Rivera v. City of New York
| Decision Date | 11 October 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 00 Civ. 3149(RWS).,00 Civ. 3149(RWS). |
| Citation | 392 F.Supp.2d 644 |
| Parties | Terrence C. RIVERA, Plaintiff, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK and Kimberly Norton, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Bloom & Mintz, P.C., New York, NY, By: Emanuel Bloom, of counsel, for Plaintiff.
Honorable Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, New York, NY, By: Donald C. Sullivan, Cindy E. Switzer, of counsel, for Defendants.
Defendants the City of New York (the "City") and Kimberley Norton ("Dr. Norton") (collectively, the "Defendants"), have moved pursuant to Rule 56, Fed.R.Civ.P., to dismiss the complaint of Terrence C. Rivera ("Rivera"). For the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted.
On April 11, 2000, Rivera filed his complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Kings, alleging in his first cause of action, discrimination based upon national origin, gender, heterosexuality, marital status, and veteran status, violating his rights to equal protection, due process, and civil rights; in his second cause of action the violation of his rights under the New York State Constitution, the Human Rights Law, Executive Law § 296, and the New York City Human Rights Law (New York City Administrative Code § 8-101 et seq.); and in his third cause of action tortious interference with contract, emotional distress, prima facie and wilful tort, breach of agreement, negligence misrepresentation, fraud and deceit, all to his damage in the amount of $10 million dollars, including punitive damages and attorney's fees. He alleges that the Defendants discriminated against him on the basis of his national origin ("Latin American"), sexual orientation ("Heterosexual"), gender ("male"), marital status ("married man"), and status as a veteran, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the New York State Human Rights Law, codified at N.Y. Exec. Law § 290 et seq. ("SHIM"), and the New York City Human Rights Law, codified at N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-101 et seq. ("CHRL") when they concluded in 1998 that he was then psychologically unfit for the duties of a police officer. The action was removed to this Court on. April 25, 2000.
Discovery proceeded and the instant motion was heard and marked fully submitted on March 9, 2005.
The facts are set forth in the Defendants' Local Rule 56.1 Statement and the Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Rule 56.1 Statement and are not in dispute except as noted below.
In early 1998, Rivera applied for the position of police officer with the New York City Police Department ("NYPD"). He took Civil Service Exam No. 7053 and ranked 28 out of 16,082. After taking the written police exam, he was contacted by an NYPD investigator who informed him that he scored highly on the examination and recommended that Rivera try entering the police academy class beginning in September 1998. Rivera received a letter stating "steps to being accepted to the academy."
The Notice of Examination for Exam No. 7053 stated that police officer candidates were subject to psychological tests and that eligible candidates would be rejected for any psychological condition which impaired their ability to perform the duties of a police officer in a reasonable manner, or which would reasonably be expected to render them unfit to continue to perform those duties in a reasonable manner.
On August 19, 1998, Rivera was examined by an NYPD psychologist, Dr. Norton, to determine whether he was psychologically suitable for employment as a police officer. In her report of December 1, 1998 ("Dr. Norton Report"), Dr. Norton noted that Rivera had reported that he recently separated from his wife, that he felt "down" about that for a while, and that "while [Rivera] did not go into much detail about the substance of the marital discord, managing his family life and his job became so stressful that he left the Navy under a hardship discharge" (Dr. Norton Report at 131). She also reported that after he was discharged from the military in early 1998, Rivera claimed he had difficulty sleeping for two weeks. In describing his then-recent discharge and separation from his wife, Dr. Norton noted that Rivera apparently had "difficulty handling the interpersonal stress of his marriage and the responsibilities of his job, and he admitted to feeling down around the time of recent marital and job separation." (Id.). Dr. Norton also noted that Rivera told her that when he was eight years old, he observed his father physically abuse his mother, and that as a result, he experienced nightmares and had difficulty sleeping for several months after the incident. (Id.).
Dr. Norton concluded that Rivera's childhood experience raised "concern about his ability to tolerate the stress of police work" (id. at 134) and that during the interview Rivera (id. at 133), and that "at this point, the cd [candidate] is still adjusting to the stress of his marital separation." He said, "it's still bugging me." (Id. at 134).
Dr. Norton also noted that Rivera also said about his current unemployment, he was "trying to adjust to civilian life" (id.), and she concluded that Rivera was "currently experiencing stress and adjustment problems, as evidenced by his life history and interview behavior" (Id. at 133) and determined that Rivera was not psychologically suited to perform the duties of a police officer at that time. (Id. at 134). According to Rivera, Dr. Norton's conclusions were false and pretextual, and he has challenged her report of the interview as inaccurate, biased, and marked by ill will.
Following standard procedure, after Dr. Norton's conclusion, the Director of Psychological Services, Dr. Eloise Archibald, reviewed Rivera's psychological folder and concluded that Dr. Norton's decision to reject Rivera as psychologically unsuited for police work should be sustained.
Rivera was informed by letter dated January 14, 1999 that he had not met the requirements for the position of police officer and advised him of his right to appeal his disqualification.
Rivera appealed his disqualification and retained a psychologist, Dr. Robert Daley, to submit a report on his behalf. Dr. Daley concluded Rivera qualified, with no patterns of dysfunctional behavior.
As a part of the NYPD's internal appeal process, the contents of the NYPD's Psychological Services Record on Rivera and Dr. Daley's December 23, 1999 report were submitted to an outside consultant, Dr. Robert Arko, for review.
After reviewing the records, Dr. Arko concluded the new material submitted by Rivera's doctor was insufficient to mandate changing the original recommendation for rejection. Accordingly, in his report dated January 21, 2000, Dr. Arko recommended that Rivera's appeal be denied.
Rivera then pursued his appeal to the New York City Civil Service Commission, and while that appeal was pending, Rivera was re-interviewed by another NYPD psychologist, Dr. Dayle Schwarzler, on February 4, 2002.
During the period between his initial psychological interview in August 1998 and his second interview in February 2002, Rivera had attended Hunter College from January to June 1999, worked for the New York Blood Center from June 1999 to January 2001, and was appointed a fire fighter with the New York City Fire Department ("FDNY") in February 2001. According to Rivera, his performance in these jobs and while in the United States Navy has been exemplary and free from stress-related problems. He was found qualified to be a firefighter and to be without psychiatric disorder by the FDNY psychiatrist.
Dr. Schwarzler determined that the psychological issues previously identified had been satisfactorily resolved, and recommended that Rivera's disqualification be rescinded. In early 2002, Rivera was reinstated on the eligibility list for police officer candidates, and the NYPD offered to start processing his application again.
Rivera withdrew his application from the NYPD and had his name removed from the list of eligible police candidates. He has alleged economic loss of $146,000.
During his deposition in this action, Rivera stated that he had no specific evidence regarding Dr. Norton's alleged discrimination and stated that he simply had "just the feeling that there was nothing to disqualify [him], so there had to be another factor." (Rivera Depo. 94-95).
During his deposition, Rivera was asked the following questions and gave the following answers:
(Depo. at 94).
(Depo. at 94).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dzwonczyk v. Syracuse City Police Dep't
...policy bars claims sounding in intentional infliction of emotional distress against a government entity." Rivera v. City of New York, 392 F.Supp.2d 644, 657 (S.D.N.Y.2005) ( quoting Lauer v. City of New York, 240 A.D.2d 543, 659 N.Y.S.2d 57, 58 ...
-
AVGERINOS v. PALMYRA-MACEDON CENTRAL SCHOOL DIST.
...The state law claims alleged in plaintiff's Complaint were not identified in his EEOC complaint/charge. See Rivera v. City of New York, 392 F.Supp.2d 644, 657 (S.D.N.Y.2005) ("claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress ... fails because plaintiff did not identify this cause of ac......
-
De Ratafia v. Cnty. of Columbia, 1:13-CV-174 (NAM/RFT)
...policy bars claims sounding in intentional infliction of emotional distress against a government entity." Rivera v. City of New York, 392 F.Supp.2d 644, 657 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (quoting Lauer v. City of New York, 240 A.D.2d 543, 544 (2d Dep't 1997)).3. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress......
-
Comerford v. Vill. of N. Syracuse
...be entitled to indemnification by the County and (therefore) the procedural protections of section 50-e."); Rivera v. City of New York, 392 F. Supp. 2d 644, 658 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) ("Rivera's failure to identify the tortious interference on his Notice of Claim isalso fatal to his tortious inter......