Urquhart v. Metro. Transp. Auth.

• Decision Date: 25 September 2013
• Docket Number: No. 07 Civ. 3561(DAB).,07 Civ. 3561(DAB).
• Citation: 975 F.Supp.2d 320
• Parties: Gordon URQUHART, Plaintiff, v. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, Elliot Sander, Wiliam Morange, Kevin McConville and Terrance Culhane, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

975 F.Supp.2d 320

Gordon URQUHART, Plaintiff,

v.METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, Elliot Sander, Wiliam Morange, Kevin McConville and Terrance Culhane, Defendants.

No. 07 Civ. 3561(DAB).

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

Sept. 25, 2013.

Deanna R. Waldron, Steven J. Hyman, Janet Cohn Neschis, Jonathan Robert Jeremias, McLaughlin and Stern, LLP, Norman H. Siegel, Siegel Teitelbaum & Evans LLP, Rachel Dara Nicotra, Law Office of Rachel Nicotra, New York, NY, for Plaintiff.

Craig Robert Benson, Stephen Andrew Fuchs, Elias Jay Kahn, Littler Mendelson, P.C., New York, NY, Keith Jay Rosenblatt, Littler, Mendelsohn, P.C., Newark, NJ, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DEBORAH A. BATTS, District Judge.

Plaintiff Gordon Urquhart (“Plaintiff” or “Urquhart”), an African–American male, together with eight African–American plaintiffs and one Hispanic plaintiff, all of whom are current or former employees of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“MTA”) Police Department (“MTA PD”), commenced this action against MTA and four MTA executive officers (collectively, “Defendants”), alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”), the New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”), and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983. Plaintiff maintains that the MTA discriminated against him on the basis of his race by denying him division assignments, case and project assignments, and related overtime, subjecting him to a hostile work environment, engaging in a pattern or practice of racial discrimination, and retaliating against him for complaining to superiors and the New York State Division of Human Rights (“SDHR”) about alleged discrimination. Defendants now move pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 for Summary Judgment on each of Plaintiff's claims.¹

For the reasons set forth herein, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED in its entirety.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. The Parties

Defendant MTA is a New York State public benefit corporation that provides public transportation services to the Greater New York City area. Defendant Elliot Sander served as the Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer of MTA from January 1, 2007 to May 7, 2009. Defendant William Morange was MTA Director of Security from July 2003 to December 2010. Defendant Kevin McConville was the Chief of MTA PD from October 2005 to January 2008. Defendant Terrance Culhane was an Assistant Deputy Chief of MTA PD from 2004 to July 2010.

Plaintiff Gordon Urquhart joined the Long Island Railroad Police Department (“LIRR PD”) in 1981 and was appointed Detective in 1990. (Pl.'s 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ A–B.) Urquhart never took the Sergeant's examination and remained a Detective until he retired in 2006. (Defs.' 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 16–17.) In 1997, the New York State Legislature created MTA, and on January 1, 1998, all employees of the LIRR PD, including Plaintiff, were transferred to MTA PD. ( Id. ¶ 7.)

B. Plaintiff's Employment with LIRR PD

Plaintiff Urquhart alleges that he was discriminated against and subjected to racially derogatory behavior from early on in his career. For example, when Plaintiff brought his Caucasian wife to work in 1990, his supervisor allegedly slammed a door in their faces. (Pl.'s 56.1 Stmt. ¶ C.) Urquhart also alleges that over a three- to six-month period in 1991, a Detective told him three jokes in which the word “nigger” was the punchline. (Urquhart Dep. 62:9–67:20.) In the mid–1990s, Urquhart allegedly complained to a superior that Defendant Culhane gave him worse assignments than Caucasian officers and created a hostile work environment. ( Id. 87:8–9, 90:12–15, 91:24–92:20.) The superior learned from others that Culhane showed “favoritism” in distributing case assignments and overtime and subsequently chastised Culhane for his favoritism. (Masciana Dep. 47:1–48:18, 49:17–50:9.) Plaintiff alleges that in 1997, he was involuntarily transferred to the Corporate Security offices. (Urquhart Decl. ¶ 9.)

C. Plaintiff's Employment with MTA PD

In 1999, Plaintiff was first transferred to the Applicant Investigations Unit (“AIU”) and then to MTA's Headquarters. (Pl.'s 56.1 Stmt. ¶ N.) In 2000, Urquhart was transferred to the Detective Squad and assigned to District 3—Hillside Support Facility (“HSF”), where he claims he was subjected to excessive discipline and denied favorable assignments, overtime, and training opportunities on the basis of his race. ( Id. ¶¶ O–V, AA–DD.) He also alleges that supervisors made racially disparaging comments about him and other African–American employees ( Id. ¶¶ W–Z), and notes that he was repeatedly told that Detective Sergeants Pete Cummo and Kim Riley had referred to him as “crazy” (Urquhart Dep. 315:16–317:7). During his time at HSF, Plaintiff complained to Lieutenant Timothy Harmon, Detective Mark Landro, and Detective Sergeant Kim Riley that cases associated with high overtime were being steered to Caucasian Detective James Flanagan. (Harmon Dep. 177:15–25; Landro Dep. 143:19–144:11; Urquhart Decl. ¶ 32; Urquhart Dep. 53:23–54:3; see Jeremias Decl. Ex. G, at D00025424.) Plaintiff alleges that some of these complaints were made in Flanagan's presence. (Urquhart Decl. ¶ 32.) His complaints were discussed with Police Benevolent Association (“PBA”) Vice President Vincent Provenzano. (Cummo Dep. 441:21–442:2; Harmon Dep. 179:4–23.)

In 2001, Urquhart was assigned to an office in Central Islip with slower internet access, where he was allegedly isolated from his command and supervisors, given unfavorable case and vehicle assignments, excessively disciplined, and subjected to a hostile work environment due to his race. (Pl.'s 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ EE–LL.) After a disciplinary meeting, he was transferred from the Detective Squad to the AIU, where he was allegedly unable to investigate cases and make arrests. ( Id. ¶¶ LL–NN.)

In 2002, Urquhart applied for and was transferred to the Joint Infrastructure Task Force (“JITF”). ( Id. ¶ PP.) After the JITF was disbanded in April 2003, Urquhart returned to the Detective Squad and was assigned to District 3–Jamaica. (Pl Id. ¶¶ QQ–RR.) Allegedly, he was again isolated and denied favorable case assignments and overtime. ( Id. ¶¶ RR–SS.) Twice in August 2003, Plaintiff complained about this treatment to PBA representatives, but he was not told to make a formal grievance. ( Id. ¶¶ TT–UU.)

In late 2003, JITF was “reformulated” as the Interagency Counterterrorism Task Force (“ICTF”). ( Id.; Pucillo Dep. 14:13–14.) Plaintiff alleges that Caucasians formerly assigned to JITF were invited to join ICTF without having to undergo a formal application and interview process, but he did not receive such an invitation. (Pl.'s 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ WW, YY.) Instead, Plaintiff submitted an abstract and interviewed for ICTF in response to a September 2003 Interim Order. ( Id. ¶ XX.) Allegedly, the head of ICTF, Captain Ernest Pucillo, told Plaintiff that he had failed the interview and would not be assigned to ICTF. ( Id. ¶ XX.) Urquhart alleges that he immediately told a PBA representative that he intended to file a lawsuit to protest the discriminatory denial of his ICTF application. ( Id. ¶ AAA.) Plaintiff was transferred to ICTF in late November 2003, allegedly because of the PBA's intervention, and was placed in one of ICTF's “outside commands”: the New York/New Jersey High Intensity Drug–Trafficking Area (“HIDTA”) program. ( Id. ¶¶ BBB, DDD; Fuchs Decl. Ex. 6; Urquhart Decl. ¶ 29.) Urquhart claims that he subsequently requested to transfer from HIDTA to another ICTF outside command, the Joint Terrorism Task Force (“JTTF”), and that this request was denied (Urquhart Decl. ¶ 29; Urquhart Dep. 109:20–24). However, Plaintiff stated in his deposition that he requested the HIDTA assignment and never asked to leave HIDTA (Urquhart Dep. 232:24–233:4).

D. Alleged Denial of ICTF Assignments and Overtime

HIDTA Detectives received some assignments directly from ICTF and others from HIDTA. (Pl.'s 56.1 Stmt. ¶ DDD; Defs.' Resp. to Pl.'s 56.1 Stmt. ¶ DDD.) Detective Sergeant Flanagan was responsible for assigning and distributing ICTF assignments (Flanagan Decl. ¶ 10), while Plaintiff's HIDTA assignments were determined by his HIDTA command officer, a member of the New York Police Department (“NYPD”) (Ojeda Decl. ¶ 6). Plaintiff alleges that he was never assigned an ICTF case (Urquhart Dep. 195:5–6), an allegation that Defendants dispute (Defs.' Reply to Pl.'s Resp. to Defs.' 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 33). He further alleges that although Flanagan told him that he would not assign ICTF cases to ICTF members in outside commands, he assigned ICTF cases to Daniel Ojeda, a HIDTA member who is not African–American.² (Pl.'s 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ DDD, GGG.) Ojeda admits that he was assigned to at least four ICTF cases (Ojeda Decl. ¶¶ 10–11), Plaintiff alleges that an additional five ICTF cases were assigned to Ojeda (Pl.'s 56.1 Stmt. ¶ GGG), and the ICTF case log suggests one further ICTF assignment (Jeremias Decl. Ex. I, at 22). Flanagan's alleged refusal to assign Plaintiff ICTF cases cost Plaintiff considerable overtime. (Pl.'s 56.1 Stmt. ¶ DDD.) Defendants allege that ICTF Detectives working full-time at outside commands rarely received ICTF cases. (Defs.' Resp. to Pl.'s 56.1 Stmt. ¶ DDD.) If such Detectives were assigned ICTF cases, it was typically because an ICTF Detective working at ICTF Headquarters was unavailable or needed assistance. ( Id. ¶ DDD.) Defendants allege that Plaintiff declined a significant amount of overtime, including “on-call time,” coverage time, and other occasional ICTF assignments for which he was eligible (Defs.' 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 32); Plaintiff disputes this allegation (Pl.'s Resp. to Defs.' 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 32R–33R, 36R).

Plaintiff also alleges that, like Ojeda, six Caucasian Detectives assigned to ICTF outside commands received ICTF cases and related overtime: Anthony D'Angelis, Raymond Godas, Marc Noens, Agostino Paratore, ...