Sears-Barnett v. Syracuse Cmty. Health Ctr., Inc.

• Decision Date: 31 March 2021
• Docket Number: 5:16-CV-426
• Parties: Tisha SEARS-BARNETT, Plaintiff, v. SYRACUSE COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER, INC., Jocelyn Shannon, John Doe(s), and Jane Doe(s), Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York

531 F.Supp.3d 522

Tisha SEARS-BARNETT, Plaintiff,

v.SYRACUSE COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER, INC., Jocelyn Shannon, John Doe(s), and Jane Doe(s), Defendants.

5:16-CV-426

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

Signed March 31, 2021

OF COUNSEL: AJ BOSMAN, ESQ., BOSMAN LAW FIRM, LLC, Attorneys for Plaintiff, 3000 McConnellsville Road, Blossvale, New York 13308.

OF COUNSEL: LINDSEY H. HAZELTON, ESQ., WHITNEY M. KUMMEROW, ESQ., HANCOCK ESTABROOK, LLP, Attorneys for Defendants, 1800 AXA Tower I, 100 Madison Street, Syracuse, New York 13202.

MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDER

DAVID N. HURD, United States District Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Tisha Sears-Barnett¹ ("Sears-Barnett" or "plaintiff") worked as an accountant for defendant Syracuse Community Health Center, Inc. ("SCHC") from April 12, 2012 until November 27, 2014. For most of her time with SCHC, Jocelyn Shannon ("Shannon" and together with SCHC "defendants") was her supervisor. According to plaintiff, Shannon would routinely sexually harass her, and that sexual harassment ranged from making suggestive comments to slapping her backside.

Sears-Barnett complained to SCHC's human resources director about Shannon's behavior, which led to Shannon's being disciplined and removed as plaintiff's supervisor. Not long after that, plaintiff injured her foot due to a malfunctioning filing cabinet in the office. Plaintiff alleges that defendants created a hostile work environment between their mishandling of Shannon's sexual harassment and their mistreatment of plaintiff after she injured her foot on the job.

As a consequence, plaintiff brought a ten-count complaint on September 10, 2015, alleging: (I) a hostile work environment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1963 ("Title VII"); (II) sex discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL"); (III) retaliation under Title VII; (IV) sex retaliation under the NYSHRL; (V) disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ("Rehabilitation Act"); (VI) disability discrimination under the NYSHRL; (VII) retaliation under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act; (VIII) disability retaliation under the NYSHRL; (IX) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (X) negligence and gross negligence.

Initially, Sears-Barnett filed her complaint in New York State Supreme Court, Onondaga County. But because plaintiff brought some federal claims, defendants removed the case to federal court. Eventually, defendants moved for summary judgment against the entirety of plaintiff's complaint, and the Court heard oral argument for that motion. Defendants’ motion will now be decided on the parties’ submissions and oral arguments.

II. BACKGROUND

SCHC brought Sears-Barnett onboard as an accountant on April 12, 2012.² Dkt. 52-5, Defendants’ Statement of Material Facts ("DSMF"), ¶ 1. As an accountant, plaintiff was placed in the Finance Department, which was Shannon's supervisory domain. Id. ¶¶ 1-2.

Shannon's leadership was not without its critics, and those critics included both male and female staff members. DSMF ¶ 5. According to Sears-Barnett, one particularly illustrative example of Shannon's management style involved her using several derogatory terms for homosexuals in an altercation with a male employee. Dkt. 61-8, Plaintiffs’ Statement of Material Facts ("PSMF") ¶ 5, but see Dkt. 61-7 ("Williams Dep."), pp. 67-69³ (plaintiff's counsel asking SCHC human resources director whether Shannon had used derogatory terms, with employee initially agreeing, but ultimately stating he did not remember and only remembered reports of Shannon cursing).

Like most workplaces, SCHC maintains anti-harassment and anti-sexual assault policies to deal with precisely those types of altercations. DSMF ¶ 6. Sears-Barnett does not dispute that she received copies of those policies. Id. ¶ 7.

Sears-Barnett first turned to SCHC's complaint mechanisms at the end of 2013. DSMF ¶ 10. Plaintiff had planned to take a paid day off on November 1 of that year. Dkt. 52-2 ("Williams Aff."), p. 37. Despite plaintiff apparently requesting the time off on September 3, 2013, her request was never approved, and she was docked eight hours’ pay on her next paycheck. Id. at 31, 37. Plaintiff lays the blame for her bungled time off request at Shannon's feet. Id. at 25.

Apparently, Shannon's docking Sears-Barnett's pay created financial difficulties for her, including causing her to overdraft her bank account. Williams Aff. pp. 32-33. To fix this mistake, plaintiff sent at least eight emails to Craig Williams ("Williams"), SCHC's Director of Human Resources, between November 21 and December 11, 2013. Id. ¶ 1, see id. at 25-32. On November 22, 2013, plaintiff also sent a memorandum to Dr. Ruben Cowart ("Dr. Cowart"), SCHC's president and CEO, to apprise him of her difficulties seeking reimbursement for her leave. Id. at 37, 42. Ultimately, SCHC paid plaintiff both for her docked pay and the overdraft fees. Id. at 32-33.

If the time off dispute created bad blood between Sears-Barnett and Shannon, their employment dynamic shattered beyond repair in February of 2014. Plaintiff alleges that on the afternoon of February 11, 2014, Shannon winked at her and slapped her on the backside. Williams Aff. p. 39. In addition, she claims that on February 12 Shannon stood close to her with her "arms wrapped around [plaintiff's] right shoulder." Williams Aff. p. 40. According to plaintiff, Shannon then leaned closer and said she was "trying to behave and keep [her] hands to [her]self" but that she was "having an issue." Id.

That same day, Sears-Barnett complained to Williams that Shannon had sexually harassed her during at least the February 11 and February 12 incidents. DSMF ¶ 12. The parties do not argue over whether plaintiff told Williams about her encounters with Shannon on February 11 or 12 of 2014. Id. ¶ 13. Nor could they. She sent Williams a pair of emails, one elaborating on each incident, the same day she complained to him. Williams Aff. pp. 39-40. But whether those two incidents were the only ones brought to Williams’ attention is a more contentious story.

Sears-Barnett alleges not only that were there a host of other incidents of Shannon harassing her, but that she told Williams of each of them. PSMF ¶ 14. Plaintiff affirms that she told Williams that Shannon had previously slapped her backside on February 5, 2014, and had also unbuttoned her shirt in front of her in the summer of 2012 and asked her if she "liked it." Dkt. 61 ("Pl. Aff.") ¶¶ 8, 11. Plaintiff's affirmation also lists a number of further transgressions, including Shannon invading plaintiff's personal space, rubbing her arms, Shannon pressing her breasts against plaintiff, kissing plaintiff's forehead, and talking about the type and color of the underwear Shannon was wearing. Id. ¶ 4.

A skeptical reader might ask why Sears-Barnett did not write about those incidents while sending Williams the emails detailing Shannon's alleged harassing behaviors. To those skeptics, plaintiff would answer that Williams told her to only reduce the February 11 and 12, 2014 incidents to writing. Dkt. 61-4 ("Pl. Dep."), p. 124.

It must be said, however, that Sears-Barnett's narrative is a bit murky on that score. At her deposition, plaintiff first testified that Williams told her to email him concerning Shannon's alleged harassment to reduce "anything" she could remember to writing. Pl. Dep. 55. Plaintiff also initially testified that she did not remember telling Williams about anything beyond the two incidents that are reflected in her emails, and about the male coworker who Shannon apparently subjected to homophobic slurs. Pl. Dep. 61-63.

Later in her deposition—and after the parties broke for lunch, Pl. Dep. 76—Sears-Barnett testified that she verbally told Williams about the additional harassing encounters. Id. at 122. He apparently then told her to "write down what happened as of the incident in February." Id. Only when defendants’ counsel probed the issue a third time did plaintiff testify that Williams only told her to put the February 11 and 12, 2014 incidents down in writing. Id. at 124.

Sears-Barnett also claims that she spoke to Williams again on February 26, 2014, concerning the progress of his investigation into her complaint against Shannon. Dkt. 61-1, p. 8. Plaintiff sent herself an email that same day describing her conversation with Williams, and the allegations of harassment that she described to him. Id. The email appears to be redacted, or at the very least the version in the record has lines missing from it. Id. But from the available text, the email recounts plaintiff telling Williams about Shannon's slapping her backside on February 5, 2014, and about the unbuttoned blouse incident in the summer of 2012. Id. To summarize, plaintiff argues that the evidence shows that Williams knew of every incident of harassment she claims Shannon subjected her to, and that she reported it to him on multiple occasions in February of 2014.

Predictably, for their part defendants claim that Williams did not know of any potential sexual harassment by Shannon against Sears-Barnett beyond the incidents on February 11 and 12. DSMF ¶ 14. In support of that assertion, defendants point to Williams’ deposition, in which he denied ever being told about Shannon unbuttoning her shirt in front of plaintiff. Williams Dep. 52. In fact, he denied that plaintiff told him about anything beyond being "bumped into" and being "patted on her buttocks." Id. at 53.

Whatever the extent of his knowledge as to Shannon's misconduct was, Williams conducted an investigation into her behavior during the early months of 2014. DSMF ¶ 15. As part of that investigation, Shannon admitted to patting Sears-Barnett's backside on one occasion, and to using profanity in an argument with a male employee. Id. ¶¶ 16-17.

On April 2, 2014, Williams’ investigation came to a close. Williams Aff. p. 46. As a result of...