Sutton v. Stony Brook Univ.
| Decision Date | 04 November 2020 |
| Docket Number | 18-CV-7434(JS)(ARL) |
| Parties | DANIELLE SUTTON, Plaintiff, v. STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY, NICOLE GALANTE in her Individual and Official Capacities, CHARLES TABER, in his Individual and Official Capacities, SAMUEL L. STANLEY, JR. in his Individual and Official Capacities, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
APPEARANCES
For Plaintiff:
Danielle Sutton, prose
927 Montauk Highway
P.O. Box 113
Oakdale, New York 11769
For Defendants:
Richard H. Yorke, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
New York State Attorney General's Office
200 Old Country Road, Suite 240
Mineola, New York 11501
Pro se plaintiff Danielle Sutton ("Sutton" or "Plaintiff") commenced this action against defendants Stony Brook University ("SBU"), Nicole Galante ("Galante"), Charles Taber ("Taber"), and Samuel L. Stanley, Jr. ("Stanley") (together, the "Defendants"). Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint ("SAC," D.E. 36-1) alleges: (1) gender-based discrimination and retaliation claims pursuant to Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq.; (2) violations of the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Section 1983"); and (3) state law claims for breach of contract, negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and breach of fiduciary duty. Plaintiff seeks, among other things, an equitable order directing Defendants to vacate her dismissal from SBU, expunge any references to her dismissal in her record, and to reinstate Plaintiff and award her a degree.
Currently pending before the Court is Defendants' motion to dismiss the SAC pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' motion is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiff's federal claims and Plaintiff is GRANTED leave to file a Third Amended Complaint consistent with this Memorandum & Order.
In August 2015, Plaintiff enrolled in the English Teacher Education Program at SBU. (SAC ¶ 1.) She earned an Advanced Graduate Certificate in Teaching Writing in May 2017, and Galante, the Acting Director of the English Teacher EducationProgram, and Sharon Anthony ("Anthony"), the Director of Student Teaching, approved Plaintiff to student teach for the Fall 2017 semester. (SAC ¶¶ 5, 6.)
On September 11, 2017, Plaintiff began student teaching at Sachem North High School. (SAC ¶ 41.) Thomas Mangano ("Mangano") was Plaintiff's student teaching supervisor and instructor at SBU. (SAC ¶ 42.) Prior to the start of the semester, on May 18, 2017, Plaintiff received a text message from Mangano inviting her and the four other students (two of whom were female) enrolled in his Fall seminar class to a breakfast meeting at a hotel restaurant. (SAC ¶ 60.) Plaintiff declined the invitation. (SAC ¶ 60.) She alleges that Mangano emailed, texted and telephoned her several times during the summer to arrange another time to meet. (SAC ¶¶ 61-68.) Plaintiff claims that she felt uncomfortable receiving unwanted phone calls and text messages and perceived Mangano's persistence to meet for breakfast as harassment. (SAC ¶ 69.) Plaintiff believes that she was the only student that did not meet with Mangano over the summer. (SAC ¶ 71.)
During Mangano's August 30, 2017 seminar class, he asked the class if anyone was opposed to Saturday morning breakfast meetings throughout the semester. (SAC ¶ 72.) Plaintiff alleges that she objected to the Saturday meetings and that Mangano "reprimanded" her for refusing to attend the meetings. (SAC ¶¶73-74.) Plaintiff claims that Mangano kept her after class because he was "concern[ed]" that she was the only one in all of his years of being a supervisor who had refused to attend a breakfast meeting and said, (SAC ¶¶ 79-82.) Plaintiff also alleges that Mangano told her that if breakfast was a problem, she could meet with him for lunch or coffee at Starbucks. (SAC ¶ 86.) She told Mangano that it was "inappropriate" and that she did not want to meet him off campus to which he allegedly responded, "[w]hen a professor extends himself to you and you don't take him up on the offer, it's hard to get past." (SAC ¶¶ 86-87 (emphasis omitted).) Plaintiff claims that Mangano had paid for numerous breakfast meetings at off-campus hotels with his students, though she never attended any of them. (SAC ¶ 77.)
Plaintiff claims that after her refusal to meet with Mangano, "he became hostile towards [her.]" (SAC ¶ 88.) She alleges that Mangano would unexpectedly show up at the high school where she was student teaching to "check in on Plaintiff," and that he texted and phoned her multiple times, "concerned [that] she was not replying." (SAC ¶¶ 89, 92, 95-97.) She claims that on September 12, 2017, Mangano pulled her aside at the doorway to an empty classroom, and standing close to her, told her not to "spend so much time getting ready" while "staring at [her] up anddown." (SAC ¶ 90.) She claims that every time Mangano saw Plaintiff he made a point "to engage in a long lingering handshake" that "made Plaintiff feel uncomfortable." (SAC ¶ 91.) Plaintiff additionally claims that Mangano made "excuses to keep Plaintiff after class or force her to go to his office." (SAC ¶ 103.)
On September 25, 2017, Plaintiff alleges that Mangano "bullied" her and made "demeaning" and "disparaging comments about her decision to become an English teacher in an effort to steer her to quit." (SAC ¶ 106.) She claims that he stated that she was "horrible," a "disaster," and that she should "give up teaching." (SAC ¶¶ 107, 109.) Plaintiff alleges that on the same date, Mangano made "gender based/gender bias comments" to Plaintiff, including that "Plaintiff 'pranced' around the room during her student teaching." (SAC ¶ 108 (emphasis omitted).) Plaintiff claims that Mangano stated that "women looked nice in dresses" and that Mangano and Anthony had told students that "'ladies' wearing dresses and 'men' wearing suits were the only 'professional' attire." (SAC ¶ 129.) Plaintiff claims that she "wore slacks." (SAC ¶ 129.)
She further alleges that after Mangano observed her September 29, 2017 class, he told her that her refusal to answer his phone calls and text messages was "a problem" and that "he had enough of Plaintiff's behavior towards him." (SAC ¶¶ 124-26.) At the same time, Plaintiff maintains that Mangano stated herperformance on September 29 would be enough to pass. Nevertheless, she claims that on two prior occasions, August 30, 2017 and September 25, 2017, Mangano said that he could not write Plaintiff a letter of recommendation for a teaching job knowing her "attitude" towards his breakfast meetings. (SAC ¶ 111.) Plaintiff claims that during September 2017, Mangano told Plaintiff that she could be taken out of student teaching if he recommended it to Galante. (SAC ¶ 127.)
Plaintiff alleges that on or about September 29, 2017, she complained via email to Galante about "Mangano's behavior and perceived harassment and requested female, Director of Student Teaching, Sharon Anthony as [her] Student Teaching Supervisor/Instructor." (SAC ¶ 151, 155.) She claims that Galante "did not report a harassment complaint to the Title IX officer or advise Plaintiff of her rights." (SAC ¶ 153.) She alleges that "Galante held a grudge against Plaintiff for speaking out against [Mangano's] [b]reakfasts and was concerned Plaintiff might muddy the reputation of her program." (SAC ¶ 155.)
On October 9, 2017, Galante notified Plaintiff that she should no longer report to Mangano's seminar class and that she was now in Anthony's class. (SAC ¶ 154.) On October 11, 2017, Galante notified Plaintiff via email that October 13, 2017 would be her last day of student teaching. (SAC ¶ 159.) As of thatdate, Plaintiff had completed twenty-four of the seventy-five days required for student teaching. (SAC ¶ 167.)
On October 12, 2017, Plaintiff's father emailed Ken Lindblom ("Lindblom"), Dean of the School of Professional Development, and requested his involvement. (SAC ¶ 163.) Lindblom's response was supportive of Galante's decision. (SAC ¶ 163.) On October 13, 2017, Plaintiff emailed Stanley, SBU President, regarding her removal from student teaching, and three days later she received a response stating that her concerns were being looked into and instructing her to communicate with Melissa Jordan ("Jordan"), Senior Assistant Dean and School of Professional Development Manager for Records and Admissions. (SAC ¶¶ 172-73, 226.)
Plaintiff claims that on or about October 16, 2017, Galante emailed Plaintiff a "Spring 2018 Student Teaching Contract" with an attachment and wrote, "[i]f you are permitted to continue student teaching, you will do so in the Spring[] 2018 semester. . . and you will do so after signing a contract. . . ." (SAC ¶ 174 (ellipses in original).) Galante instructed Plaintiff that she would be dismissed if she did not agree to sign the contract with attachment by October 24, 2017. (SAC ¶ 177.)
Plaintiff claims that SBU never held a hearing and never issued formal letter regarding her removal from student teaching; everything was done via email. (SAC ¶ 178.) On October 18, 2017,Plaintiff went to Anthony's seminar class but was told to leave because she was not currently student teaching due to her failure to sign the student teaching contract. (SAC ¶ 180.) On October 19, 2017, Lindblom instructed Plaintiff:
At this point, you have two choices: 1) agree to the program Dr. Galante has set out for you; or, 2) refuse to comply or ignore the agreement and be dismissed from the program. Please note that selecting number 1 does not guarantee you a new student teacher placement.
(SAC ¶ 182.)
On October 25, 2017,...
To continue reading
Request your trial