Bodenmiller v. Cnty. of Suffolk

ROBERT W. BODENMILLER, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, SUFFOLK COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT, SCOTT COYNE, Individually, and in his capacity as Chief Surgeon, Medical Evaluation Section, Suffolk County Police Department, and EDWARD STAINKAMP, Individually, and in his capacity as Commanding Officer, Medical Evaluation Section, Suffolk County Police Department, jointly and severally, Defendants.

No. 20-CV-00414 (JMA) (LGD)

United States District Court, E.D. New York

February 24, 2023

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

LEE G DUNST UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Presently before the Court is Robert W. Bodenmiller's (“Plaintiff”) first motion to amend the Complaint at Electronic Case File Number (“ECF No.”) 25. In support of the motion to amend are filings by Plaintiff at ECF Nos. 26, 31, 32, and 34. The County of Suffolk (“County”), the Suffolk County Police Department (“SCPD”), Scott Coyne^[1]individually, and in his capacity as Chief Surgeon, Medical Evaluation Section, SCPD and Edward Stainkamp, individually, and in his capacity as Commanding Officer, Medical Evaluation Section, SCPD (collectively “Defendants”) oppose the motion. ECF No. 29. For the reasons discussed below, this Court respectfully recommends that Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an Amended Complaint be DENIED WITH PREJUDICE.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Plaintiff's Complaint And Defendants' Motion To Dismiss

Plaintiff commenced this case on January 24, 2020. ECF No. 1. On November 4, 2020, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss (ECF No. 19), which was referred to Magistrate Judge Arlene R. Lindsay for a Report and Recommendation on May 25, 2021.^[2] May 25, 2021 Order.

On August 30, 2021, Judge Lindsay issued a Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 20) granting in part and denying in part Defendants' motion to dismiss, as follows: (1) all claims against the SCPD be dismissed with prejudice (id. at 11); (2) all claims against Defendants Coyne and Stainkamp under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et seq., and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794(a) (the “Rehabilitation Act”) be dismissed with prejudice (ECF No. 20 at 11); (3) Plaintiff's failure to accommodate claims under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act on the basis of lack of reasonable accommodations that were requested by Plaintiff be dismissed (id. at 16-18); (4) Plaintiff's claims against Defendants for disability discrimination on the basis of disparate treatment be dismissed (id. at 18-20); (5) “Plaintiff's claim for disability discrimination against the County, and the Individual Defendants be dismissed, because Plaintiff failed to allege a causal connection between the adverse employment action and the protected activity” (id. at 2023); (6) Plaintiff's Monell claims against the SCPD be dismissed (id. at 24-25); (7) the motion to dismiss the Monell claim against the Individual Defendants be denied, since the claim was not asserted against the Individual Defendants (id. at 24); (8) the Monell claim against the County be dismissed (id. at 25); (9) the claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”) be dismissed against the Individual Defendants (ECF No. 20 at 25-28); (10) Plaintiff's claims for discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause asserted against the Individual Defendants in their official capacity must be dismissed (id. at 28); (11) Plaintiff's fourth claim for relief (violation of the ADA and Rehabilitation Act by persons acting under color of law) and seventh claim for relief (violation of Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection of the law by persons acting under color of law) be dismissed, because they are duplicative of the eighth claim for relief against the County (violation of Plaintiff's rights under the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Fourteenth Amendment by a municipal entity - Section 1983 and Monell) (ECF No. 20 at 28); (12) Plaintiff's claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress be dismissed (id. at 29-32); (13) Plaintiff's claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress be dismissed (id. at 32-34); (14) Plaintiff's claim for prima facie tort be dismissed (id. at 35); (15) Plaintiff's claim for vicarious liability be dismissed (id. at 35-36); and (16) Plaintiff's cross motion to amend be denied with leave to refile (id. at 36-37).

Plaintiff objected to the Report and Recommendation. ECF No. 23. On October 5, 2021, Judge Azrack held, “the Court adopts Judge Lindsay's R&R with respect to her recommendation that all of Plaintiff's claims be dismissed except for his failure to accommodate claims. The Court, however, will reserve decision on Plaintiff's failure to accommodate claims based on his application regarding filing an amended complaint.” ECF No. 24. Judge Azrack afforded Plaintiff the opportunity to move to amend his complaint. Id. at 2. However, Judge Azrack stated:

[T]he Court is skeptical that Plaintiff can allege plausible, non-conclusory claims of discrimination, retaliation, and Monell liability. Plaintiff's allegations concerning allegedly similarly situation comparators are patently deficient. Plaintiff has also failed to allege sufficient details concerning the circumstances of the adverse actions to plausibly suggest discrimination or retaliation. The Court is also skeptical that Plaintiff can plausibly allege that, under the circumstances here, his accommodation request was reasonable.

Id. at 2.

B. Plaintiff's Proposed Amended Complaint

As per Judge Azrack's order, Plaintiff filed a proposed Amended Complaint (“PAC”) on November 2, 2021. ECF No. 25-2. The facts discussed below are derived from the PAC and, when noted otherwise, from pleadings in this case.

Plaintiff is a resident of Suffolk County and was hired by the County and the SCPD as a Police Officer in 1986 (a position that he still held as of the date of the PAC). Id. ¶¶ 5 & 13. Defendant Scott Coyne is a Suffolk County Police Inspector and Chief Surgeon of the Medical Evaluation Section (“MEU”) of the SCPD. Id. ¶ 8. Defendant Edward Stainkamp is the Commanding Officer of the MEU of the SCPD. Id. ¶ 9. According to Plaintiff, Coyne and Stainkamp allegedly had:

final policy and decision making authority (1) to determine whether disabled Police Officers being paid by the COUNTY their full salary, in accordance Municipal Law § 207-c and designed, for periods of disability by the COUNTY and SCPD as being on “401” (line-of-duty; 207-c) status (hereinafter, “401 paid leave”), including plaintiff, are permitted to use and possess firearms in accordance with privileges otherwise afforded them as sworn police officers in New York State or whether, conversely, those privileges should be in any respect be restricted or terminated; and (2) to determine whether Police Officers on 401 paid leave, including plaintiff, are permitted to undergo firearms training and/or qualify to possess and use firearms.

Id. ¶ 11. The Defendants also allegedly had full authority to determine when officers on 401 would be subject to “surveillance.” Id. ¶ 12.

While on duty on August 4, 2010, Plaintiff sustained an injury to his left shoulder. Id. ¶ 15. As a result, he was disabled and unable to work as a Police Officer until approximately April 2011. Id. ¶ 16. While disabled from work, he was paid full salary and designated as being on 401 paid leave and was reassigned to the MEU. Id. ¶ 17.

In approximately April 2011, he was reassigned back to the First Precinct of the SCPD and worked in a limited duty or “light duty” capacity. Id. ¶ 18.

About one year later, on March 12, 2012, he reinjured his left shoulder and left elbow while on duty. Id. ¶ 19. He underwent surgery in January 2013 and was disabled for more than two years and did not work in any capacity as a Police Officer with the County. Id. ¶ 20. During this time, Plaintiff was paid his full salary. Id. ¶ 21. On approximately August 28, 2015, Plaintiff returned to work in a limited or “light duty” capacity at the First Precinct. Id. ¶ 22. Several months later, on approximately November 15, 2015, Plaintiff reinjured his left shoulder. Id. ¶ 23.

According to Plaintiff, a Police Officer assigned to MEU must submit to a medical examination or face discipline. Id. ¶ 27. An officer who disputes a finding by the Police Surgeon that he is fit to work may submit to an examination by another physician or challenge the determination in an administrative hearing. Id. ¶ 29.

On February 21, 2018, Plaintiff filed his first complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights (“NYSDHR”) alleging an unlawful practice relating to employment because of disability and “dual filed” a similar complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). Id. ¶ 31. These complaints allege that, on February 9, 2018, he was “berated by his supervisor . . . [Stainkamp] and told that going forward, upon appearing at the offices to the SCPD for purposes of submitting to an examination by a Police Surgeon, he was prohibited from going anywhere else in the building or speaking to anyone he may encounter.” Id. He also challenged the policy of having to report for frequent examinations by MEU Police Surgeons. Id. In a May 25, 2018 letter to supervising officer Sergeant Colleen Cooney, he advised that “[t]he situation has continued to accelerate and the level of harassment, intimidation and now retribution has increased substantially.” Id. ¶ 30. On August 21, 2018, the NYSDHR found “no evidence respondent's actions were motivated by discriminatory animus,” and on October 30, 2018, the EEOC issued a dismissal. ECF Nos. 29-3 & 29-4.

Plaintiff submitted to an examination on May 30, 2018 by Defendant Coyne, who determined that Plaintiff was capable to return to work in...