Wong v. Blind Brook-Rye Union Free Sch. Dist.

• Decision Date: 12 December 2022
• Docket Number: 20-CV-2718 (CS)
• Parties: TRACEY WONG, Plaintiff, v. BLIND BROOK-RYE UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, JONATHAN ROSS, individually, and PATRICIA LAMBERT, individually, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

1

TRACEY WONG, Plaintiff, v. BLIND BROOK-RYE UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, JONATHAN ROSS, individually, and PATRICIA LAMBERT, individually, Defendants.

No. 20-CV-2718 (CS)

United States District Court, S.D. New York

December 12, 2022

Tracey Wong Pro Se Plaintiff

Scott P. Quesnel Girvin & Ferlazzo, P.C. Counsel for Defendants

OPINION & ORDER

CATHY SEIBEL, U.S.D.J.

Before the Court are the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. (ECF Nos. 44, 61.) For the following reasons Defendants' motion is GRANTED and Plaintiff's motion is DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND

This case arises out of the alleged discrimination and retaliation that Plaintiff Tracey Wong claims to have experienced at her former workplace, the Blind Brook-Rye Union Free School District (the “District”).

A. Facts

The following facts are based on the parties' Local Civil Rule 56.1 Statements, responsive 56.1 Statements declarations, and supporting materials.^[1] The facts are undisputed except as noted.

Plaintiff Tracey Wong brings this action against the District, Jonathan Ross, and Patricia Lambert. (ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”).) Plaintiff identifies as an Asian-American woman of Chinese immigrant origins. (P's Aff. ¶ 6.) The District is a public school district located in Westchester County, New York. (ECF No. 45 (“Ds' 56.1 Stmt.”) ¶ 1.) During the relevant period, Defendant Ross was the District's Superintendent of Schools and Defendant Lambert was the Principal of the District's high school. (Id. ¶¶ 2-3.)

1. Plaintiff's Hiring

The District's middle and high schools are located on the same campus but are in different buildings that are connected by the Monroe E. Haas Instructional Media Center (the “IMC”), which is the library for both schools. (Id. ¶ 5.) The IMC is centrally located and students from sixth to twelfth grade go to the IMC to study and learn. (Id. ¶ 6.) At the high school, there are no assigned study halls, so students often go to the IMC to have a quiet place to study. (Id. ¶ 7.) Defendants Ross and Lambert both describe the District as high performing, where students “strive for excellence, so having a quiet place to study is very important to [the] upper-level students and their parents.” (ECF No. 48 (“Ross Aff.”) ¶ 5; ECF No. 65-1 (“Lambert Aff.”) ¶ 4.)

The District employs a Library Media Specialist (“LMS”) who oversees and coordinates activities in the IMC. (Ds' 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 9; Lambert Aff. ¶ 5.) Jean Follansbee, who is older than Plaintiff, served as the District's LMS for about eleven years and retired at the end of the 20162017 school year. (Ross Aff. ¶¶ 6, 13; Lambert Aff. ¶¶ 5, 15.) In the summer of 2017, the District publicly advertised for the vacant probationary LMS position, and received about sixteen applications, including Plaintiff's. (Ross Aff. ¶ 6; Lambert Aff. ¶ 5.) At this time, Plaintiff was about a month away from her fiftieth birthday and had three Masters' degrees and about sixteen years of experience. (Ds' 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 64, 67.) She was also tenured by a New York public school district. (ECF No. 67 (“Ds' Reply 56.1 Stmt.”) ¶ 6.) Plaintiff has received various awards, including from ALA Scholastic Publishing in 2016 and the Lemelson-MIT InvenTeam in 2017. (ECF No. 62 (“P's 56.1 Stmt.”) ¶ 1.)

The District selected Plaintiff, along with five others, to interview with the hiring committee. (Ross Aff. ¶ 6; Lambert Aff. ¶ 5.) Defendant Lambert, who was about sixty-four at the time, advocated in favor of hiring Plaintiff, and Defendant Ross, who was about sixty-one at the time, interviewed Plaintiff and agreed that she was a desirable candidate. (See Ross Aff. ¶¶ 6, 14; Lambert Aff. ¶¶ 5, 16.) Plaintiff states that during one of her interviews, Defendant Lambert asked how Plaintiff felt about innovation in the school library, to which Plaintiff responded, “I want[] to run a very active and innovative school library,” and then gave Defendant Lambert examples of her vision for the library as “more than just a space to house books and for students to study.” (P's Aff. ¶ 9.) Plaintiff believes that Defendant Lambert was “excited by her innovation in previous libraries as the district was building an innovation lab,” and Defendants agree that Defendant Lambert recommended her based on, among other things, her expressed vision. (Ds' Reply 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 1.) No one made any negative comments about Plaintiff's age during the interviews, (ECF No. 47-1 (“P's Depo. 1”) at 64:24-65:1), but Plaintiff says Defendant Ross asked how many children she had and how old they were, (P's Aff. ¶ 8). Ross states that it would not be unusual for him to ask that question, because it is a selling point that employees' children can attend the District's high-performing schools without paying nonresident tuition. (Ross Aff. ¶ 15.)

Before Plaintiff was hired, in an email to Ross thanking him for the interview, she discussed some of her proposed innovations, in which she stated that she intended to “push the envelop [sic],” and that “[w]hile Blind Brook does have different dynamics and demographics [than her previous school], [she] w[ould] continue [her] grant writing on [her] own.” (ECF No. 32-3 at 2.) She also says she discussed some proposed innovations with Lambert, who was excited about them. (P's Aff. ¶ 10.) Before accepting the position, Plaintiff inquired with Lambert about extracurricular activities and the stipends available for faculty who supervised them. (ECF No. 49-1.)

After engaging with Plaintiff in salary negotiations in mid- to late July 2017, (Ross Aff. ¶ 6), Ross sent Plaintiff a letter on July 27, 2017, stating that he would recommend to the school board that she be hired for a four-year probationary term at a negotiable starting salary of $103,941, (ECF No. 48-1 at 2). Plaintiff signed at the bottom under a paragraph that stated, “I accept the terms and conditions of employment offered to me by the Blind Brook-Rye UFSD. This acceptance includes the commitment to fulfill the obligations of this employment during the 2017-2018 school year, unless released from this commitment, in writing, by the Superintendent of Schools.” (Id.) After signing the letter, however, Plaintiff reached out to Ross because she thought she was entitled to a probationary term of three years, not four, because she had received tenure at her previous school district. (P's Aff. ¶ 11; Ross Aff. ¶ 7.) Ross agreed, and on August 14, 2017, he recommended Plaintiff for a three-year probationary position as “Probationary Library Media Specialist.” (Ross Aff. ¶ 7; ECF No. 48-2 at 2.) The District's Board of Education unanimously voted to approve Ross's recommendation. (Ross Aff. ¶ 7.) The vote was memorialized in a letter from Ross to Plaintiff, dated August 15, 2017. (Id.; ECF No. 48-2 at 2.)

2. Plaintiff's Employment

According to Plaintiff, in September or October 2017, after she let Defendant Lambert know that Plaintiff “was not going to take the after school club, activities that [Lambert] wanted [Plaintiff] to take on,” (ECF No. 68-1 (“P's Depo. 2”) at 30:24-31:2; see P's Aff. ¶ 18), Lambert told Plaintiff that “if [Plaintiff] wanted to fit into the school culture, [she] needed to do the activities. [Lambert] said [Plaintiff's] children were older and [she] didn't need to be home right away.” (P's Depo. 2 at 31:3-7.) She added that failure to supervise extracurricular activities could negatively impact Plaintiff's chances for tenure. (Id. at 31:7-13.)

In mid-October 2017, Defendant Lambert learned that Plaintiff had arranged to have a graphic novelist named David Roman come to speak at the IMC. (See ECF No. 49-2 at 2; P's Aff. ¶ 19; P's Depo. 1 at 125:11-17.) Teachers at the District were instructed that ParentTeacher Association (“PTA”) funding must be approved by their principal, so teachers typically sent their PTA funding requests to Lambert, who would then forward the requests to the PTA after approving them. (Lambert Aff. ¶ 7; see P's Aff. ¶ 19.) According to Lambert, she learned of Plaintiff's proposed event shortly before it occurred, and she was concerned because Plaintiff had sought funding directly from the PTA without getting Lambert's approval. (Lambert Aff. ¶ 7.) She was also concerned that students would be encouraged to buy books and that the speaker was geared to younger readers, not the middle- and high-school students who used the IMC. (Id.) She emailed Plaintiff, expressing concerns:

Have you heard back from the PTA? Have they approved the funding? If not - you cannot continue. We need approvals before we make commitments. Also - why are we selling books? Why wouldn't we encourage students to bring their own books with them for autographs? Which book is it? These are all books for 8-11 or 13 year old students. Are you planning on sending it to high school students? Can you stop down and see me?

(ECF No. 49-2.)^[2] Lambert states that she was also concerned that Plaintiff had not solicited input from the middle and high school English departments or other faculty members before proceeding with this graphic novelist as a speaker. (Ds' 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 31.)

Plaintiff on the other hand, states that on September 11, 2017, she visited Defendant Lambert's office, where she asked for permission to host the graphic novelist, and that Lambert said was a “great idea.” (P's Aff. ¶ 19.) Plaintiff claims she had inquired about having a book fair to raise the money for Roman's honorarium, and Defendant Lambert informed her that because this was a “high performing school district,” the PTA usually funds special projects and Plaintiff did not need to fundraise herself. (Id.). Defendant Lambert then allegedly provided Plaintiff with a PTA form and told her to speak with Todd Richard, the middle school principal. (Id.) Plaintiff claims she then emailed Mr....