Yang v. Dep't of Educ. of N.Y.
| Decision Date | 21 July 2016 |
| Docket Number | 14-CV-7037 (SLT) (RLM) |
| Parties | DR. HAIAI YANG, Plaintiff, v. THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, AND THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Plaintiff Huiai Yang is a Chinese-born psychologist who was formerly employed by defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York ("BOE" or "Defendant"), also known as the Department of Education of the City of New York. In November 2014, Plaintiff commenced an action against the BOE in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Kings County, alleging that she was subjected to disparate treatment and a hostile work environment on account of her national origin in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e. Defendant timely removed the case to this Court and now moves to dismiss the action pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that some claims are time-barred and that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint fails to state a plausible national origin discrimination or hostile work environment claim. For the reasons set forth below, that motion is denied in all respects.
The following facts are drawn from the Amended Complaint filed on March 6, 2015, and are assumed to be true for purposes of this memorandum and order. Plaintiff is a Chinese-born psychologist who was hired by the BOE in 2009 (¶ 6).1 She was assigned to three schools. On Mondays and Tuesdays, she worked at P721M, a "specialized school for high school students" (¶ 8). The rest of the week, she worked at P198M/P77M—two separate schools which share the same building (¶ 8).
P198M was Plaintiff's "payroll school" and its principal, Roebuck, was Plaintiff's "rating officer" for the years 2009, 2010, and 2011 (¶ 8). Dr. Fleishman—a Caucasian, Jewish woman—was Plaintiff's "psychologist supervisor" at P721M from 2009 to 2011 (Second ¶ 6), and became the psychologist supervisor at P77M in 2011 (Second ¶ 7).2 Fleishman "made frequent comments about Plaintiff's accent in a derogatory and humiliating manner" (¶ 10). Indeed, Plaintiff alleges that during every conversation with Plaintiff, Fleishman would "end up her sentences by saying to Plaintiff '...it's because you are Chinese'" (¶ 10). In addition, "[a]t meetings and in front of other colleagues[,] ... Fleishman would constantly interrupt Plaintiff to point out the fact that Plaintiff has an accent and would tell her 'Say it louder!' and '... it's because you are Chinese'" (¶ 10). Nonetheless, Plaintiff received at least three satisfactory evaluations (¶ 9).
Although Fleishman had been Plaintiff's supervisor at P721M, Plaintiff alleges that she "initially started to observe [Plaintiff] after ... Fleishman became the school psychology supervisor for P77M in 2011." (Second ¶ 7). Fleishman soon asked Plaintiff to attend her bi-weekly meeting for first-year clinicians, even though Plaintiff was in her third year as a school psychologist (¶ 11). During those meetings, Fleishman interrupted Plaintiff every time she spokeand "cast her as someone who spoke with a heavy accent and who could not be understood without constant repetition" (¶ 11). Plaintiff was humiliated, but attended these meetings for "over a year" (¶ 11).
On November 4, 2011, Plaintiff was disciplined by Fleishman and Dr. Koetke, the Caucasian principal of P77M, for an incident in which she failed to provide a copy of the "Procedural Safeguards" to a "parent coordinator" who had been sent by Koetke to obtain a copy of this document. Plaintiff did not have a copy and suggested that the parent coordinator "see whether the social worker had it" (¶ 17). Plaintiff was subsequently "written up" for not providing the document, and was accused "of being ignorant of basic federal, state and city guidelines regarding the protection of parent's rights, having a lack of team play, and cooperation" (¶ 17). Although the social worker also did not have a copy of the Procedural Safeguards, she was not disciplined (¶ 17). The Amended Complaint notes that both the social worker and the Assistant Principal, Nancy Emerick, were Puerto Rican Hispanics (¶ 17).
On December 9, 2011, Fleishman announced that she would like to observe both Plaintiff and another school psychologist—a Caucasian, Jewish woman named Dr. Ronna Rosen—at an "Educational Planning Conference" (¶ 18). Yet, Fleishman eventually observed only Plaintiff, not Rosen (¶ 18). During that conference, Fleishman "cast[ ] [Plaintiff] as incompetent" and "humiliated Plaintiff in front of all her colleagues" (¶ 18). Thereafter, Fleishman penned the first of five unsatisfactory observational reports which Plaintiff was to receive prior to her termination in June 2013 (¶ 18).
Plaintiff received a second unsatisfactory observational report from Fleishman on March 22, 2012, in connection with Fleishman's review of one of Plaintiff's initial P198M cases: akindergartner named H.L. (¶ 21). According to Plaintiff, that report was "full of erroneous information" (¶ 21). Fleishman claimed that Plaintiff had incorrectly stated that H.L had "slow processing speed," when Plaintiff had actually written that "H.L presents as an overall slow learner, she needs more time to process the information she receives auditorily" (¶ 21). At a subsequent meeting to discuss the report, Fleishman was rude, very impatient, and frequently asked Plaintiff to repeat what she said (¶ 12). She also criticized Plaintiff's writing, first claiming that a particular sentence was "written ... poorly" and, after Plaintiff explained what she meant, saying "it must be the English that Plaintiff used that caused [Fleishman] to misunderstand" (¶ 12).
Plaintiff received yet another "U" rating from Fleishman in connection with an evaluation which Plaintiff performed on a third-grade student, A.S., from P77M. Fleishman claimed that Plaintiff failed to have meeting participants introduce themselves, was unable to direct or control the meeting, and did not finalize the Individualized Education Plan ("IEP") in a timely fashion (¶ 22). Plaintiff characterizes Fleishman's criticisms as "patently false" (¶ 22). She tacitly admits that the IEP was delayed, but asserts that others caused the delay by failing to "put their pieces in," and notes that "finaliz[ing] an incomplete IEP will ultimately invalidate that IEP" (¶ 22).
A month later, Plaintiff received an "unsatisfactory" in connection with Fleishman's observation of Plaintiff's handling of a fifth-grader's case (¶ 23). Fleishman again criticized Plaintiff for failing to have the participants introduce themselves, faulted Plaintiff for not making "an opening statement of the referral question," distorted Plaintiff's statements, andincorrectly took credit for being the first at the meeting to mention "FBA" and "BIP" (¶ 23).3 Plaintiff asserts that the other participants already knew each other and already knew the child needed a FBA and BIP, and that the "'U' rating was biased and discriminatory" (¶ 23).
The last "'U' observation" which Plaintiff was to receive came from Principal Koetke, who observed Plaintiff explaining to the parents of a third grader, J.S., why their child was not entitled to certain special education services which had been recommended by an outside evaluator retained by the parents. While agreeing with the decision to deny J.S. the services, Koetke criticized Plaintiff for a "lack of formal introduction" and for "putting 'at risk' services for J.S." (¶ 24). Plaintiff asserts that Koetke's criticisms were "false," and implies that Koetke set her up for failure by purposely assigning Plaintiff "a very difficult case" (¶ 24).
Plaintiff, who was on probationary status throughout her tenure with the BOE, was terminated in June 2013 after receiving a "U" rating on her year-end review (¶¶ 9, 25). Although Plaintiff had received a satisfactory rating in 17 of 22 categories on her previous year-end review, she received only three "S" ratings in the June 2013 review: in attendance, appearance, and relationship with co-workers (¶ 25). Indeed, Plaintiff received a "U" rating in all 12 items listed under the category, "SBST Activities," despite having received a satisfactory rating in all 12 categories the preceding year (¶ 25).
Plaintiff commenced this action in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Kings County, in late 2014, alleging violations of Title VII. After Defendant removed the action to this Court in early December 2014, Plaintiff filed the Amended Complaint, the factual allegations of which are described at length above. That pleading contains two causes of action, both of which consist of a single sentence. The first alleges that Defendant violated Title VII by "subjecting Plaintiff to discrimination due to her national origin" (¶ 42). The second alleges that Defendant violated Title VII by "subjecting [P]laintiff to a hostile work environment" (¶ 43).
The first cause of action does not itself allege disparate treatment, but the Amended Complaint mentions disparate treatment in other sections (¶¶ 35, 40). The Amended Complaint states that "there were clearly differential treatments" for Plaintiff and Dr. Rosen, the other psychologist assigned to P198M and P77M. First, although Plaintiff worked only part-time, while Rosen was full-time, Plaintiff was assigned more or the same number of cases as Rosen and "the most difficult ones" (¶ 19). Rosen also received "clear preferential treatment" in that she had a bigger office which, unlike Plaintiff's, was air-conditioned and did not have to be shared with others (¶ 31). In addition, Rosen did not have to hold doors for students during fire drills, as did Plaintiff (¶ 31).
Although Ms. Emerick, who replaced Roebuck as principal of P178M, terminated Plaintiff (¶ 28), the Amended...
To continue reading
Request your trial