Bianchi v. Rochester City Sch. Dist.

CHRIS BIANCHI, Plaintiff, v. ROCHESTER CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants.

Case # 16-CV-6840-FPG

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

September 30, 2019

DECISION AND ORDER

INTRODUCTION

Pro se Plaintiff Chris Bianchi¹ brings this employment discrimination action against Defendants Rochester City School District, Bryant Cromartie, and Rodney Moore. Defendants have moved for summary judgment on all of Bianchi's claims. ECF No. 38. Bianchi opposes the motion. ECF No. 56. In addition, Defendants have filed a motion for miscellaneous relief. ECF No. 57. The Court resolves both motions in this omnibus order. For the reasons that follow, Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, and their motion for miscellaneous relief is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate when the record shows that there is "no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). Disputes concerning material facts are genuine where the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). In decidingwhether genuine issues of material fact exist, the court construes all facts in a light most favorable to the non-moving party and draws all reasonable inferences in the non-moving party's favor. See Jeffreys v. City of New York, 426 F.3d 549, 553 (2d Cir. 2005). However, the non-moving party "may not rely on conclusory allegations or unsubstantiated speculation." F.D.I.C. v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 607 F.3d 288, 292 (2d Cir. 2010) (quotation omitted).

BACKGROUND

Consistent with the applicable standard of review, the following narrative consists of the undisputed facts and the disputed facts taken in the light most favorable to Bianchi. Logical Operations Inc. v. 30 Bird Media, LLC, 354 F. Supp. 3d 286, 293 (W.D.N.Y. 2018).

Bianchi is Caucasian and has been employed as a teacher for the school district since 2007. From July 2012 to November 2015, Bianchi worked at the Nathaniel Rochester Community School—where the events underlying this litigation took place. During Bianchi's tenure, Cromartie was the assistant principal and Moore was the principal of the school. Both are African-American.

The relevant events begin in May 2014. At that time, Brian Santillo, a Caucasian teacher at the school, wrote an email complaining about how Frances Rogers, a union representative and fellow school employee, handled his grievances about the school's testing procedures. Rogers is African-American. In a responding email, another African-American teacher challenged Santillo's claims and implied that Santillo was targeting the African-American union representatives for criticism.

Rogers did not immediately wade into this dispute, but about a month later she sent out a schoolwide email with an inspirational quote about adversity. Rogers gloated that her "haters" could not get "rid of [her]" despite their "plotting against [her]." Pl. Ex. B-4. Although it did notdirectly involve him, Bianchi cites this incident as evidence of Rogers's bias against Caucasian co-workers.

Bianchi and Rogers's conflict began in Fall 2014. One of Rogers's responsibilities was to oversee the program implementing alternatives to suspension. On October 3, 2014, Bianchi sent a student out of the classroom and referred him to suspension, but Rogers returned the student to class. Bianchi complained to Principal Moore that he found it offensive he was "lectured by a substitute administrator" about classroom management. Pl. Ex. C7 at 43. On another occasion, while Bianchi was speaking with two students in his classroom, Rogers entered and yelled that the students should be going to their next class.

On October 20, 2014, Rogers sent out an email regarding teachers' classroom management. In a reply email, Bianchi questioned Rogers's credentials, her authority to set policies, and argued that "[t]eachers should not be giving teachers directives." Id. at 51. He called Rogers by her first name—Frances—in his email. Id. Rogers responded that she found his reply "amusing," asserted that he should not "indirectly attack [her]," and stated that she did not want Bianchi addressing her by first name. Id.at 50.

On Halloween, Bianchi came to school dressed as Francis Scott Key. He wore a name tag that said "Frances" on it. Although Bianchi argues that this costume was not provocative, Rogers believed that Bianchi's costume was intended to antagonize her. She filed an administrative discrimination complaint against Bianchi, which was later deemed unfounded.

On December 19, 2014, Bianchi and Rogers were in the school office at the same time. Bianchi was speaking with a student about his Christmas costume. He said, "[If] you liked my Halloween costume[,] you will love this." Pl. Ex. C1 at 95. At that moment, Rogers confronted Bianchi and asked if he was "trying to be funny." Id. Bianchi and Rogers argued back and forthuntil Bianchi left with the student, placing his arm on her shoulder. As they walked down the hallway, Rogers followed behind them yelling "INAPPROPRIATE TEACHER-STUDENT CONTACT!" Id. at 96. Bianchi claims that the contact was, in fact, appropriate. Later that day, Rogers and another teacher, Jewell Brown, attempted to convince the student to say that the contact had been inappropriate. This failed: Bianchi asserts that at a subsequent meeting between Bianchi, Rogers, Moore, Cromartie, the student, and the student's mother, it was found that "Bianchi was telling the truth and Rogers was lying." ECF No. 56 at 14. Nonetheless, Bianchi claims that, after the incident, other staff members sometimes joked about him "inappropriately touching students." Pl. Ex. C3 at 131.

In addition, at some point on the same day, Rogers emailed senior school-district administrators complaining that a flier Bianchi had disseminated was offensive.

On January 15, 2015, while Bianchi was walking down the hallway, a student yelled "Hi Uncle Bianchi" from an adjacent office. Brown was in the office at the time. When Bianchi greeted the student, he noticed Brown whisper in the student's ear. Later, the student reported that Brown had discouraged her from calling Bianchi by that term.

On February 25, 2015, Bianchi and Rogers had another conflict when Rogers entered his classroom without permission. The record does not disclose the details of this incident.

Bianchi constantly complained of Rogers's actions during the 2014-2015 school year to school officials. In Bianchi's view, however, neither Moore nor Cromartie took sufficient action to respond to his complaints or discipline Rogers.

At the start of the next school year, Bianchi clashed with Clara Berry, an African-American special education teacher. Berry provided services to some of the students in Bianchi's classroom. After class on Thursday, September 17, 2015, Berry confronted Bianchi, asserting that he was notfollowing the curriculum correctly. She also implied that he helped his students cheat on their final examinations.

Later that day, Bianchi met with Cromartie and Berry to discuss the confrontation. During the discussion, Berry accused Bianchi of having dressed in "blackface." She also questioned why Bianchi—i.e., a Caucasian man—was playing Bob Marley in class. Bianchi reported Berry's comments to Moore, concerned that the rumor would poison his relationship with African-American staff members and students. Bianchi, Moore, and Cromartie all discussed the issue and agreed that the rumor was slanderous and created a hostile work environment.

Moore instructed Bianchi to stay home on Friday until he could make a plan to remedy the situation. On Sunday, Moore and Bianchi spoke by phone. Bianchi vented his frustration about the rumor and expressed his concern about how staff, parents, and students would treat him.² Bianchi stated that the "best thing for [him] to feel comfortable" would be to take Monday off until a plan could be formulated that would allay his concerns about Berry and the rumors. Pl. Ex. W9 at 13:45. Bianchi elaborated that he could have an "edge" when someone intimidates him, and he did not want to put himself in a situation where that "side" of him would "come out." Moore agreed with that approach.

Bianchi took work off on Monday, September 21, 2015. Later that day, Moore and Bianchi spoke by phone to assess the situation. Bianchi reiterated his concerns about the rumor and informed Moore that he was meeting with the investigator on Thursday. Bianchi suggested that he meet with the investigator and then come "into school after [he] talk[s] with the guy." Pl. Ex.W10 at 16:45. Moore responded that he was "not telling [Bianchi] what to do" but that "may be the best thing." Id.

On Thursday, September 24, 2015, Bianchi spoke with Moore by phone. During that conversation, Bianchi noted a union representative's suggestion that he stay home on Friday and "start fresh on Monday." Pl. Ex. W8 at 3:20. Moore stated that he "was going to say that too." Id. They agreed that Bianchi would return to school on Monday.

Bianchi returned to work on Monday, September 28, 2015, but not without incident. While Bianchi was walking in the hallway, Berry aggressively approached him, stepped into his personal space, and sarcastically stated "WELCOME BACK." Bianchi and Rob Burns, an assistant principal at the school who witnessed the incident, immediately informed Moore. Bianchi alleges that Moore was unduly skeptical and questioned whether Berry had actually made the statement in a "taunting way." ECF No. 38-3 at 44.

After this incident, Moore told Bianchi to "go home and [that] he would contact him when he had everything figured out." ECF No. 56 at 33. Bianchi remained out of school on paid leave for approximately one month.

On October 26, 2015, while still out on leave, Bianchi met...