Walsh v. Scarsdale Union Free Sch. Dist.

• Decision Date: 22 March 2019
• Docket Number: No. 16 Civ. 3558 (NSR),16 Civ. 3558 (NSR)
• Citation: 375 F.Supp.3d 467
• Parties: Stephen P. WALSH, Plaintiff, v. SCARSDALE UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, and Michael McDermott, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

375 F.Supp.3d 467

Stephen P. WALSH, Plaintiff,

v.SCARSDALE UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, and Michael McDermott, Defendants.

No. 16 Civ. 3558 (NSR)

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

Signed March 22, 2019

Neal Brickman, Judith L. Goldsborough, Virginia A. Reilly, Law Offices of Neal Brickman, P.C., New York, NY, for Plaintiff.

Lewis R. Silverman, Silverman and Associates, White Plains, NY, for Defendants.

OPINION & ORDER

NELSON S. ROMAN, United States District Judge

Plaintiff Stephen P. Walsh ("Plaintiff" or "Walsh") commenced this action against his former employer, the Scarsdale Union Free School District ("Scarsdale" or "SUFD") and Michael McDermott ("McDermott") (collectively, "Defendants") on May 12, 2016. (See Complaint, (" Compl."), ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants discriminated against him because of his age and that the discrimination against him culminated in his constructive discharge. The action arises under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. and New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL") § 290 et seq. Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages and other relief, permitted under Federal and New York State anti-discrimination laws, arising from Defendants' illegal, discriminatory, and disparate treatment of Plaintiff.

Before the Court is the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's age-based discrimination and constructive discharge claims. (See Defendants' Motion, ECF No. 30.) For the following reasons, Defendants' Motion is DENIED in its entirety.

BACKGROUND¹

I. Parties

Plaintiff, Stephen P. Walsh, is a retired middle school mathematics teacher who was born in 1951 and who was first employed by Scarsdale Middle School on September 1, 1995. When he was hired, he was forty-four years old. He was awarded tenure in 1998, when he was forty-seven years old. He worked for 19 years at Scarsdale Middle School. Plaintiff intended to retire from his position at the end of the 2015-2016 school year, after his twentieth year of teaching. Instead, Plaintiff resigned from his position as a mathematics teacher by a letter dated January 13, 2015, less than a year before his planned retirement. He was 67-years old at the time.

Michael McDermott was the middle school principal during the time relevant to this lawsuit. He was part of the committee that hired Plaintiff, and he had recommended that Plaintiff be hired and awarded tenure. Further, McDermott was born in 1950 and was sixty-three to sixty-five years old in 2014-2015. McDermott is approximately one year older than Plaintiff.

II. Plaintiff's Employment History

For the first 15 years that he taught at Scarsdale, Plaintiff claims that he was never advised of any concerns or complaints by any student or parent, related to his teaching or classroom conduct. Then, towards the end of the 2010 school year, he claims that he was subject to disproportionate punishments for two minor incidents that occurred in May of 2010 and 2014, respectively. (Plaintiff's Opposition to Summary Judgment, ("Pl. Opp.") at 2, ECF No. 36.)

III. First Incident (May 11, 2010)

The first incident, which occurred in May 2011, involved another teacher, Alex Campbell, who had previously granted Plaintiff permission to come into her classroom and discuss the issue of students being tardy to her class and blaming it on Mr. Walsh keeping them late. (Pl. 56.1 ¶ 39, ECF No. 42.) On May 11, 2010, Plaintiff went down to Ms. Campbell's class and addressed the students about the issues of their being late and lying. (Id. ) When Plaintiff finished addressing Ms. Campbell's class, he claims that she suggested that he go next door to the classroom of another teacher, Cara Forray, and do the same thing. So, he did. According to Defendants, on these occasions, Plaintiff spoke to the students in more than just a disciplinary tone—he was "belligerent and caustic" and frightened students and the teachers with a "complete and total tirade." (Id. ¶ 41.) Plaintiff disagrees. He admits that his tone was disciplinary, but is adamant that it was never "belligerent," "caustic," nor a "tirade." (Id. ¶ 39.)

The parties dispute the extent to which Ms. Campbell and Ms. Forray were distressed by the encounter. The two of them did write a memorandum about the incident, and subsequently, on May 17, 2010, Plaintiff and McDermott had a meeting about it. McDermott then made a referral for Plaintiff to the District's Employee Assistance Program ("EAP.") This referral required that Plaintiff attend a meeting with the EAP Coordinator, Dr. Irma Van Dam.

According to Plaintiff, when he met with Dr. Van Dam, she advised him that there was nothing "wrong" with him, that he did not need counseling, and that he should continue to do what he had done for 15 years. (Pl. Opp. at 3.) But, according to Plaintiff, she also suggested – numerous times – that he should "consider" retirement. (Id. )

In addition, McDermott placed Plaintiff on "full review" status. As part of being on "full review," McDermott told Plaintiff that he would be formally and informally observed over the course of the next year, with an administrator observing at least one of his classes daily. This was the first time that Plaintiff was placed on "full review" status. McDermott then memorialized the meeting, from his perspective, in a letter/memorandum, dated May 20, 2010. (See May 20, 2010 Letter, Exhibit E, ECF No. 31.) Plaintiff vehemently disputes the truth of the statements in the letter, including McDermott's characterizations of Plaintiff.

According to Plaintiff, the formal and informal observations proceeded sporadically for about one month and then ended abruptly without Plaintiff receiving any feedback, counseling, or advice regarding deficiencies. (Id. ) But at the end of the school year, in May 2010, Plaintiff received, for the first time in his teaching career, an "unsatisfactory" performance review. (See Professional Performance Review, Ex. 15, ECF No. 35.)

IV. Second Incident (May 1, 2014)

The second incident occurred on May 1, 2014. That day, Plaintiff was proctoring a New York State Math Assessment. While proctoring the test, about half-an-hour before it was supposed to end, Plaintiff claims that he began to hear loud noises coming from outside his classroom. Plaintiff claims that, after calling the chairperson of the mathematics department and receiving no reply or help, he left his classroom to investigate the noise's source, which he learned was from the classroom next door. There, Plaintiff saw chaos in a room where an exam was supposedly being proctored by Steven Goodman. Plaintiff describes witnessing a scene where "the source of the noisy disturbance [was] students up out of their seats, talking loudly, playing chess and handling the scantrons for the exams, which ... [was] disturb[ing] his students and violated the testing protocol." (Pl. 56.1 ¶ 52.) Plaintiff claims that, in response to witnessing this unexpected conduct, he raised his voice to ask the students to sit down and be quiet. (Id. )

Defendants disagree about exactly how the classroom encounter went. They contend that Plaintiff was disproportionately angry and used a loud voice, yelling in the classroom and hallway, and shouting obscenities.

(Pl. 56.1 ¶¶ 54-55.) Plaintiff states that no one saw him entering or exiting the classroom, and that he does not recall whether he used an obscenity after he left, but knows that no one else was present and close enough to him to have accurate personal knowledge.

Plaintiff subsequently met with McDermott about this issue on May 5, 2014. During this meeting, McDermott mentioned the mathematics exam incident and also discussed other performance issues, such as Plaintiff's purported lateness and certain alleged parental complaints. McDermott also raised an incident in which Plaintiff had "interjected himself into Jeanne-Marie Castiello's class when an outside instructor from Lincoln Center was present." Plaintiff does not dispute that McDermott raised this incident, but disputes the characterization of it, noting that Ms. Castiello found nothing disruptive about his going into her class and told this to McDermott. Plaintiff adds that Ms. Castiello refused McDermott's request to document this alleged incident. Plaintiff and Defendants similarly dispute the relevance and egregiousness of several other purported "incidents" that McDermott raised during this meeting.

McDermott characterized Plaintiff's attitude as "dismissive" and wrote that Plaintiff attempted to "explain away, minimize or blame others" for his behavior. McDermott also stated that Plaintiff's conduct "represents a pattern of behavior" that had been previously reported and discussed. Plaintiff disagreed and felt that his behavior was being purposefully manipulated and overblown. Plaintiff raised these concerns with his Union, (Walsh Dep. at 71-73, Ex. 2, ECF No. 35 ), and with Dr. Weber, (Weber Dep. at 125, Ex. 3, ECF No. 35 ), but to no avail. McDermott then, again, referred Plaintiff to Dr. Van Dam.

In addition to meeting with Dr. Van Dam at the EAP, Plaintiff was told he would be required to sign in on a daily basis and either McDermott or Assistant Principal Rochelle Hauge would be required to preview any written communications about students before any meetings. In addition, McDermott changed Plaintiff's house assignment and again placed Plaintiff on "full review" for the 2014/2015 school year. Plaintiff was told about the decision to place him on "full review" during a meeting on May 5, 2014, attended by: McDermott, the Assistant Principal Rochelle Hauge, Mathematics Department Chair Cindy Parrott, and Scarsdale Teachers Association Union Representative Laurie Ciccone.

Plaintiff was then given a letter/counseling memorandum summarizing the meeting and indicating that he would be put on full review for the following year on May 14, 2014. The letter advised Plaintiff that the full review would consist of one of his...