Rozenfeld v. Dep't of Design

• Decision Date: 12 July 2012
• Docket Number: No. 10–cv–4002 (WFK)(LB).,10–cv–4002 (WFK)(LB).
• Citation: 875 F.Supp.2d 189
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
• Parties: Paul ROZENFELD, Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION OF the CITY OF NEW YORK; Actors: David J. Burney, Commissioner, Eric Macfarlane, Deputy Commissioner, N. Venugopalan, Assist. Commissioner, Kuriakose Jacob, Director, Pasagiannis Eftihia, Director, Jeanmarie Ariola, Hearing Officer, Defendants.

875 F.Supp.2d 189

Paul ROZENFELD, Plaintiff,

v.DEPARTMENT OF DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION OF the CITY OF NEW YORK; Actors: David J. Burney, Commissioner, Eric Macfarlane, Deputy Commissioner, N. Venugopalan, Assist. Commissioner, Kuriakose Jacob, Director, Pasagiannis Eftihia, Director, Jeanmarie Ariola, Hearing Officer, Defendants.

No. 10–cv–4002 (WFK)(LB).

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

July 12, 2012.

Paul Rozenfeld, New York, NY, pro se.

Christopher Aaron Seacord, Courtney B. Stein, Eric Jay Eichenholtz, Jeremy Ian Huntone, New York City Law Department, New York, NY, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

KUNTZ, District Judge.

Plaintiff Paul Rozenfeld (“Plaintiff”) brings this action against his former employer, the New York City Department of Design and Construction (“DDC”), and various individuals employed by the DDC (collectively “Defendants”). Plaintiff alleges violations of federal and state laws: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621; 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“ § 1983”); New York State Human Rights Law (“SHRL”), N.Y. St. Exec. Law § 290; and New York City Human Rights Law (“CHRL”), N.Y. City Admin. Code § 8–101. Plaintiff asserts Defendants subjected him to disparate treatment and a hostile work environment based on his race, color, and age. He also claims Defendants retaliated against him for complaining about the alleged discrimination. Defendant moves, and Plaintiff cross-moves, for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons stated, this Court denies the motion for summary judgment by Plaintiff and grants the motion for summary judgment by Defendants.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff failed to submit a response to Defendants' Rule 56.1 Statement of Facts, as required by Eastern District of New York Local Rule 56.1(c). He inserted a “State [sic] of Facts” section near the beginning of his opposition papers: a bland compilation of random items he simply copied and pasted from the complaint. Defendants fully complied with Local Civil Rule 56.2, providing the requisite “Notice to Pro Se Litigant Opposing Motion for Summary Judgment” and attaching the full texts of both Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 56.1. Notice of Defs.' Mot. for Summ. J, at Notice to Pro Se Litigant. This Court has “broad discretion” to determine the effect of noncompliance with the Local Rules. Holtz v. Rockefeller Co., 258 F.3d 62, 73 (2d Cir.2001). Accordingly, “[e]ach numbered paragraph in the statement of material facts set forth in the statement required to be served by the moving party will be deemed to be admitted for the purposes of the motion ...,” E.D.N.Y. Local Civ. R. 56.1(c), so long as the factual assertions are supported in the record. Holtz, 258 F.3d at 73–74;Giannullo v. City of N.Y., 322 F.3d 139, 140–41 (2d Cir.2003).

Plaintiff is a seventy-four-year-old, white male. Defs.' Rule 56.1 Statement, at ¶ 1. He began working for the City of New York on March 29, 1982 as a Civil Engineer assigned to the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”). Id. He was “functionally transferred” to Defendant DDC on June 23, 1996, where he worked until January 2010. Id. at ¶¶ 1–3.

While employed with DEP, Plaintiff was served with disciplinary charges in April 1992, which were amended in May 1992. Id. at ¶¶ 4–5. After the DEP commissioner sustained the charges, Plaintiff filed an Article 78 proceeding to have the commissioner's decision set aside. Id. at ¶ 6. In August 1993, Plaintiff entered into a settlement that required DEP to expunge the charges and all related documents from Plaintiff's personnel file one year later. Id. at ¶ 8.

On April 30, 2008 and May 22, 2008, Plaintiff sent emails to Defendant Narayana Venugopalan, Assistant Commissioner for Program Administration, requesting a salary increase for survey review work he had been assigned. Id. at ¶¶ 9–10. Defendant Venugopalan responded that Plaintiff would be eligible for the salary differential he requested only after he had performed the work satisfactorily for one year. Id. at ¶ 11. Plaintiff received the requested salary increase in or about November 2008, and it was made retroactive to July 2006. Id. at ¶ 12.

On or about July 22, 2009, Plaintiff received his annual performance evaluation from his direct supervisor, Defendant Kuriakose Jacob, for the rating period from July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2009. Id. at ¶¶ 13–14. He received an overall rating of “2,” meaning “needs improvement.” Id. at ¶ 15. He received a rating of “1,” meaning “unsatisfactory,” in the category “Relationships with Co–Worker/Public.” Id. After receiving the evaluation, Plaintiff sent an email to Defendant Deputy Commissioner Eric Macfarlane in which he details his disagreement with his ratings and provides his suggested alternative ratings. Id. at ¶ 17. Plaintiff believes the “main purpose of the ‘evaluation’ was to besmirch, denigrate and slander not only Plaintiff's professional performance but particularly to attack his character ... [.] In concert with his objective Kuriakose Jacob gave freedom to his hate prejudice and malice against a white skinned employee....” Compl., at 3. Plaintiff appealed his evaluation to DDC's Performance Evaluation Appeals Board, which, on October 13, 2009, changed his “Relationships with Co–Workers/Public” rating from “1” to “3” but left all other ratings unchanged—including his overall rating of “2.” Id. at ¶¶ 18, 33.

Plaintiff submitted an “Intent to Retire” form dated September 22, 2009 to the retirement liaison of the Payroll and Time Management Unit. Id. at ¶ 19. He wrote that his last day of work would be October 29, 2009 and listed various days of pre-scheduled leave. Id. Defendant Eftihia Pasagiannis, Director of the Office of Disciplinary Proceedings, instructed Plaintiff in a memorandum dated September 24, 2009 to report to the Office of Disciplinary Proceedings for an interview on October 1, 2009. Id. at ¶ 20. The memorandum stated Plaintiff would be asked questions regarding both an “incident” in which he was involved in April 2009 and his work performance. Id. at ¶ 21. The “incident” allegedly involved Plaintiff “exhibit[ing] strange and disruptive behavior” near the Legal Department and asking questions pertaining to a personal legal matter. Id. at ¶¶ 22–23.

Plaintiff appeared for his interview on October 1, 2009. However, the interview was adjourned because his union representative indicated Plaintiff intended to retire from DDC and had already submitted an “Intent to Retire” form. Id. at ¶ 25. Plaintiff was never served with disciplinary charges for the April 2009 incident. Id. at ¶ 26. On October 5, 2009, Plaintiff received a “Stipulation of Settlement” for his review, which he signed and executed on October 7, 2009. Id. at ¶¶ 27–28.

Plaintiff's last day of work was October 29, 2009 and his employee identification card was deactivated on November 10, 2009, though he did not effectively retire until January 14, 2010, when his remaining leave balance exhausted. Id. at ¶¶ 34, 35, 38. On or about November 27, 2009, Plaintiff sent a letter to Representative Carolyn Maloney of the United States House of Representatives detailing the allegations he makes in the current action. Id. at ¶ 36. On March 8, 2010, Plaintiff filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) in which he alleged discrimination based on race, color, and age, as well as retaliation for complaining about the alleged discrimination. Id. at ¶ 39. Plaintiff timely filed a complaint with this Court on September 1, 2010 after receiving a “Notice of Right to Sue” from the EEOC on June 4, 2010. Id. at ¶¶ 40–41.

DISCUSSION

A. Summary Judgment

A court “shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). “The role of the court is not to resolve disputed issues of fact but to assess whether there are any factual issues to be tried. In determining whether summary judgment is appropriate, this Court will construe the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and must resolve all ambiguities and draw all reasonable inferences against the movant.” Brod v. Omya, Inc., 653 F.3d 156, 164 (2d Cir.2011) (internal quotations and citations omitted). No genuine issue of material fact exists “where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party.” Lovejoy–Wilson v. NOCO Motor Fuel, Inc., 263 F.3d 208, 212 (2d Cir.2001) (citing Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986)).

If the moving party satisfies this burden, the non-moving party must “make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of [each] element to that party's case ... since a complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the non-moving party's case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322–23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Importantly, if the evidence produced by the non-moving party “is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249–50, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) (internal citations omitted).

The Second Circuit has “emphasized that trial courts must be especially chary in handing out summary judgment in discrimination cases, because in such cases the employer's intent is ordinarily at issue.” Chertkova v. Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co., 92 F.3d 81, 87 (2d Cir.1996); see Whidbee v. Garzarelli Food Specialties, Inc., 223 F.3d 62, 71 (2d Cir.2000). However, it is “beyond cavil that summary judgment may be appropriate even in the fact-intensive context of discrimination cases.”...