Bennett v. N.Y. State Thruway Auth.

1

WILLIAM PAUL BENNETT, Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY AUTHORITY, JOANNE M. MAHONEY, MAYOR MATTHEW DRISCOLL, JAMES KONSTALID, JOHN BARR, FRANK MULTARI, MARY BOEHM, CARLOS MILLAN, PATRICK HOEHN, KEVIN POST, ROBERT DRESSING, BARRY OAKSFORD, MICHAEL BLAIS, TODD SUMMERSON, and DAVID NAPLES, Defendants.

No. 6:22-CV-337

United States District Court, N.D. New York

March 11, 2024

APPEARANCES:

WILLIAM PAUL BENNETT

Plaintiff, Pro Se

OF COUNSEL:

ERIN P. MEAD, ESQ.

STACEY A. HAMILTON, ESQ.

Ass't Attorneys General

HON. LETITIA A. JAMES

New York State Attorney General

Attorneys for Defendants

DECISION AND ORDER

DAVID N. HURD, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

On April 8, 2022, pro se plaintiff William Paul Bennett (“plaintiff”), a New York State Thruway Authority (“NYSTA”) employee, filed this action alleging that his employer and fourteen high-ranking or supervisory NYSTA officials violated his civil rights by, inter alia, disciplining him under policies and directives related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Dkt. No. 1. Along with his initial complaint, plaintiff moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP Application”), Dkt. No. 2, and to have counsel appointed to assist him, Dkt. No. 4. Thereafter, plaintiff also filed an amended complaint. Dkt. No. 5.

Plaintiffs amended complaint clocks in at 142 pages. It asserts federal claims under various provisions of the U.S. Constitution, the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, 351(e), 28 U.S.C. § 4101, and related state law. Plaintiff seeks a total of $39,312,655.65 in damages as well as declaratory and injunctive relief.

On June 10, 2022, U.S. Magistrate Judge Miroslav Lovric conducted a review of plaintiffs IFP Application. Dkt. No. 6. There, Judge Lovric noted that plaintiff was still employed by the NYSTA and receiving his regular, biweekly wages. Id. Plaintiff also co-owned some real estate with a non-zero fair market value. Id. Because his earnings and holdings put him well above the poverty line, Judge Lovric denied plaintiff's IFP Application. Id. Judge Lovric also denied plaintiff's motion for counsel. Id. However, Judge Lovric gave plaintiff thirty days in which to pay the filing fee. Id. Plaintiff promptly did so. Thereafter, summonses were issued, Dkt. No. 10, and all of the named defendants appeared in this action on July 25, 2022, Dkt. No. 20.

On October 31, 2022, defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint. Dkt. Nos. 32, 33. Plaintiff opposed. Dkt. No. 39. The matter was reassigned to this Court on February 16, 2024. Dkt. No. 56.

The motion has been fully briefed and will be considered on the basis of the submissions without oral argument.^[1]

II. BACKGROUND

The following facts are taken from plaintiff's amended complaint and its attached exhibits, Dkt. No. 5, and are assumed true for the purpose of assessing defendants' motion to dismiss.

On February 11, 2016, the NYSTA hired plaintiff in the title of General Mechanic / HVAC worker. Am. Compl. at 14.^[2] Plaintiffs interview was conducted by defendant Oaksford and non-party Chandler. Id. During the interview, plaintiff had “a full beard and mustache.” Id. Although neither Oaksford nor Chandler mentioned it at the interview, plaintiff was later told by Oaksford that he “would be required to shave for a mandatory respirator fit test.” Id. Plaintiff alleges that that no maintenance employees besides Chandler “had used a respirator during the preceding ten (10) years.” Id.

Plaintiff submitted a “Request for Reasonable Accommodation,” in which he requested that he “be permitted to be excused from shaving and the subsequent fit test as respirators are not typically used by anyone in [his] job description.” Am. Compl. at 14. According to plaintiff, “the presence of [his] facial hair was part of [his] firmly held religious beliefs and practices.” Id. The NYSTA asked for “additional documentation.” Id. Thereafter, plaintiffs request for a Reasonable Accommodation was granted. Id. at 14-15.

A year later, plaintiff received a notice informing him that he would need to re-apply for this Reasonable Accommodation. Am. Compl. at 15. When he asked why this was required, plaintiff “was informed by various NYSTA management and EEOC [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission] personnel that such re-application is to make sure that no change in status existed.” Id. “NYSTA EEOC personnel instructed [plaintiff] to fill out the appropriate form and to put wording to the effect that there were no changes to the previous annual application.” Id. Thereafter, plaintiff forwarded the re-application to EEOC. Id.

Shortly after mailing away his re-application, plaintiff and his co-workers “were assigned to a training class which was held in the break area” of the maintenance facility. Am. Compl. at 15. Defendant Post was the training class instructor. Id. At the end of the training, Post approached plaintiff “to tell [him] that he had seen [plaintiff's] second application for Reasonable Accommodation and that it was incomplete.” Id. Post told plaintiff he “had to submit new documentation, specifically referring to a letter on Church letterhead from the parish priest.” Id. Plaintiff responded that he had already followed the EEOC's instructions. Id.

At that time, Post “proceeded to raise his voice and chastise [plaintiff] in front of his [fellow co-workers] with words that included ‘This isn't a fight you want to take on.'” Am. Compl. at 15. Plaintiff walked away. Id. But he did not file a grievance against Post. Id. Soon thereafter, plaintiff learned that an NYSTA employee named Chris Dulong “was also involved in disciplinary issues regarding facial hair and fit testing requirements” and was later terminated. Id. at 15-16.

Thereafter, plaintiff and non-parties Chandler and Bentley were assigned to a NYSTA facility in Utica. Am. Compl. at 16. At some point, Bentley was injured and unable to work. Id. So plaintiff took a “two[-]week period of employment known as ‘Out of Title.'” Id. During that period, plaintiff learned and performed the duties of a “Maintenance Supervisor I,” which is the job title that Bentley held. Id.

While performing in that position, plaintiff attempted to complete a job at a NYSTA facility in Herkimer. Am. Compl. at 16. But there was an issue with scheduling, so plaintiff told defendant Blais that the job would have to be rescheduled. Id. Blais “lost his temper” and “started yelling at [plaintiff],” including shouting that plaintiff didn't “care about taking care of matters at his facility.” Id. Plaintiff “called” Blais on his “demeanor” and Blais “apologize[d] and revert[ed] to a civil tone.” Id

On April 17, 2020, NYSTA, with the approval of defendants Mahoney, Driscoll, Konstalid, Barr, Multari, Boehm, and Millan, published and distributed a document called “Safety Gram #192.” Am. Compl. ¶ 1. This document “is the first official mention of [a] requirement of use of masks or facial coverings and the proper use thereof.” Id. According to plaintiff, this Safety Gram is a breach of a collective bargaining agreement that applies to him. Id. ¶ ¶ 1, 5, 18. According to plaintiff, one or more of the named defendants violated his civil rights by wrongfully applying this Safety Gram against him. Id. ¶¶ 2-4.

On or about June of 2020, defendants “established a policy regarding a requirement that all YSTA employees complete a ‘Wellness Survey.'” Am. Compl. ¶ 11. Plaintiff alleges that this policy is also a breach of the collective bargaining agreement. Id. Plaintiff further alleges that he suffered from an unidentified medical condition that made it difficult for him to complete this survey. Id. ¶ 13. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Post knew this. Id.

On or about July 21, 2020, plaintiff attended a training session at an NYSTA facility in Herkimer. Am. Compl. ¶ 15. The training was conducted by defendant Naples. Id. Plaintiff had previously talked with Naples about his Reasonable Accommodation related to his beard, so plaintiff approached Naples to tell him that he believed that Safety Gram #192 violated the collective bargaining agreement and his civil rights. Id. Plaintiff alleges that Naples “failed to act” on this verbal; i.e., “non-written” request for a Reasonable Accommodation. Id.

On September 30, 2020, defendant Post issued a Memorandum to NYSTA employees about the then-ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Ex. 7 to Am. Compl. at 88; Am. Compl. ¶ 51. Among other things, this Memorandum required all employees to wear masks indoors in “all public / common areas.” Id. This Memorandum cautioned that “blatant disregard for the protocols will be addressed appropriately.” Id.

On October 1, 2020, plaintiff was using a urinal in the men's bathroom when defendant Blais entered the room and ordered plaintiff “to put a mask on.” Am. Compl. ¶ 17. Plaintiff responded to Blais that he had two doctor's notes that allowed him “to not wear a mask as long as [he] was social distancing.” Id. Defendant Blais reported this interaction to his supervisor, who in turn reported it to defendant Post. Id. ¶¶ 27, 31.

Several hours later, the NYSTA issued to plaintiff a Job Counseling Memo (“JCM”) based on his failure to comply with the NYSTA safety policies and his failure to follow supervisory directives. Ex. 4 to Am. Compl. at 77; Am. Compl. ¶¶ 35, 37. The JCM warned plaintiff that “[s]imilar problems in the future may lead to an Unsatisfactory Performance Rating and/or disciplinary action.” Id.

Later that day, plaintiff contacted defendant Naples, the EEOC official at the NYSTA, to tell him about what had...