., ¶ 7.) Her leave spanned from February 27, 2012 through September 30, 2012. (Dkt. 17 at ECF 1.)
Plaintiff returned to X282 in October 2012. (Compl., ¶ 9.) Upon her return, the principal, Dr. Arnette Crocker, began a pattern of harassing and humiliating acts against Plaintiff. (Compl., ¶ 13.) During Powell's medical leave, a teacher in the "absent teacher reserve," Pasqual Pelosi, covered Powell's classroom assignments. (Compl., ¶ 9.) Upon Powell's return, Dr. Crocker attempted to improperly deny Powell her teaching assignment in favor of Pelosi. (Compl., ¶ 9.) On Powell's first day back, Dr. Crocker assigned Powell to cover a separate English program for several weeks. (Compl., ¶ 9.) During Powell's second week back, Dr. Crocker improperly asked students to vote on whether Powell should return as their teacher or keep Pelosi. (Compl., ¶ 10.) Plaintiff learned of the vote after the fact, and when she questioned Dr. Crocker about the vote, Dr. Crocker confirmed the vote had taken place in the auditorium. (Compl., ¶ 10.)
Plaintiff insisted on her right to return to her prior assignment. Dr. Crocker eventually assented, telling Plaintiff, "You win." However, the administration did not keep her informed asto the transition, and Plaintiff had to rely on Pelosi to let her know what steps were taking place before her reinstatement to her former assignment. (Compl., ¶ 12.) Though Plaintiff was ultimately returned to her assignment, Plaintiff's students were invited to openly criticize her, thus undermining her authority. (Compl., ¶ 13.)
On October 23, 2012, Plaintiff met with Dr. Crocker to discuss a classroom observation of Plaintiff that took place on January 18, 2012, before Plaintiff went on leave. (Compl., ¶ 14.) Plaintiff contends that the January 18, 2012 classroom observation violated her union contract, because it was not the agreed-upon formal observation that was supposed to take place on January 19, 2012. (Compl., ¶ 15.) Rather, it was an informal observation. (Compl., ¶ 15.) Not only did Dr. Crocker and an assistant principal observe Plaintiff a day earlier than what had been set, they also observed Plaintiff in a class that they had agreed not to observe because it was over-capacity. (Compl., ¶ 15.)
The October 23, 2012 meeting with Dr. Crocker began late because, as Plaintiff learned later, the assistant principal was typing up the results of the January 18, 2012 informal observation as a formal observation. (Compl., ¶ 16.) Dr. Crocker and the assistant principal presented the results to Plaintiff, and Dr. Crocker indicated that she would be rating the observation "unsatisfactory," which would have been the first such rating of Plaintiff's career. (Compl., ¶¶ 14, 16.) The meeting was cut short, to be rescheduled for a later date. (Compl., ¶ 16.) However, it was never resumed. (Compl., ¶¶ 14, 23.)
In November 2012, the assistant principal, Eric Ford, denied Plaintiff classroom resources that had been available to her as recently as the prior month. (Compl., ¶ 17.) Ford indicated that this denial was at the instruction of Dr. Crocker. (Compl., ¶ 17.) Powell requesteda poster for one of her lessons, and Ford advised her that Dr. Crocker instructed him not to make Plaintiff any more posters. (Compl., ¶ 17.)
In December 2012, Dr. Crocker attempted to frustrate Plaintiff's class trip by imposing several last-minute requests. (Compl., ¶ 18.)
On March 4, 2013, Plaintiff dropped off a new set of completed FMLA application forms to the school's main office. (Compl., ¶ 19.) The next day, two students informed Plaintiff that her medical and FMLA documents, which contained sensitive information about Plaintiff, had been scattered on a table in a public area used by students. (Compl., ¶ 20.) The students gathered the papers and gave them to Plaintiff. (Compl., ¶ 20.) Upon learning of this incident, Plaintiff became physically ill and upset. (Compl., ¶ 20.) She called the school's main office for coverage, and the school secretary, Stephanie Adams, sent a substance abuse prevention and intervention specialist to cover the last five minutes of Plaintiff's class. (Compl., ¶ 20.) Plaintiff spoke with Adams about her next class, and Adams indicated that a licensed teacher would cover it. (Compl., ¶ 20.) Plaintiff let Adams know that she was leaving for the day, and did so. (Compl., ¶ 20.)
On March 8, 2013, Plaintiff learned that the school was issuing a disciplinary charge against her for abandoning her classroom and leaving students with an unlicensed teacher on March 5, 2013. (Compl., ¶ 21.)
Plaintiff reported the March 5th incident, as well as the events of her October 23, 2012 meeting to her union, which subsequently notified the Superintendent. (Compl., ¶ 22.) Plaintiff received a disciplinary letter for reporting these incidents. (Compl., ¶ 22.)
On four days in April 2013 and May 2013, Dr. Crocker scheduled a meeting with Plaintiff, but canceled each one at the last minute. (Compl., ¶ 24.) Though Plaintiff repeatedlyasked Dr. Crocker about the nature of the meeting, Dr. Crocker failed to respond to her. (Compl., ¶ 24.)...
To continue reading
Request your trial