Troeger v. Ellenville Cent. Sch. Dist.

• Decision Date: 20 September 2016
• Docket Number: 1:15-CV-1294 (MAD/DJS)
• Parties: MICHAEL TROEGER, Plaintiff, v. ELLENVILLE CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York

MICHAEL TROEGER, Plaintiff, v. ELLENVILLE CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant.

1:15-CV-1294 (MAD/DJS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

September 20, 2016

APPEARANCES:

MICHAEL TROEGER

171 Black Road

Shokan, New York 12481

Plaintiff pro se

DRAKE, LOEB LAW FIRM

555 Hudson Valley Avenue

Suite 100

New Windsor, New York 12553

Attorneys for Defendant

OF COUNSEL:

ADAM L. RODD, ESQ.

Mae A. D'Agostino, U.S. District Judge:

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

Pro se Plaintiff Michael Troeger ("Plaintiff") commenced this action on October 30, 2015 against Defendant Ellenville Central School District ("Defendant") pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment violations, Title VII of the Civil Rights act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., and various other tort actions seeking injunctive, declaratory, and monetary relief. See Dkt. No. 6. Currently pending before the Court is Defendant's motion to dismiss and Plaintiff's motion to file a second amended complaint. See Dkt. Nos. 16, 31.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Plaintiff's Complaint

Plaintiff is a 50 year old Caucasian male employed at the Defendant School District as a school counselor. Dkt. No. 6 at ¶¶ 2, 3. Starting in October of 2014, Plaintiff filed several internal complaints with Defendant, which were enumerated 2014-15-1 through 2014-15-168 and 2015-16-1 through 2015-16-6 (collectively, the "internal complaints"). Id. at ¶ 9. Plaintiff estimates that these complaints contained in excess of 10,000 allegations of harassment, discrimination, retaliation, and complaints of a hostile work environment. Id. at ¶ 11. Plaintiff contends that Defendant either failed to investigate these complaints, or assigned a biased compliance officer who was implicated in the complaint to investigate the claims. Id. at ¶¶ 12-19. Plaintiff argues that this manner of investigation, or lack thereof, violated the terms of his collective bargaining agreement ("CBA"). Id. at ¶ 20. In furtherance of receiving an impartial investigation, Plaintiff has made in excess of 200 requests for a third party investigator to review his allegations, which have all been denied by the Board of Education. Id. at ¶ 30.

Plaintiff contends that Defendant failed to conduct a thorough investigation into his complaints because the compliance officers did not interview Plaintiff or other witnesses that he proposed. Id. at ¶ 39. Specifically, Sandra J. Oglesby, an individual who submitted a statement in support of Plaintiff on October 9, 2015, stated that she had not been contacted by Defendant in investigation of Plaintiff's internal complaints. Id. at ¶ 241; see also Dkt. No. 6-1 at 41-45. Plaintiff stated that he has named over 200 witnesses regarding his internal complaints, all of whom have not been contacted by Defendant. Id. at ¶ 242. Lisa Wiles, superintendent of theDefendant School District ("Superintendent Wiles"), investigated several charges made against her and made dispositions in her favor in every instance. Id. at ¶ 26-28. Further, compliance officer Angela Urbina was allegedly told by Defendant's counsel to investigate a complaint in which she was an implicated party. Id. at ¶ 41.

On the one occasion, Plaintiff accepted a correspondence from compliance officer Mr. Latvis, who is a Caucasian male, wherein Mr. Latvis, being accompanied by a security guard, interrupted a meeting between Plaintiff and students with their parents and demanded that Plaintiff accept a letter from Defendant. Id. at ¶¶ 334-35. Plaintiff submitted an informal complaint of this occurrence, which has not been investigated by Defendant. Id. at ¶¶ 337-38. Mr. Latvis was terminated shortly thereafter. Id. at ¶ 339.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant dissuaded him from receiving union representation by threatening the union president of racism charges for filing grievances on Plaintiff's behalf. Id. at ¶¶ 71, 80. Nonetheless, Plaintiff contends that the union has filed multiple grievances regarding Defendant's refusal to investigate his complaints. Id. at ¶ 81. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant has denied his request to attend a professional development class and to complete an educational administration internship. Id. at ¶¶ 184-85. Plaintiff was berated, humiliated, and screamed at in response to requesting the professional growth opportunity. Id. at ¶ 186.

Plaintiff contends that he made several requests under New York's Freedom of Information Law ("FOIL") for the records of the investigations into his internal complaints, none of which have been produced. Id. at ¶ 37. Plaintiff also states that Defendant "routinely delays FOIL response until the fifth day following the request" and "routinely adds an additional twenty . . . business days to determine the right of access." Id. at ¶¶ 367-68. On November 13, 2015,Plaintiff appealed the findings of eight FOIL requests. Id. at ¶ 377. Superintendent Wiles has not responded to this appeal. Id. at ¶ 378.

Plaintiff contends that Defendant engaged in fraud by concealing evidence and otherwise misleading the court by deceptively pretending to investigate the internal complaints. Id. at ¶ 91. The deceitful actions include denying that Plaintiff requested a reasonable accommodation, conducting a "mock investigation," denying Plaintiff access to workers' compensation benefits, and utilizing unspecified forged or altered documents. Id. at ¶¶ 92, 94, 96, 104, 147. Plaintiff also states that Defendant has altered his personnel file in some unspecified manner, which casts Plaintiff in a negative light. Id. at ¶ 35. Plaintiff contends that Defendant forged or altered his complaint numbered 2015-16-1 by removing or altering the date stamp. Id. at ¶ 153, 158-59. On December 2, 2015, Plaintiff submitted complaints numbered 2015-16-5 and 2015-16-6, as well as a FOIL request. Id. at ¶ 160. Defendant refused Plaintiff's request to date stamp these complaints. Id. at ¶ 161-62. Plaintiff also contends that Defendant presented numerous statements at a New York State Division of Human Rights ("DHR") hearing that were false, defamatory, or misleading. Id. at ¶ 239.

Plaintiff states that Defendant retaliated against him for "advocating for special needs students . . . and for speaking with parents regarding the rights of child(ren) to a Free and Appropriate Public Education." Id. at ¶ 57.

Plaintiff argues that he has several qualifying disabilities, including "a back injury, GI/ disorder with explosive vomiting, asthma, and emotional disabilities of anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder." Id. at ¶ 108. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant retaliated against him based on his disability by placing him on disability leave, "despite medical recommendations for [him] to return to work with accommodations." Id. at ¶ 111. On September 16 and 22, 2015,Plaintiff wrote to Superintendent Wiles seeking a reasonable accommodation for his disability. Id. at ¶ 135. Superintended Wiles did not respond to this request. Id. at ¶ 136. On October 20, 2015, Plaintiff submitted complaint 2015-16-1 in regards to Defendant's failure to respond to his accommodation request. Id. at ¶ 139. On October 30, 2015, Plaintiff informed Defendant that he filed the instant action in this Court. Id. at ¶ 140. On November 3, 2015, Defendant assigned Compliance Officer Pabon to investigate complaint number 2015-16-1. Id. at ¶ 141. Plaintiff contends that Ms. Pabon was a biased investigator because she was Hispanic, and Defendant falsely alleged that Plaintiff has "a troubling pattern of discrimination" toward Blacks and Hispanics. Id. at ¶¶ 142, 143.

Plaintiff began to experience increased anxiety and other physiological symptoms as a result of Defendant's failure to investigate his claims, which caused him to miss work from September 30, through October 5, 2015. Id. at ¶¶ 43, 45. Plaintiff was thereafter diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder ("PTSD"). Id. at ¶ 52. Plaintiff contends that he has incurred in excess of $5,000 in legal fees in attempting to redress his complaints. Id. at ¶ 61. Plaintiff has been required to expend his sick leave as a result of Defendant's actions, which is valued at approximately $522 per day. Id. at ¶ 131. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant applies a different standard to his complaints than to other employees, limiting his ability to file complaints to his lunch periods or other off duty time. Id. at ¶ 169-70. Plaintiff contends that these lost lunch breaks are valued in excess of $10,000. Id. at ¶ 171. Plaintiff also states that he has worked uncompensated overtime, which is valued in excess of $132,840. Id. at ¶ 177.

Plaintiff states that "Defendant did harass, intimidate, stalk, block an exit, place under surveillance, provide negative, threatening, and disparaging written communication, belittle, humiliate, and conduct other acts of like kind targeting [P]laintiff on multiple occasions." Id. at ¶196. Plaintiff "was threatened [that] he could not file subsequent complaints regarding such treatment, or in sum or substance, he would be disciplined for racism." Id. at ¶ 197. Moreover, "Defendant threatens and otherwise dissuades [P]laintiff and [P]laintiff's union representative[] regarding complaints of discrimination, retaliation, or harassment, if the alleged violator is Black and/or Hispanic." Id. at ¶ 203. Plaintiff's support for these allegations is based on a June 24, 2015 letter that Superintendent Wiles wrote to Plaintiff discussing several of his pervious complaints. Id. at ¶ 215; see also Dkt. No. 6-1 at 77-78. Plaintiff contends that this letter falsely accuses Plaintiff of being racist, defames him by implying that he is aggressive or mentally imbalanced, and threatens to terminate him if he continues to file complaints or...