Bradstreet v. City of Rochester

1

ADAM BRADSTREET, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF ROCHESTER, ROCHESTER POLICE DEPARTMENT, ROCHESTER POLICE LOCUST CLUB, INC., Defendants.

No. 6:23-CV-06147 EAW

United States District Court, W.D. New York

March 19, 2024

DECISION AND ORDER

ELIZABETH A. WOLFORD CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Adam Bradstreet (“Plaintiff”) brings this action against defendants the City of Rochester (“City”), the Rochester Police Department (“RPD”), and the Rochester Police Locust Club Inc. (the “Locust Club”) (collectively “Defendants”), relating to his former employment as an RPD officer. (Dkt. 16). Plaintiff asserts claims pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”), the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the New York State Human Rights Law N.Y. Exec. Law §§ 290 et seq. (“NYSHRL”), New York Civil Service Law § 75-b, and for breach of contract, breach of duty of fair representation, constructive termination or discharge, abuse of process, fraudulent misrepresentation, and conversion. (Id.)

Presently before the Court are two motions to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), one filed by the Locust Club (Dkt. 22) and the other filed by the City (Dkt. 26).^[1] For the reasons that follow, the Locust Club's motion to dismiss (Dkt. 22) is granted. The City's motion to dismiss (Dkt. 26) is granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, the City's motion is granted with respect to Plaintiff's conversion claim. The City's motion is denied as to the other claims asserted against it.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The following facts are taken from Plaintiff's second amended complaint, which is the operative pleading. (Dkt. 16). As required at this stage of the proceedings, Plaintiff's factual allegations are treated as true.

Plaintiff served as an RPD officer from 2016 to 2021, and he was a member of the Locust Club, a police union. (Id. at ¶¶ 5, 10, 64). He completed the “Basic Course for Police Officers or Equivalent” and received multiple accolades, including the “Excellent Police Service Award,” “Officer of the Month,” two letters of recognition from the chief of the department, and a “Unit Commendation Award.” (Id. at ¶¶ 12-15, 21). Prior to joining RPD, he was a police officer in Philadelphia. (Id. at ¶¶ 7, 10).

In October 2020, Plaintiff raised concerns that identified RPD officers were engaging in misconduct and violating “the Penal Law.” (Id. at ¶ 16). Unspecified individuals told Plaintiff to “keep his mouth shut” and to avoid spreading rumors. (Id. at ¶ 16).

On October 5, 2020, Plaintiff suffered domestic violence when his then-girlfriend harassed and bit him. (Id. at ¶ 17). As a result, RPD initiated a “Professional Standards Section” (“PSS”) investigation and issued an order requiring Plaintiff to stay away from his then-girlfriend. (Id. at ¶¶ 17-18). Unidentified RPD employees “disclosed the Domestic Incident Report and [Plaintiff's] name to uninvolved parties in violation of NYS law, their training, policies and procedures.” (Id. at ¶ 19). When Plaintiff objected to this unauthorized disclosure, he “was treated differently for having spoken out[.]” (Id. at ¶ 20).

On or about January 30, 2021, Plaintiff responded to an incident on Harris Street in the City that became the subject of international news reporting. (Id. at ¶ 22). Plaintiff requested that an officer be assigned to his home, “as he had received threats, with an aerial photo of his home.” (Id. at ¶ 23). His request was denied. (Id. at ¶ 24).

Plaintiff alleges that RPD engaged in a “pattern of discrimination against him from the initial complaints of domestic violence discrimination.” (See id. at ¶¶ 25-38). On February 2, 2021, RPD placed Plaintiff on “Q time,”^[2] and eight days later, it reassigned him to a different unit, away from the unit where he preferred to work. (Id. at ¶¶ 25-26).

Also in February of 2021, the PSS investigation into Plaintiff's incident with his then-girlfriend concluded. (Id. at ¶ 27). The sergeant who conducted the investigation found the allegation against Plaintiff to be “unproveable,” but one lieutenant and RPD executive deputy chief recommended that he be terminated. (Id. at ¶¶ 27, 29). A different sergeant and another lieutenant recommended that Plaintiff be suspended for one month and two months, respectively. (Id. at ¶ 28).

On March 30, 2021, Plaintiff made another report to RPD internal affairs that identified RPD officers were engaging in misconduct. (Id. at ¶ 31). That day, agents from the City and RPD gave Plaintiff “a packet of disciplinary charges” and requested that he turn in his service gun, but they did not confiscate his badge and identification cards or suspend him. (Id. at ¶ 32). Plaintiff was also given notice of a hearing scheduled for the following month. (Id. at ¶ 33). On April 13, 2021, the City and RPD “‘preferred' the March 30, 2021 charges against [Plaintiff].” (Id. at ¶ 35). The RPD interim chief recommended Plaintiff's termination but also appointed a hearing officer for the PSS investigation. (Id. at ¶ 38).

Throughout this process, the Locust Club did not provide Plaintiff with a lawyer. (Id. at ¶¶ 37, 41). On April 30, 2021, Michael Mazzeo, the Locust Club President and an RPD employee, texted Plaintiff:

Brad, feel free to go out and tell everyone I hung up because you hurt my feelings. I have almost 700 members to take care of. I don't have time to go over and over someone who can't listen to what they are being told.....My success and my reputation speaks for me. I know what I am doing and you feel different, that does not bother me. I am not going to waste hours talking to you to try to convince you That I know what I am doing.

(Id. at ¶ 39). On May 5, 2021, Mazzeo told Plaintiff that he had an upcoming meeting with the RPD chief about Plaintiff and that while Plaintiff was entitled to an attorney through the Locust Club, the union could not provide one until the matter came before a finance committee. (See id. at ¶¶ 40-41).

In a meeting with Mazzeo, the union's attorney, and unspecified other individuals on June 29, 2021, Plaintiff said that he was being treated unfairly compared to other RPD employees facing disciplinary action and criminal accusations. (Id. at ¶ 42). This included a black female RPD officer accused of domestic menacing with a gun, a Hispanic RPD male officer accused of menacing with a gun, and a Hispanic female RPD officer accused of participating in illegal drug deals. (Id.). Plaintiff, a white male, stated during the meeting that he faced significantly more scrutiny even though the accusations against him were less severe. (See id.). Whereas he was “ultimately forced to resign and constructively terminated,” the black female officer and the Hispanic male officer were not terminated, and the Hispanic female officer was not terminated until she committed another offense. (See id. at ¶¶ 43-46). Plaintiff also was “similarly discriminated against in comparison to” a former RPD deputy chief who was rumored to have impregnated a minor. (Id. at ¶ 48).

Plaintiff received a voicemail from Mazzeo on July 3, 2021, in which Mazzeo said that Plaintiff was “driving everybody nuts” and that “[o]ne person is responsible for this and that's you, you don't wanna accept it, I'll help you any way I can, but I'm not about to have my people or me listen to your CRAP!” (Id. at ¶ 49). Plaintiff also texted Adam Devincentis, an RPD sergeant, to address the discrimination he was facing, and Devincentis responded, in part, “I am not at your beckon [sic] call so fuck off!” (Id.).

On August 12, 2021, Plaintiff was exonerated of all disciplinary charges involving the incident on Harris Street in January 2021. (See id. at ¶ 53). His civil service disciplinary hearing was scheduled for August 23, 2021, and beforehand, Mazzeo told Plaintiff that his only option was resignation because if the hearing began, resignation would be “off the table” and the hearing would become a termination hearing. (Id. at ¶ 54). No lawyer was provided to Plaintiff. (Id.). Mazzeo told Plaintiff that he was being offered a “tentative resignation” and that he would remain on “Q time,” and when the current RPD chief left, “negotiations would continue and [Plaintiff] could continue working at RPD.” (Id. at ¶ 55).

Plaintiff was called to the Locust Club headquarters on September 14, 2021, and Devincentis presented Plaintiff with papers and instructed that he sign them. (Id. ¶¶ 5657). When Plaintiff asked that a union attorney review the papers with him, Devincentis told Plaintiff that “it was a done deal” and that if he did not sign, he would be immediately terminated. (Id. at ¶¶ 57-58). According to the second amended complaint, “[Plaintiff], under duress and the previous understanding of Mazzeo signed the papers that constructively terminated him but under the guise of resignation and further with terms never negotiated or explained to him, no ability to prepare for a hearing.” (Id. at ¶ 59). The signed papers were an agreement between Plaintiff and the City in which Plaintiff purportedly agreed, among other terms, to waive legal claims against the City and voluntarily separate from his position with RPD on or before December 6, 2021, in exchange for resolving disciplinary charges and avoiding termination (“the Settlement Agreement”). (See Dkt. 21-3 at 2-4). The Settlement Agreement provides the following in relevant part:

By entering into this Agreement, Officer Bradstreet acknowledges and agrees that he hereby unconditionally releases and forever discharges the City of Rochester and the Rochester Police Department from any and all claims, demands causes of action, fees and liabilities of any

...