Blythe v. City of N.Y.

963 F.Supp.2d 158

Kathryn BLYTHE, Plaintiff,

v.The CITY OF NEW YORK, The New York City Department of Education, Rafaela Espinal–Pacheco, in her individual capacity, Vicky Broadhurst, in her individual capacity, Officer Mathew Bijou, in his individual capacity, and Lieutenant Gallagher, in his individual capacity, Defendants.

No. 08–CV–2843(RRM)(CLP).

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

Aug. 5, 2013.

Ambrose W. Wotorson, Jr., Law Offices of Ambrose Wotorson, Brooklyn, NY, for Plaintiff.

Andre Leon Lindsay, Donna A. Canfield, Jane E. Andersen, New York City Law Department, New York, NY, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

ROSLYNN R. MAUSKOPF, District Judge.

On July 16, 2008, plaintiff Kathryn Blythe brought this action against the City of New York, the New York City Department of Education (“DOE”), two employees of the DOE—Principal Rafaela Espinal–Pacheco and Assistant Principal Vicky Broadhurst—in their individual capacities (collectively “DOE defendants”), and New York Police Department (“NYPD”) Officer Bijou Mathew in his individual capacity.¹ (Doc. No. 1.) The Court granted plaintiff leave to amend her complaint on May 6, 2009, and she filed an amended complaint on May 8, 2009, adding NYPD Lieutenant Gallagher as a defendant.² (Doc. No. 16.) Plaintiff's Amended Complaint alleges race discrimination and retaliation in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983, and deprivation of a liberty interest in violation of § 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment against the DOE defendants; and false arrest and an unlawful strip search, in violation of §§ 1983 and 1985, against all defendants. Before the Court are defendants' motion for summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 (Doc. No. 55) and plaintiff's motion to file a second amended complaint (Doc. Nos. 37, 38). Plaintiff opposessummary judgment. (Doc. No. 49.) For the reasons stated below, defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, and plaintiff's motion to amend her complaint is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

The following material facts are taken from the parties' Local Rule 56.1 statements, as well as the affidavits and exhibits submitted in connection with defendants' motion for summary judgment and plaintiff's opposition thereto. The Court draws all factual inferences in favor of plaintiff at the summary judgment stage.

I. Plaintiff's Teaching Career From 1985 Through 2005

Plaintiff Kathryn Blythe, who identifies herself as African American, began working for the DOE as a per diem “Common Branches” elementary school teacher at P.S. 147 in 1985. In September 1995, plaintiff received her permanent license certification to teach Nursery, Kindergarten, and Grades 1–6. At the beginning of the 2004–2005 school year, Rafaela Espinal–Pacheco, who identifies herself as a black Hispanic of Dominican descent, became the principal of P.S. 147.

At the beginning of the 2004–2005 school year, Espinal–Pacheco told plaintiff she would specifically be coming around to check on plaintiff's performance, and that if her work was not satisfactory she could receive an “unsatisfactory” rating. When plaintiff stated that she had always had satisfactory evaluations and was therefore not concerned, Espinal–Pacheco responded by threatening that she could “go after” plaintiff's teaching license if she wanted to. (Pl.'s 56.1 (Doc. No. 50) at ¶ 35.)

Another incident occurred later that same school year, in January 2005, when an African American parent arrived at plaintiff's classroom shortly before the start of the school day in tears because Espinal–Pacheco had sent her son (who was not, and had never been, plaintiff's student) to the psychiatric ward at Woodhull Hospital. ( See Defs.' 56.1 (Doc. No. 56–1) at ¶¶ 42, 50–54; Letter of February 11, 2005 (Doc. No. 56 Ex. K); Blythe Dep. (Doc. No. 56 Ex. B) at 208–09; Espinal–Pacheco Dep. of Jan. 25, 2010 at 108–09.) While plaintiff was trying to comfort the parent, Espinal–Pacheco observed the parent in plaintiff's classroom and asked the parent to leave, indicating that plaintiff had to attend to her class. Plaintiff ignored Espinal–Pacheco, and asked the parent to come back at lunchtime, when plaintiff would have time to speak with her. Plaintiff and Espinal–Pacheco discussed this incident, along with other instances of misconduct by plaintiff, at a January 21, 2005 meeting at which plaintiff's union representative was present; Espinal–Pacheco memorialized that meeting in a February 11, 2005 disciplinary letter.

A. January 2005 Student Suspension Hearing Testimony

On January 25, 2005, plaintiff testified pursuant to a subpoena, at a Superintendent's Suspension Hearing of the student whose mother had visited plaintiff's classroom in January 2005. Plaintiff believed this testimony was contrary to Espinal–Pacheco's wishes, because Espinal–Pacheco wanted the student to be suspended. Plaintiff testified at the hearing that she believed the student was very bright and that, despite his behavioral problems, he should not be suspended or sent to a psychiatric ward. (Blythe Dep. at 24–25.) Plaintiff did not believe the student was being considered for suspension because of his race, and did not testify regarding any alleged discrimination against African American students at the Suspension Hearing. (Defs.' 56.1 at ¶ 58; Blythe Dep. at 28.) Plaintiff received a “satisfactory” rating for her performance during the 2004–2005 school year. (Defs.' 56.1 at ¶ 60.)

II. 2005–2006 School Year

A. June 1, 2006 Disciplinary Meeting and June 19, 2006 Disciplinary Letter

Plaintiff and Espinal–Pacheco had further disciplinary encounters during the 2005–2006 school year. On June 1, 2006, plaintiff met with Espinal–Pacheco, Assistant Principal Broadhurst, and a teacher representative to discuss several instances of alleged misconduct by plaintiff. Espinal–Pacheco maintained that plaintiff was absent 21 times between September 2005 and May 2006, which was excessive; that plaintiff refused to set up a meeting regarding a complaint of verbal abuse against her; and that plaintiff left a class unattended in a school hallway on May 26, 2006 while covering for another teacher. Regarding the May 26, 2006 incident, plaintiff claims that she was disciplined rather than a Hispanic teacher even though the Hispanic teacher was also at fault. Espinal–Pacheco memorialized this meeting in a letter dated June 19, 2006. (Defs.' 56.1 at ¶ 64–66.)

B. June 2006 Campaign for Union Chapter Leader

In June 2006—the same month as the disciplinary meeting and letter described above—plaintiff ran for the position of union Chapter Leader. While running for this position, plaintiff spoke out publicly regarding perceived disparate treatment by Espinal–Pacheco of Hispanic and African American parents and students, Espinal–Pacheco's interference with the PTA, and “Department of Education cronyism.” Plaintiff has not indicated the content of these statements. ( See Compl. at ¶ 13(k); Blythe Aff. (Doc. No. 51 Ex. 29) at ¶ 14; Defs.' 56.1 at ¶ 68.)

Plaintiff points to two ways in which Espinal–Pacheco treated Hispanic parents more favorably than African–American parents. First, Espinal–Pacheco allegedly “favored” a group of Hispanic parents running for membership on the school's Parent–Teacher Association over a group of African American parents. (Blythe Dep. at 196–200.) Second, Hispanic parents were allowed to come to plaintiff's classroom and talk about their children without interference from Espinal–Pacheco, but African American parents either were not allowed to visit classrooms or were abruptly asked to leave by Espinal–Pacheco. ( See Defs.' 56.1 at ¶¶ 69–73.)

Plaintiff recalled three Hispanic students whose guardians were freely allowed to visit her classroom—“Joseph's” grandmother, “Ricardo's” grandmother, and “Destiny's” mother or aunt. (Blythe Dep. at 196, 200–02.) In contrast, plaintiff described two instances in which African American parents were “followed” by Espinal–Pacheco and asked to leave plaintiff's classroom. The first is the January 2005 incident, described above, in which a distraught mother came to plaintiff's classroom at the beginning of the school day. In the second, which took place in March 2005 during “open school week” (a week where parents may tour the school and observe classes), a parent came to plaintiff's classroom to pick up her son's report card while plaintiff's students were in the room. Espinal–Pacheco came to the classroom, asked what the parent was doing there, and instructed plaintiff to attend to her class. Plaintiff then went into the hallway with Espinal–Pacheco and indicated that she wanted Espinal–Pacheco to stop harassing her and disrespecting her in front of students. (Blythe Dep. at 211–12; see Compl. at ¶ 13(i); Blythe Aff. at ¶ 12; Defs.' 56.1 at ¶¶ 72–73.)

Plaintiff also alleges that African American students were often disciplined more harshly than Hispanic students, and specifically alleges that she “never observed students, other than African American students, being sent to psychiatric wards.” (Blythe Aff. at ¶ 11.) Plaintiff does not point to specific instances, apart from the January 2005 incident, in which African American students were disciplined or referred for hospitalization.

Plaintiff received an “unsatisfactory” rating on her 2005–2006 performance evaluation, and other non-African American teachers also received unsatisfactory ratings during the 2005–2006 school year. Plaintiff appealed the U-rating, and the appeal was denied. (Defs.' 56.1 at ¶¶ 77–83.)

III. 2006–2007 School Year

On February 15, 2007, because one of plaintiff's students (“Student A”) was being disruptive and repeatedly leaving the classroom, plaintiff requested that the school's parent coordinator contact Student A's father or mother. Student A's father came to the school and met with plaintiff and Student A, who told her father in plaintiff's presence that plaintiff had scratched her when putting her back in her seat. Later that day, plaintiff...