Rojas v. the Roman Catholic Diocese of Rochester

• Decision Date: 06 October 2010
• Docket Number: No. 07–CV–6250 CJS.,07–CV–6250 CJS.
• Citation: 783 F.Supp.2d 381
• Parties: Sandra ROJAS, Plaintiff,v.The ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF ROCHESTER, the Pastoral Center of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Rochester, and Pastor Peter Enyan–Boadu, Individually, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of New York

783 F.Supp.2d 381

Sandra ROJAS, Plaintiff,

v.The ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF ROCHESTER, the Pastoral Center of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Rochester, and Pastor Peter Enyan–Boadu, Individually, Defendants.

No. 07–CV–6250 CJS.

United States District Court, W.D. New York.

Oct. 6, 2010.

Christina A. Agola, Esq., Rochester, NY, for Plaintiff.Daniel J. Moore, Esq., Joshua D. Steele, Esq., Harris Beach PLLC, Pittsford, NY, for Defendant the Diocese of Rochester.Charles A. Schiano, Sr., Esq., The Schiano Law Office, Rochester, NY, for Defendant Pastor Peter Enyan–Boadu.

DECISION AND ORDER

CHARLES J. SIRAGUSA, District Judge.

INTRODUCTION

This is an action alleging “hostile environment” employment discrimination on the basis of sex, and retaliation, pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the New York Human Rights Law (“NYHRL”), Executive Law § 290 et seq. , as well as a state common-law claim for assault and battery. Now before the Court are Defendants' motions [# 51][# 52] for summary judgment on the Title VII and NYHRL claims. For the reasons that follow, the applications are granted, and the remaining state-law claim is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

BACKGROUND

Unless otherwise noted, the following are the undisputed facts of this case, viewed in the light most-favorable to Plaintiff. At all relevant times, Sandra Rojas (“Plaintiff”) was employed by the Diocese of Rochester (“DOR”) as a Coordinator for Hispanic Migrant Ministry. Plaintiff's immediate supervisor at the DOR was Bernard Grizard (“Grizard”), who was DOR's Director for Parish Support Ministries. Plaintiff worked directly for DOR's Office of Migrant Ministries, which had four regional offices.¹ Plaintiff was assigned to the northwest Monroe County regional office, located in Brockport, New York. In that capacity, Plaintiff had an office at the Nativity Catholic parish (“Nativity”) in Brockport, where Defendant Pastor Peter Enyan–Boadu (“Enyan–Boadu”) served as parochial vicar, or pastor. DOR and Nativity are separate corporations, and the Office of Migrant Ministries was permitted to have an office at the parish through an agreement with Nativity. Plaintiff's duties included scheduling Hispanic Masses at the parish, which were presided over by Spanish-speaking priests. Plaintiff also had permission to use the church for other Migrant Ministry observances, provided that they did not conflict with parish events. Throughout the record, Plaintiff complains that Enyan–Boadu had a dictatorial management style and was condescending toward women. Plaintiff also indicates that Enyan–Boadu frequently complained to her about issues such cleaning the church building after Hispanic Masses, locking doors, and turning off lights.

During her employment Plaintiff received DOR's employee handbook, which contains a sexual harassment policy, and she admits that she read it. Specifically, Plaintiff acknowledges receiving copies of DOR's employee handbook on May 5, 2004 and on August 8, 2006.² The handbook that Plaintiff received in August 2006 is dated July 2006, and states, in pertinent part:

HARASSMENT

Harassment includes, but is not limited to: the creation of an intimidating or hostile working environment, behavior that is not welcome, behavior that is offensive or abusive .... This policy also prohibits harassment against all legally protected classes including ... sex [and] national origin .... Physical harassment refers to pushing, hitting or other offensive behavior .... Verbal abuse refers to derogatory or degrading verbal comments....

SEXUAL HARASSMENT

Sexually oriented acts or sex-based conduct have no legitimate business purposes. All employees must refrain from sexual harassment of anyone. In addition, sexual harassment includes, but is not limited to: unwelcome sexual advances .... Specific examples of sexual harassment include ... uninvited touching.

REPORTING A CLAIM

Employees who believe they have been the subject of harassment should report their charge immediately to Human Resources, which is responsible to promptly and thoroughly investigate all complaints.

CONFIDENTIALITY AND RETALIATION

It is the intention of the Pastoral Center that any reporting employee or employee participating in the investigation of any harassment complaint will not be retaliated against in any way.

[# 53–9] at 26–27. Also, in Mary 2003, Plaintiff attended a DOR workshop in sexual misconduct. [# 53–9] at 29. Plaintiff indicates that she read DOR's sexual harassment policies, but thought that they only applied to sexual harassment of children. Pl. Exhibits Vol. I, Ex. A at 65–66.

On Saturday, October 28, 2006, Plaintiff was in the process of decorating the Nativity parish altar for a Hispanic Mass celebrating the traditional Mexican Dia de los Muertos (“Day of the Dead”), which coincides with the Catholic feast days of All Saints' Day and All Souls Day. Enyan–Boadu, upon seeing the decorations, told Plaintiff that she needed to change them. In this regard, Enyan–Boadu maintains that he told Plaintiff that the decorations were too big and obscured the pulpit, while Plaintiff indicates that Enyan–Boadu said only that he did not like them. In any event, Plaintiff became upset because she felt that Enyan–Boadu did not respect her Mexican culture. Plaintiff removed the decorations from the church entirely, and took them instead to the nearby Newman Center at State University of New York (“SUNY”) Brockport. The following day, Sunday, October 29th, Plaintiff conducted a prayer service and distributed consecrated hosts at the Newman Center. However, Plaintiff did not arrange for a priest to say Mass at the Newman Center, and consequently the Hispanic congregation could not attend Mass in Spanish, although she took it upon herself to distribute communion. Plaintiff admits that she was not authorized to move the prayer service or to distribute communion.

Early the next day, October 30, 2006, Plaintiff called Grizard and told him that he would probably receive a complaint about her from Enyan–Boadu, concerning the events of that weekend. Plaintiff explained what she had done, and Grizard indicated that she was not authorized to move the prayer service to the Newman Center, or to distribute Communion. There is no indication, though, that Grizard intended to take disciplinary action against Plaintiff. Grizard Dep. at 80, 88. Instead, Grizard indicates that he set up a meeting later that day in Brockport between himself, Plaintiff, and Enyan–Boadu, to address the friction between Plaintiff and Enyan–Boadu. Plaintiff met Grizard and Enyan–Boadu that day, and also met with Grizard and others during the following days. As will be discussed further below, the parties sharply dispute what occurred at those meetings.

Briefly, DOR maintains that Plaintiff resigned her position, despite Grizard's attempts to dissuade her from doing so, but later changed her mind. DOR indicates that, at Plaintiff's request, it scheduled meetings with her to discuss her decision to withdraw her resignation, and to discuss the reasons for her resignation. DOR further states, however, that after Plaintiff cancelled the aforementioned meetings and also failed to appear for work, it decided to terminate her employment, effective November 9, 2006. DOR denies that Plaintiff ever complained of sexual harassment prior to November 9, 2006. Plaintiff counters that she did not resign. Instead, she maintains that on October 30th, she complained to Grizard about sexual harassment by Enyan–Boadu, and that approximately one week later, on November 9, 2006, DOR fired her in retaliation for her complaints.

According to Grizard, at the meeting on October 30th, between himself, Plaintiff, and Enyan–Boadu, Plaintiff said, “I think I want to resign. I resign. I'm done with this ministry. I want to move on with my life. I just got married. I just want to move ahead.” Grizard Dep. at 89. Grizard indicates that he then met with Plaintiff privately, and told her to think it over making a final decision. Id. at 89–90. Grizard denies that Plaintiff said anything about sexual harassment, and indicates that her complaints were about her difficulty working with Enyan–Boadu generally:

She would always—she would regularly complain that Father Peter talked forever, but on this case—she always had a difficult time to accept that Father Peter is the one responsible for the campus [the Nativity Parish Church campus in Brockport] and we were really using the campus, you know. So there was always some tensions about the way we function as a Diocesan ministries [sic] within the parish campus and to accept that. [sic] Even though Father Peter did not have any supervisory or control or power over Sandra Rojas at the same time we still needed to find compromise for the use of the building according to Father Peter's expectations.

Grizard Dep. at 94.

Grizard indicates that, on the following morning, October 31, 2006, he called Plaintiff and asked if she had changed her mind about resigning, and she said, “No. I didn't change my mind. I resign.” Id. at 90. Grizard states that he then asked Plaintiff to come to his office later that day for a meeting,³ to finalize her resignation and discuss how to “transition the ministries.” Id. Later that day, Plaintiff met with Grizard and Mary Bauer (“Bauer”), DOR's Director of Human Resources. Grizard Dep. at 91. According to Bauer, at the meeting, Plaintiff reiterated that she was resigning, and when Bauer asked her why she was resigning, Plaintiff stated, “I will write and tell you next week.” Bauer Dep. at 52. Bauer states that Rojas never mentioned Enyan–Boadu during the meeting. Id. Bauer further indicates that she did not prevent Plaintiff from telling her anything during the meeting. Id.

On Wednesday, November 1, 2006, Plaintiff met with Grizard and Father Jesus Flores (“Flores”), Diocesan Coordinator of DOR's...