Thompson v. CRF-Cluster Model Program, LLC
| Decision Date | 14 August 2020 |
| Docket Number | 19 Civ. 1360 (KPF) |
| Parties | PETER THOMPSON, Plaintiff, v. CRF-CLUSTER MODEL PROGRAM, LLC, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Plaintiff Peter Thompson formerly resided in an apartment provided by Defendant CRF-Cluster Model Program, LLC, a private entity associated with the Children's Rescue Fund that provides housing to homeless families. Plaintiff claims that, while he resided in the apartment, Defendant demanded that he provide sensitive personal information; failed to take adequate safeguards to protect that information; discriminated against Plaintiff due to his race, disability, and familial status; and failed to provide Plaintiff with a reasonable accommodation that he needed due to his disability. In response, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brings this action. The Third Amended Complaint, the operative pleading in this case, asserts claims under: (i) 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (ii) § 7704 of the New York State Education Law, N.Y. Educ. Law § 7704 (the "Education Law"); (iii) the New York State Personal Privacy Protection Law, N.Y. Pub. Off. Law §§ 91-99 (the "PPPL"); (iv) the New York State Social Security Number Protection Law, N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 399-ddd (the "SSN Protection Law"); (v) Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181-12189 (the "ADA"); (vi) the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604 (the "FHA"); (vii) the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law §§ 290-97 (the "NYSHRL"); (viii) the New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y.C. Admin. Code §§ 8-107 to 8-131 (the "NYCHRL"); and (ix) § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794.
Before the Court now is Defendant's motion to dismiss the first eight of these nine causes of action pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.1 For the reasons set forth in the remainder of this Opinion, Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff's claims brought under the Education Law, the PPPL, the SSN Protection Law, and the ADA are dismissed. Plaintiff's claims brought under § 1983, the FHA, the NYSHRL, the NYCHRL, and the Rehabilitation Act survive.
Plaintiff is a Black man and the father of two adolescent children. (TAC ¶¶ 121-22, 141-42, 146). For a period of time between 2017 and 2019,Plaintiff and his family were homeless. (See generally id.). On August 19, 2017, Plaintiff signed an agreement that gave a "blanket release of all information" to the New York City Department of Homeless Services ("DHS"). (Id. at ¶ 51). On September 23, 2017, Plaintiff and his family began to live in an apartment (the "Apartment") in a building in the Bronx (the "Building"), which apartment was provided as temporary housing by Defendant. (Id. at ¶ 49).
From September 2017 through June 2019, Defendant's employees repeatedly asked Plaintiff to provide certain private information, including his family's financial statements, social security award letters, school records, and medical records. (TAC ¶ 55). Plaintiff alleges that those employees had no right to ask him to provide this private information. (Id. at ¶¶ 37, 41). From February 2019 to June 2019, Defendant's employees' requests for these documents became more aggressive and took on a bullying tone. (Id. at ¶ 41). Plaintiff also grew concerned about Defendant's security measures with respect to this information; on several occasions, Plaintiff saw the superintendent of the Building — who was not employed by Defendant — enter an office that Defendant used to store unsecured files. (Id. at ¶¶ 59-62).3
On January 15, 2018, Plaintiff provided Defendant with a letter stating that he suffered from osteoarthritis in the hip and requesting that Plaintiff move from his fifth-floor apartment to an apartment on a lower floor. (TAC ¶¶ 80-81). Defendant did not immediately address Plaintiff's request. (Id. at ¶ 82). Eventually, Defendant offered to move Plaintiff to a one-bedroom apartment on the third floor of the Building; Plaintiff rejected the offer, stating that his teenage children could not share a bedroom. (Id. at ¶ 122). Defendant then offered Plaintiff the option of moving to assisted living housing; Plaintiff rejected the offer, stating that such a move would isolate his teenage children. (Id. at ¶ 123).
In March 2019, Plaintiff was told by Defendant's employee that he needed to move out of the Apartment "yesterday," and that Plaintiff and his family had been staying in Defendant's temporary housing longer than any other occupant. (TAC ¶¶ 89-90). Thereafter, Defendant began insisting that Plaintiff's entire family attend all meetings that Plaintiff had previously been required to attend on his own, despite the fact that his children were in school during the day. (Id. at ¶ 91).
Plaintiff alleges that he later learned that three Latino occupants of Defendant's temporary housing had in fact been living there longer than he had: (i) Miriam Nieves; (ii) "Raphael"; and (iii) "Crystal." (TAC ¶¶ 92-95). Crystal, in particular, informed Plaintiff that she had never been told to leaveDefendant's housing. (Id. at ¶ 98). Like Plaintiff, Miriam and Crystal had children who lived with them in Defendant's housing. (Id. at ¶¶ 92, 123). Plaintiff came to believe that individuals living in Defendant's housing who were receiving supplemental disability benefits were being pressured to move out, while those who were working were not being pressured to move. (Id. at ¶ 105). Plaintiff also claims awareness of numerous other instances in which Defendant did not require all members of a family living in temporary housing to attend meetings. (Id. at ¶ 96).
Plaintiff initiated this suit on February 12, 2019, by filing a Complaint that named as defendants CRF-Cluster Model Program, LLC; Yolanda Roberts, the Executive Director of CRF-Cluster Model Program, LLC; and Steven Banks, the Commissioner of the New York City Human Resources Administration. (Dkt. #2). On March 5, 2019, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, removing Roberts and Banks as defendants. (Dkt. #3). Plaintiff then filed a motion for a preliminary injunction on April 19, 2019, seeking to stop the sole remaining defendant, CRF-Cluster Model Program, LLC, from exerting pressure on him to provide confidential information and to move out of the Apartment. (Dkt. #8). The Court held a conference with the parties on May 14, 2019, in which Plaintiff stated that he wished to: (i) be permitted to stay in the Apartment through July 31, 2019; and (ii) learn Defendant's basis for requesting certain private information from him. (See generally Dkt. #17 (transcript)). Plaintiff agreed that he would withdraw his suit against Defendant and refrain frombringing further claims against it if two conditions were met: (i) he were to be permitted to remain in the Apartment through July 31, 2019; and (ii) Defendant were to provide its basis for requesting private information from him by June 21, 2019. (Id. at 36-37). In light of this, the Court directed Defendant to provide by June 21, 2019, letters advising whether it would stipulate to allow Plaintiff to remain in the Apartment through July 31, 2019, and describing Defendant's basis for requesting Plaintiff's confidential information. (Id.). The Court stayed Defendant's obligation to answer the Complaint through July 31, 2019. (Id.).
On May 21, 2019, Defendant provided a letter stating that the decision regarding whether Plaintiff would be asked to leave the Apartment before July 31, 2020, rested with DHS, not Defendant. (Dkt. #16). On June 21, 2019, Defendant provided a letter explaining why it believed it was required to request certain confidential information from Plaintiff. (Dkt. #19). In short, Defendant stated that it was obligated to request such confidential information by state and municipal regulations. (Id.).
On June 27, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for entry of a default judgment against Defendant, citing the fact that Defendant had not yet answered the Amended Complaint. (Dkt. #22-26). Defendant filed its Answer to the Amended Complaint the next day. (Dkt. #29). The Court denied Plaintiff's motion for entry of a default judgment against Defendant on June 28, 2019, noting that during the May 14, 2019 hearing, it had stayed Defendant's obligation to answer the Amended Complaint through July 31, 2019. (Dkt.#31). Plaintiff thereafter filed a motion to strike the Answer (Dkt. #33), which motion the Court denied on August 13, 2019 (Dkt. #34).
On June 28, 2019, Defendant requested a pre-motion conference concerning its anticipated motion to dismiss in part the Amended Complaint. (Dkt. #30). The Court scheduled a pre-motion conference for August 30, 2019, and later adjourned that conference to September 24, 2019. (Dkt. #31, 37). During the September 24, 2019 conference, Plaintiff stated that he had been permitted to remain in the Apartment through July 31, 2019, and that he had since moved from the Apartment. (See generally Dkt. #42 (transcript)). Despite the fact that the two conditions provided during the May 14, 2019 hearing had been met, Plaintiff stated his intention to proceed with his suit and requested leave to amend his pleadings further to remove certain claims for relief that had become moot. (Id.). The Court granted Plaintiff leave to file a Third Amended Complaint, which he did on November 12, 2019. (Dkt. #41).4 Defendant sought leave to file a motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint on December 12, 2019 (Dkt. #44), and the Court entered a schedule for the briefing of the anticipated motion on December 16, 2019 (Dkt. #45).Defendant filed its motion to dismiss on January 20, 2020. (Dkt. #46-47). Plaintiff filed his opposition papers on January 24, 2020. (Dkt. #48). The motion became fully briefed when Defendant filed its reply papers in further support of its motion on March...
To continue reading
Request your trial