Richards v. United Riverhead Terminal Inc.

• Decision Date: 28 September 2020
• Docket Number: 18-CV-6805 (RRM) (ARL)
• Parties: GEORGE RICHARDS, Plaintiff, v. UNITED RIVERHEAD TERMINAL INC., SCOTT KAMM, JOHN LINDAHL, DANIEL HAND, JEFF BURNS, TOWN OF RIVERHEAD, TOWN OF RIVERHEAD POLICE OFFICERS 1-3, JOHN DOE, and JANE DOE Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

GEORGE RICHARDS, Plaintiff, v. UNITED RIVERHEAD TERMINAL INC., SCOTT KAMM, JOHN LINDAHL,DANIEL HAND, JEFF BURNS, TOWN OF RIVERHEAD, TOWN OF RIVERHEAD POLICE OFFICERS 1-3,JOHN DOE, and JANE DOEDefendants.

18-CV-6805 (RRM) (ARL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

September 28, 2020

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ROSLYNN R. MAUSKOPF, Chief United States District Judge:

PlaintiffGeorge Richards brings this action against his employer, United Riverhead Terminal Inc.("URT"); four fellow employees; the Town of Riverhead("Riverhead"); three unnamed officers employed by the Town of Riverhead Police Department("RPD"); and two Doe defendants, alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981,1983, and1985, and state law.Presently before the Court is a motion to dismiss filed by Riverhead on behalf of itself and its officers.For the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted and Richards' claims against Riverhead and the officers are dismissed.

BACKGROUND

The following facts are drawn from Richards's second amended complaint ("SAC") and are assumed to be true for the purposes of this memorandum and order.Richards is an African-American man who was born in Guyana.(SAC(Doc. No. 28) ¶ 24).In 2004, Richards was hired to work in Riverhead on an offshore vessel-loading platform which, along with a petroleum storage facility, has been owned by defendant URT since 2012.(Id.¶ 26).

In 2013, Richards became Lead Platform Operator.Thereafter, a Barge Captain referred to Richards as "George of the Jungle."(SAC¶ 29.)Richards complained to his superiors at URT about this comment but no action was taken.(Id.¶ 30.)

In 2013 and thereafter, Richards was directed to perform menial tasks that were outside of his job description, such as janitorial activities and pulling weeds.(Id.¶ 31.)Similarly situated white employees were not directed to perform such tasks without additional pay.(Id.)For example, defendantDaniel Hand, a Marine Supervisor, once directed Richards, who is an experienced mariner and professional seaman, to clean a garage while white members of the crew were sent to work on the crew boat.(Id.¶ 32.)Richards complained about this ongoing treatment to the Terminal Manager, defendantJohn Lindahl, but no action was taken in response to the complaint.(Id.¶¶ 32-33.)

In September 2015, defendantJeff Burns, an Operations Foreman, invited one of his friends, a police officer, to fish off URT's offshore platform.(Id.¶ 34.)When he observed the friend, Richards told the man he could not fish from the platform because it was against government regulations.(Id.)Richards reported the incident to Lindahl and Hand, but no action was taken in response to the complaint.(Id.¶ 35.)Shortly after the fishing incident, Burns stopped communicating with Richards and "began to ostracize and retaliate against" him in unspecified ways.(Id.¶ 36.)Richards reported this behavior to Lindahl and Hand but, again, no action resulted.(Id.)

On November 29, 2015, Richards entered the URT lunchroom and found a hangman's noose on a coat hanger.(Id.¶ 37.)Richards reported this incident to Hand, who assured Richards that a proper investigation would take place and reported the incident to Lindahl.(Id.)On or about December 5, 2015, Richards - still shaken and frightened over the noose incident -filed a harassment complaint with the RPD.(Id.¶ 38.)According to Richards, the RPD failed to properly investigate the matter or to prosecute those involved in the incident.(Id.)Richards attributes the RPD's inaction to the fact that Police Chief David J. Hegermiller is both related to Terminal Manager Dan Gianfilla and has some sort of "relationship" with URT's president.(Id.¶ 39.)

Around February 2016, Richards contacted the Suffolk County Human Rights Commission(the "HRC") because he was not satisfied with how his complaints were handled by his employer and the RPD.(Id.¶ 40.)Richards discussed his concerns with Rabbi Moss of the HRC and Moss spoke with URT.(Id.¶ 41.)As a result, URT conducted a meeting concerning race awareness for certain employees, but that meeting did little to prevent further discriminatory practices.(Id.¶¶ 41-42.)Indeed, thereafter, Richards not only continued to be a target of discrimination but also became a target of retaliation.(Id.¶¶ 42-43.)These subsequent developments are not relevant to this Memorandum and Order.

The Instant Action

On November 29, 2018, Richards commenced this civil rights action against URT; its General Manager, Scott Kamm; Lindahl; Hand; the HRC; Riverhead; and two unknown RPD officers: John and Jane Doe.The original complaint (Doc. No. 1) alleged only three causes of action: a § 1981 claim against URT; a § 1983 claim against Riverhead, the police officers, and the HRC; and a § 1983 conspiracy claim against all defendants.On April 19, 2019 - two days after URT filed an answer on behalf of itself and its employees - Richards filed an amended complaint, (Doc. No. 17), naming Burns as a ninth defendant.However, the amended complaint contained the same three causes of action as the original.It did not contain claims against Burns,although it alleged that Burns and the other individual defendants were sued in their individual capacities as well as in their official capacities as members of URT's Board of Directors.

On July 3, 2019, Richards amended his complaint for a second time, dropping the HRC as a defendant but adding three additional Doe Defendants - RPD Officers 1-3 - and several new causes of action.The SAC retained the § 1981 claim as the first cause of action but added allegations that made it unclear whether this claim was alleged against only URT or against all defendants.(SeeSAC ¶¶ 56-63.)The SAC also retained the § 1983 claim as the second cause of action.This count alleges, among other things, that the RPD and the unnamed officers violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to properly investigate his complaint regarding the hangman's noose in December 2015 and failing to prosecute the perpetrator(s) of the act.(SAC¶ 66.)Specifically, this count states: "Plaintiff posits that had the racial background of [the] victim been white and had ... Riverhead not allowed its relationship with ... [URT to] interfere with the investigation and prosecution, the Police Officers would have properly completed an investigation, found racial animus and prosecuted those responsible."(Id.¶ 67.)The third cause of action alleges a conspiracy to interfere with civil rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983and1985.Specifically, this cause of action alleges that all defendants conspired to deny him "his right to be free from racial discrimination, harassment, and retaliation."(Id.¶ 77.)

The SAC also alleges three state-law claims.The fourth cause of action is for breach of contract against URT.The fifth cause of action is for intentional infliction of emotional distress against all defendants.Lastly, the sixth cause of action alleges negligence against all defendants.(Id.¶¶ 77-103.)

Riverhead's Motion

Riverhead now moves to dismiss the claims against it and the three unnamed RPD officers pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.Riverhead's Memorandum of Law in Support of the Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint("Riverhead's Memo")(Doc.No. 42-1) contains seven points.The first point seeks to dismiss the first cause of action, arguing that the SAC fails to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 because it does not allege discrimination with respect to one of the activities enumerated in that statute.The second point seeks to dismiss Richards' second cause of action, alleging that Richards has not adequately alleged an equal protection violation under the Fourteenth Amendment.This point encompasses two distinct arguments: first, that Richards failed to allege any similarly situated comparators and, second, that Richards has failed to allege that the selective treatment was based on race.

In the third point, which seeks dismissal of the two conspiracy claims contained in the third cause of action, Riverhead argues that Richards has not sufficiently alleged facts that suggest either an agreement to violate Richards' constitutional rights or an underlying constitutional violation.Riverhead argues that the SAC contains only conclusory allegations of conspiracy and does not allege an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.

In their fourth point, the Town argues that the remaining three causes of action, which are the state law claims, should be dismissed.This point encompasses several arguments, only two of which are discussed below.First, Riverhead argues that the acts and omissions allegedly committed by the Town and its officers are not "so outrageous in character" or "extreme in degree" to support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.(Riverhead's Memoat 16.)Second, Riverhead seeks to dismiss the negligence claims against the municipality and itsemployees on the ground that the duty alleged breached by RPD was a duty owed to the general public, not a special duty owed to Richards.(Id.)

In point five, Riverhead, citing to Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658(1978), argues that Richards has failed to allege a basis for municipally liability because the SAC does not allege that the constitutional deprivation he suffered from arose from a town policy, custom, or practice.In point six, Riverhead argues that the RPD Officers are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to the § 1983 claims because the officers' alleged conduct did not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which the officers should have been aware.Finally, in point seven, Riverhead argues that the SAC should be dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend because Richards has already filed three complaints and has had ample...