Seitz v. N.Y. State

Decision Date30 September 2019
Docket Number2:18-CV-4149 (PKC) (LB)
PartiesKRISTINE SEITZ, Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK STATE, STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT STONY BROOK, JOHN PETER GERGEN in his official and individual capacities, and MARVIN H. O'NEAL, in his official and individual capacities, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
MEMORANDUM & ORDER

PAMELA K. CHEN, United States District Judge:

On July 20, 2018, Plaintiff Kristine Seitz, proceeding pro se, initiated this employment discrimination action against New York State, the State University of New York at Stony Brook (the "University"), and two employees of the University—John Peter Gergen and Marvin H. O'Neal (the "Individual Defendants"). Plaintiff alleges violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et seq. ("ADEA"), the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq. ("ADA"), the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601 et seq. ("FMLA"), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, Section 1983 of the Title 42 of the United States Code, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("§ 1983"), and the New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL"), N.Y. Exec. Law §§ 290 et seq. (See Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"), Dkt. 13, at 3.) Currently before the Court is Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's SAC in its entirety. (See Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. 20-5.) For the reasons stated herein, Defendants' motion is granted in part and denied in part.

BACKGROUND

I. Factual Allegations1

Plaintiff has worked in the University's Undergraduate Biology program for 14 years, and she has held the title of Assistant Curator since 2006. (SAC, Dkt. 13, at 5-6.) As an assistant curator, Plaintiff is responsible for, inter alia, "working with faculty to design, implement[,] and trouble-shoot labs, maint[aining] lab equipment and supplies, preparing laboratory materials such as chemicals and cultures[,] and collecting live specimens from the campus and its surrounds." (Id. at 6.) Plaintiff was granted tenured status in 2013. (Id.) As of the filing of her complaint in 2018, Plaintiff was 51 years old. (Id. at 5.) Defendant Marvin O'Neal became a lecturer for the Biology program in approximately 2007. (Id. at 6.) Defendant Peter Gergen replaced non-party Eugene Katz as the director of the Biology program in 2010. (Id. at 6-7.)

A. Alleged Harassment by Defendant O'Neal

After O'Neal became a lecturer in 2007, he declared that he intended to "get[] rid of the dead wood" in the department and "replac[e] them with young, fresh faces." (Id. at 6.) At that time, "the vast majority of the professional staff [including assistant curators] were older than O'Neal." (Id.)

O'Neal was aggressive toward Plaintiff. (Id. at 7.) He would find Plaintiff when she was alone and badger Plaintiff with work-related questions, even though O'Neal could have gotten the answer elsewhere or the questions were ones that Plaintiff could not answer. (Id. at 8.) When Plaintiff did not know the answer, O'Neal would raise his voice and step closer to Plaintiff, using his height to crowd and intimidate Plaintiff. (Id.) O'Neal would also stand in front of the door toblock the exit, which scared Plaintiff. (Id.) If Plaintiff was able to leave the room, O'Neal would follow Plaintiff, sometimes to Plaintiff's office, and continue to harass her. (Id.) Plaintiff was increasingly "alarmed" by these episodes and would often cry after these encounters. (Id.)

Plaintiff talked to a counselor at the University's Employee Assistance Program ("EAP") in 2008, and after failed attempts at mediation between Plaintiff and O'Neal, the EAP counselor referred the matter to the union. (Id. at 8-9.) Afterwards, O'Neal's aggression toward Plaintiff subsided.2 (Id. at 9.) However, O'Neal continued to regularly call Plaintiff "anti-student" and "disorganized." (Id.) O'Neal also regularly sent emails to Plaintiff's supervisor, Mary Bernero, complaining that Plaintiff was incompetent and insubordinate, and offered to help Bernero "get [Plaintiff] in line." (Id. at 9-10.) These comments continued up to the amending of the complaint in this action. (Id. at 10.)

B. Alleged Harassment by Defendant Gergen

Plaintiff was told by her supervisor, Bernero, that Gergen, the director of the University's Biology program, referred to the older members of the staff as "toxic" and a "cabal." (Id. at 10, 12.) Gergen said to Plaintiff on one occasion that "he didn't even know why [Plaintiff] worked [here]" and also wrote to Plaintiff that he was enraged because Plaintiff did not complete her tasks without question. (Id. at 10.) In addition, Gergen has publicly screamed at other people to give him their resignation. (Id.) On August 18, 2017, Gergen became enraged over a disagreement with Plaintiff and stuck his finger in Plaintiff's face, "[r]ed-faced, spitting[,] and screaming." (Id.) Plaintiff was backed into a wall and, crying, escaped to her office. (Id.) Al Wilkinson, one ofPlaintiff's Biology Department colleagues, reported this incident to OIDE, but was told that the allegations were unfounded. (Id.)

C. Defendant Gergen's Removal of Plaintiff's Supervisory Duties

Shortly after Gergen took over as the director of the Biology department, he changed the supervisory structure of the professional staff, based on staff interviews and discussions. (Id. at 7.) As a result, Plaintiff lost her supervisory duties and was told that it was due to her engaging in "inappropriate relationships." (Id.)

D. Plaintiff's 2011 FMLA Application

Plaintiff filed for FMLA protection in January 2011, but was told that Gergen felt that people who applied for FMLA were "screwing the department." (Id. at 17-18.) Plaintiff does not allege that her application was denied.

E. Plaintiff's Tenure Application

Plaintiff obtained tenure in 2013. (Id. at 6.) When Plaintiff applied for tenure, O'Neal and two lecturers whom O'Neal supervised at the time wrote a letter recommending against granting Plaintiff tenure. (Id. at 9.) Gergen decided not to submit this letter, because "[Plaintiff's] other letters were so good that he felt he couldn't use O'Neal's." (Id.)

F. Plaintiff's 2016 FMLA Application

In May 2016, Plaintiff applied for FMLA leave for a "medical procedure." (Id. at 18.) The Human Resources ("HR") representative commented to Plaintiff, "Boy, you people in Undergraduate Biology sure do get sick a lot." (Id.) Plaintiff "encountered numerous difficulties with filing [the FMLA] paper work, getting information, and getting [approval]". (Id.) At one point, HR refused to accept a letter from Plaintiff's doctor because of an issue with the letterhead, but, after Plaintiff pushed back, HR accepted it. (Id.)

G. Plaintiff's 2015-2016 Performance Evaluation

On June 15, 2016, Plaintiff received her annual evaluation3 for 2015-2016 and noticed that she received inferior scores, despite complimentary comments from Bernero. (Id. at 11.) Before Plaintiff received her evaluation, Gergen had changed her evaluation scores, as well as those of Wilkinson and another colleague, Desiree de Figueroa.4 (Id. at 12-13.) Gergen referred to Plaintiff, Wilkinson, and de Figueroa as a "cabal." (Id. at 12.) When questioned about the changes, Gergen stated that "no one should get all fives." (Id.) However, the changes made by Gergen were rejected by Labor Relations due to a technicality—Gergen had changed the scores only after Plaintiff had signed the initial evaluation. (Id. at 13.) Gergen declared that now that "he had 'a better understanding of the rules[,]' he would be sure to get" the next evaluation before Plaintiff could sign it. (Id.)

H. 2017 Classification and Compensation Review

On February 10, 2017, Gergen requested that de Figueroa, Wilkinson, and Plaintiff put together a list of Stony Brook employees with similar duties and experience as each of them. (Id. at 16.) On March 1, 2017, Gergen informed Plaintiff that he had gotten permission from the dean to proceed with a classification and compensation review. (Id. at 16-17.) On March 6, 2017, Plaintiff submitted information that showed that people with similar responsibilities to hers were paid at least a grade higher. (Id. at 17.) On July 17, 2017, Plaintiff was informed that all raises were on hold at the University. (Id.) However, a Biology department colleague, Virgil Acuff, hadretired from the department, thus freeing up funds that could have been used for Plaintiff's raise. (Id.)

I. Plaintiff's 2016-2017 Performance Evaluation

On June 19, 2017, Plaintiff received her 2016-2017 performance evaluation. (Id. at 13.) Plaintiff's work performance rating was downgraded again in her 2017 annual evaluation, which also contained disparaging comments about Plaintiff's work. (Id.) Plaintiff's supervisor, Bernero, informed Plaintiff that she (Bernero) could not change the scores because she was worried about her own evaluation with Gergen. (Id.) Bernero's statement that she could not change the scores was contrary to the evaluation guidelines, which required that the direct supervisor have the final say over the employee's annual evaluation scores. (Id. at 14.) Bernero also told Plaintiff that Gergen, O'Neal, and she met to review the evaluations and that no other faculty members were invited. (Id.) Plaintiff, de Figueroa, and Wilkinson made a complaint to the union about O'Neal's presence at the meeting to discuss annual evaluations, but the union denied the grievance, despite the fact that Gergen admitted to the union that O'Neal had attended the meeting. (Id. at 14-15.)

In her 2016-2017 annual evaluation, Plaintiff received a relatively low score for "Reliability," even though she had not been late once that year, had over 70 unused sick days, and attended every meeting except for one. (Id. at 19.) The comments included "[c]ould be more helpful to others," despite the fact that Plaintiff took on the additional responsibility of training new assistant curators. (Id.) Despite Gergen's...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT