Renzi v. Oneida Cnty.

• Decision Date: 30 September 2021
• Docket Number: 6:19-CV-1133 (LEK/ML)
• Parties: MARIA J. RENZI, Plaintiff, v. ONEIDA COUNTY, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York

MARIA J. RENZI, Plaintiff,
v.
ONEIDA COUNTY, Defendant.

No. 6:19-CV-1133 (LEK/ML)

United States District Court, N.D. New York

September 30, 2021

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

LAWRENCE E. KAHN United States District Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Maria J. Renzi brought this action against defendant Oneida County alleging civil rights violations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”). Dkt. No. 1 (“Complaint”). Presently before the Court is Defendant's motion for summary judgment. Dkt. Nos. 23 (“Motion”), 23-8 (“Defendant's Statement of Material Facts”), 23-15 (“Defendant's Memorandum of Law”), 30 (“Opposition”), 30-2 (“Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Statement of Material Facts”), 33 (“Reply”). For the following reasons, the Court grants Defendant's Motion.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Factual History

The following facts are undisputed, except where otherwise noted.

Plaintiff began working as a part-time Special Deputy for Oneida County on January 15, 1992 before she became a full-time Correction Officer (“CO”) for Oneida County on September 24, 1992. Def.'s SMF ¶¶ 2-3, Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SMF ¶¶ 2-3. According to Defendant, Plaintiff voluntarily resigned from her position on December 24, 1999 to attend college, and then

1

she was rehired on a part-time basis in February 2000. Def.'s SMF ¶¶ 4-7. Although Plaintiff does not dispute that she submitted a resignation letter, she claims Sheriff Daniel Middaugh stated that the Commissioner of Personnel confirmed her return to full-time within 1 year would not be a break in service. Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SMF ¶ 4.1. In any case, Plaintiff returned in February 2000 and her last day of service was June 19, 2019. See Dkt. Nos. 23-10 (“Renzi Deposition”) at 42:2-42:11 and 30-7.

1. Plaintiff's Work

Up until 2007, Plaintiff was working line duty. Renzi Dep. at 22:5-22:13. Line duty consists primarily of working inside the jail with inmates, running daily routines and ensuring security. Def.'s SMF ¶ 47; Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SMF ¶ 47. Plaintiff worked exclusively on transport duty from 2007 through her retirement in 2019, except for a six-month period in 2018 when she was suspended from transport duties.^[1] Def.'s SMF ¶ 49; Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SMF ¶ 49. Transport duty consists primarily of transporting inmates from the jail to another location, often the courthouse. Def.'s SMF ¶ 48; Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SMF ¶ 48. Defendant contends that COs primarily work either line or transport duty, but Plaintiff asserts that COs primarily work line duty. Def.'s SMF ¶ 46; Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SMF ¶ 46. Plaintiff was a union member and even served as a union representative. Def.'s SMF ¶¶ 19-20; Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SMF ¶¶ 19-20.

According to Defendant and Plaintiff's own deposition, Plaintiff's pay and benefits were not reduced from 2017 through her retirement in 2019. Def.'s SMF ¶ 50; Renzi Dep. at 17:3-17:9. Plaintiff, however, contends that her pay was “severely affected following being removed from transports in 2018.” Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SMF ¶ 50.1. In her deposition, Plaintiff

2

notes that she did make less money while on line duty because overtime was not as readily available. Renzi Dep. at 18:13-25. Furthermore, she contends that could not bring herself to stay for overtime duties to supplement her earnings. Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SMF ¶ 50.2.

2. Defendant's Structure

Oneida County's correctional facility is led by the Chief Deputy of the Correction Division (“Chief”), who reports to the Oneida County Undersheriff and Sheriff. Def.'s SMF ¶ 63.^[2] Oneida County has two Captains that report directly to the Chief: one oversees operations and the other manages administrative duties. Def.'s SMF ¶ 64; Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SMF ¶ 64. The Lieutenants directly supervise COs and the Lieutenants directly report to a Captain. Def.'s SMF ¶ 65; Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SMF ¶ 65.

Robert Maciol is 52 years old and works as the Oneida County Sheriff, a position he has held since January 2011. Def.'s SMF ¶ 99.^[3] Robert Swenszkowski is 48 years old and was the Oneida County Undersheriff from January 2011 until he retired on August 30, 2018. Def.'s SMF ¶ 100. Joe Lisi is 63 years old and works as the Oneida County Undersheriff, a position he has held since August 30, 2018. Def.'s SMF ¶ 101. Greg Pflieger is 52 years old and was the Chief

3

Deputy of the Correction Division for Oneida County from December 2015 until he retired on August 30, 2019. Def.'s SMF ¶ 102.

Captain Lisa Zurek was Administrative Captain, but had very little interaction with Plaintiff and did not have input on Plaintiff's awards which were managed by the Undersheriff. Def.'s SMF ¶ 66; Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SMF ¶ 66. Zurek is a female and 54 years old. See Dkt. No. 23-6 at ¶ 4. Plaintiff's supervisor since 2008 was Lieutenant Ken Shanley. Def.'s SMF ¶ 180. Defendant claims that Shanley was her direct supervisor, but Plaintiff argues that Shanley was her immediate supervisor. Id.; Pl.'s Resp to Def.'s SMF ¶ 180.

3. Time in Service Awards

In 2012, Plaintiff complained to Chief Gabriel Liddy that she did not receive a 20-year time in service award. Def.'s SMF ¶ 26; Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SMF ¶ 26. These service awards are only in the form of a certificate and are not monetary awards. See, e.g., Dkt. Nos. 30-13 and 30-14. All COs receive a service award for each five-year period. Def.'s SMF ¶ 141; Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SMF ¶ 141. Plaintiff did receive a 10-year service award in 2010 or 2011 and a 15-year service award in 2015. Def.'s SMF ¶¶ 34-35; Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SMF ¶¶ 34.1, 35. After Plaintiff received the 15-year award, she and Undersehriff Swenszkowski discussed service award eligibility. Def.'s SMF ¶ 144; Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SMF ¶¶ 144.1-144.4. In 2017, Plaintiff did not receive her 25-year certificate.^[4] Id. ¶ 203.4. Defendant contends that it was because of her break in service between December 1999 and February 2000, which Plaintiff disagrees with.

4

Def.'s SMF ¶ 203; Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SMF ¶ 203.1. Plaintiff was in contact with management several times since December 2017 attempting to get the department to recognize her time in service. See Dkt. No. 30-10.

4. Plaintiff's Other Awards

On January 13, 2017, Plaintiff and her partner, Bill Balsamico, assisted a police officer being attacked on the side of the road. Def.'s SMF ¶¶ 37-38; Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SMF ¶¶ 37-38. Plaintiff and Balsamico were both awarded a Meritorious Service Medal at a public awards ceremony on December 3, 2018. Def.'s SMF ¶¶ 37, 39-40; Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SMF ¶¶ 37, 39-40. At the same awards ceremony, Plaintiff also received a Presidential Detail Citation, but Plaintiff contends that the certificates were handed out in bulk to transport officers. Def.'s SMF ¶ 36; Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SMF ¶ 36.1. The awards Plaintiff received were noted in a subsequent news article published by a local newspaper. Def.'s SMF ¶ 42; Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SMF ¶ 42. Plaintiff and Balsamico were also publicly recognized at the Rome Wesleyan Church 12th Annual Law Enforcement Ceremony in July 2018 for their efforts in assisting the police officer. Def.'s SMF ¶ 43; Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SMF ¶ 43.

5. Removal from Transport Duty and Remedial Training

Both parties agree that from 2017 to 2019, 20 male officers and 4 female officers were assigned to transport duty. Def.'s SMF ¶ 72; Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SMF ¶ 72. Plaintiff also asserts that from 2007 to 2014, she was the only female officer assigned to transport duty. Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SMF ¶ 72.1.

In 2018, Plaintiff and her partner, CO Bray, were removed from transport duty. Renzi Dep. at 70:12-70:15; 70:19-21. On January 22, 2018, Oneida County issued a Notice of

5

Investigation (“NOI”) to Plaintiff and CO Bray. Def.'s SMF ¶ 159; Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SMF ¶ 159. The NOI issued to CO Bray alleged that he allowed a female inmate into the courthouse vestibule with male inmates in violation of County policy. Def.'s SMF ¶ 161; Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SMF ¶ 161. The NOI issued to Plaintiff alleged that she too allowed a female inmate into the vestibule with male inmates, and that she also stood at the door with her back to the inmates in the vestibule. Def.'s SMF ¶ 162; Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SMF ¶ 162. On March 6, 2018, Plaintiff received a Notice of Discipline (“NOD”) prepared by Chief Pflieger and issued by Undersheriff Swenszkowski, detailing its findings and proposing a penalty in the form of a six month removal from transport duty. See Dkt. No. 23-11, Ex. Y. Plaintiff's disciplinary hearing was also on March 6, 2018; Undersheriff Swenszkowski, Plaintiff, her union's president and attorney were present, but Captain Zurek was not. Def.'s SMF ¶ 168; Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SMF ¶ 168. According to Plaintiff, after both she and CO Bray were removed from transport duty pending the investigation, Captain Zurek called Plaintiff a “prima donna.” Renzi Dep. at 68:6-68:19; 70:15-18. Although Plaintiff never personally heard Captain Zurek refer to her as a “prima donna, ” Zurek referenced her as a “prima donna” to other supervisors. Id. at 68:11-68:12; 71:2-71:5. Defendant does not dispute that “prima donna” was used, but contends that Captain Zurek colloquially referred to the entire transport team, which was comprised mostly of men, as “prima donnas” because they had more amenities and an easier job than other COs. Def.'s SMF ¶ 73. In her deposition, Captain Zurek admitted that she may have called Plaintiff a prima donna. Dkt. No. 30-5 (“Zurek Deposition”) at 23:6-23:10. Finally, Defendant contends that Captain Zurek did not make the decision to remove Plaintiff from transport duties, nor did she try to influence any decision-makers regarding the issue. Def.'s SMF ¶ 86. Plaintiff, on the other hand,

6

contends that the Maciol Administration removed Plaintiff from...