Richards v. City of New York

• Decision Date: 28 September 2021
• Docket Number: 1:19-cv-10697-MKV
• Parties: ALROY RICHARDS, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

ALROY RICHARDS, Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant.

No. 1:19-cv-10697-MKV

United States District Court, S.D. New York

September 28, 2021

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

MARY KAY VYSKOCIL, United States District Judge:

Pro se Plaintiff Alroy Richards brings this employment discrimination case against Defendant the City of New York after he was terminated from his job with the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation (“NYC Parks”). (See generally Am. Compl. [ECF No. 53].) Defendant has moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Mot. Dismiss [ECF No. 53].) For the reasons discussed below, Defendant's motion is GRANTED and the Amended Complaint is DISMISSED.

BACKGROUND^[1]

I. Factual Background

Plaintiff is a Jamaican man who was hired in July 2017 as a City Seasonal Aide (“CSA”) in the role of Parks Enforcement Patrol (“PEP”) Officer for the Urban Park Services (“Park Services”), a division of NYC Parks. (Am. Compl. Ex. 4; Am. Compl. Ex. 45 ¶¶ 1-2). PEP Officers “provide security at Parks facilities and enforce the rules and regulations” of NYC Parks.

1

(Am. Compl. Ex. 45 ¶ 3.) Designated as peace officers under New York State law, PEP officers are required to uphold high standards in behavior and dress. (Am. Compl. Ex. 45 ¶ 3.)

Plaintiff worked as a CSA for less than three months before he was fired. In that short time, there were several documented incidents involving Plaintiff and patrons, co-workers, or supervisors. The Court discusses those most relevant to Plaintiff's claims and Defendant's motion.

On July 2, 2017, while on duty at Windmuller Pool in Queens, New York, Plaintiff observed a man not wearing proper swimwear. (Am. Compl. Ex. 43 at 2.) In addition, the man's eighteen-month-old son was standing near a large fence, which swimmers used to enter and exit the pool. (Am. Compl. Ex. 43 at 2.) Plaintiff feared that the child was in danger because he was obstructing access to and from the pool. (Id.; Am. Compl. Ex. 25 at 22.) Plaintiff advised the patron of the pool rules regarding proper attire and “asked th[e] patron to protect the child from imminent danger, ” but the patron “refused” and “began to behave threateningly, advancing toward [Plaintiff].” (Am. Compl. Ex. 43 at 2.) Plaintiff declined to provide his name when asked by the patron. (Am. Compl. Ex. 25 at 25; Am. Compl. Ex. 45 ¶ 5.) The patron sought intervention of a police officer, who told Plaintiff that the patron and his child could swim despite not wearing proper attire. (Am. Compl. Ex. 23 at 2; Am. Compl. Ex. 25 at 25.)

The patron filed a complaint against Plaintiff, claiming that his family was not allowed to access the pool. (See Am. Compl. Ex. 45, Sub-Ex. A(i).) NYC Parks and Parks Services investigated the matter and concluded that Plaintiff acted improperly when he refused to allow the patron's son access to the pool and to provide identification upon request. (Am. Compl. Ex. 45, Sub-Ex. B.) As a result of the incident, Plaintiff was reassigned from Windmuller Pool to Astoria Pool in Queens, New York. (Am. Compl. Ex. 45 ¶¶ 6-7; Am. Compl. Ex. 45, Sub-Ex. B.)

2

On July 16, 2017, while on duty at Astoria Pool, Plaintiff witnessed a man who appeared to be using his cell phone to take photos or video of people in the pool. (Am. Compl. Ex. 23 at 5; Am. Compl. Ex. 30 at 9.) Plaintiff confronted and advised the patron that the pool rules prohibited cell phone use. (Am. Compl. Ex. 23 at 5; Am. Compl. Ex. 30 at 9.) The patron responded that he did not care and needed to retrieve his daughter, who was swimming. (Am. Compl. Ex. 23 at 5; Am. Compl. Ex. 30 at 9.) Minutes later, after retrieving his daughter, the patron became confrontational with Plaintiff, threatening Plaintiff and calling Plaintiff names. (Am. Compl. Ex. 23 at 5-6; Am. Compl. Ex. 30 at 9-10.) The patron demanded to see Plaintiff's supervisor. (Am. Compl. Ex. 30 at 10.) Plaintiff attempted to contact the police and his supervisor, Sergeant Soyer, but was not successful. (Am. Compl. Ex. 23 at 6.) Plaintiff then called the “CFMCP Office” and spoke with Sergeant O. Lee. (Am. Compl. Ex. 30 at 11.) Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff located Sergeant Soyer and “gave him a synopsis” of the incident. (Id.)

That evening, Sergeant Soyer held a “muster, ” or staff meeting, with Plaintiff and nearly a dozen other CSAs. (Am. Compl. Ex. 23 at 6.) At the meeting, Sergeant Soyer “was upset” that Plaintiff had “contacted Central Command” over the situation when he was unable to reach Sergeant Soyer. (Id.) Sergeant Soyer stated that Plaintiff should have asked co-workers for his cell phone number before calling Central Command. (Am. Compl. Ex. 30 at 13.) Sergeant Soyer asked Plaintiff for suggestions on how to improve communication and prevent similar situations from occurring again. (Am. Compl. Ex. 23 at 6.) CSA Shilea McClain reported that Plaintiff “became very aggressive and disrespectful” and “began saying discriminating comments about America.” (Am. Compl. Ex. 45, Sub-Ex. E.) Plaintiff alleges that CSA McClain intimated that “she did not wish to hear from” Plaintiff and that other CSAs echoed similar sentiments. (Am. Compl. Ex. 23 at 6.) Plaintiff stated that “he thought diversity, equal opportunity and equal

3

employment exist in America, and didn't know some persons didn't see it this way.” (Id.) Knowing Plaintiff was from Jamaica, CSA McClain responded, “Well, why don't you go back to your country.” (Id.) When asked by Plaintiff, Sergeant Soyer confirmed that he had heard CSA McClain's remark and commented, “Yes, so what.” (Id.) Segreant Soyer did not reprimand CSA McClain or ask her to apologize to Plaintiff. (Id. at 7.)

According to a supervisor report completed by Sergeant Soyer, Sergeant Soyer held a supervisor conference with Plaintiff after the muster. (Am. Compl. Ex. 14.) Sergeant Soyer reported that during the muster Plaintiff used “abusive language”-referring to “these fucking Americans”-and became “threatening” towards his co-workers, almost causing a physical altercation, to the point where a fellow CSA had to escort him away. (Id.) In the report, Sergeant Soyer informed Plaintiff that this alleged conduct had violated Park rules and any further misconduct could result in disciplinary action. (Id.) Plaintiff claims that the allegations in this report were fabricated, that he “made no disparaging comments about Americans, ” and that no supervisor conference occurred. (Am. Compl. Ex. List ¶ 14; Am. Compl. Ex. 23 at 6.)

Plaintiff alleges that on July 21, 2017, Sergeant Soyer and Sergeant Kamel approached him while he was working and threatened that he would be fired if he did not sign the supervisor report memorializing the alleged conference. (Am. Compl. Ex. 12 at 5-6; Am. Compl. Ex. 20 at 3.) Plaintiff refused and his supervisors subsequently tried to “force” him to sign, thereby putting him under “duress.” (Am. Compl. Ex. 12 at 6.) After Plaintiff refused again, Sergeant Soyer put “Refused to Sign” on the supervisor report, listing Sergeant Kamel as a witness to Plaintiff's refusal. (Id.; see Am. Compl. Ex. 14.)

On July 25, 2017, Plaintiff wrote a letter to Iyana Titus, Assistant Commissioner of Equal Employment Opportunity for NYC Parks. (Am. Compl. Ex. 12.) Plaintiff made several

4

complaints in the letter, including, inter alia, his inability to access the Employee Self Service System, how his supervisors had handled certain situations with unruly patrons, that Sergeants Soyer and Kamel had attempted to “abduct[]” him and to force him to sign a “write up” under threat of termination. (See generally id.) In response, Titus advised Plaintiff that his concerns did “not articulate any adverse treatment based upon a protected characteristics [sic] which would be in the purview of [her] office.” (Am. Compl. Ex. 7 at 2.) Titus, however, noted that she would look into CSA McClain's comment that Plaintiff should return to his home country. (Id.)

On August 3, 2017, Sergeant Soyer completed a performance evaluation of Plaintiff for the month of July. (Am. Compl. Ex. 13.) Plaintiff received low marks for his work quality, job knowledge, and attitude. (See id.) The evaluation provides that Plaintiff failed all six uniform inspections. (Id.) Further, Sergeant Soyer reported that Plaintiff had “fail[ed] to adhere to the standards expected of a NYC employee, ” was “in constant need of correction and reformation while performing his duties, ” was “unwilling to learn, ” and had “problems getting along with his peers.” (Id.)

Plaintiff attempted to appeal his evaluation, sending three letters to an unnamed Director of Human Resources. (See Am. Compl. Exs. 8-10.) In the letters, Plaintiff expressed disdain for his supervisors. (See generally Am. Compl. Exs. 8-10.) Plaintiff claimed that he was always professional and responsible in performing his duties. (Am. Compl. Ex. 10 at 3-4.) Plaintiff claimed that he was once told by his superiors that he was “working too hard.” (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff conceded that he did not always wear a hat, which is part of the required uniform. (See Id. at 4.) With respect to his ability to get along with his peers, Plaintiff acknowledged that his “culture, socialization, and values, may be a little different” from his peers and explained that he declined to get involved in “some ‘low level', and unproductive conversations.” (Id. at 5.)

5

Plaintiff alleges that, while working on August 3, 2017, his supervisor Tyson Holley approached him and “began shouting boisterously” “as if in attacking mode.” (Am. Compl. Ex. 23 at 14.) Holley reprimanded Plaintiff for not enforcing the dress code, as patrons were entering the pool wearing shirts, which violated pool rules. (Id.) Plaintiff noted that there were several other staff members on duty that were also not enforcing the dress code, to which Holley, out of “malice” and “prejudice, ”...