Carpenter v. Mohawk Valley Cmty. Coll.

JASON CARPENTER, Plaintiff, v. MOHAWK VALLEY COMMUNITY COLLEGE et al., Defendants.

6:18-cv-1268 (GLS/TWD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

April 20, 2020

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE PLAINTIFF:

Ward Arcuri Law Firm

44 Oxford Road

New Hartford, NY 13413

Law Office of Zachary C. Oren, Esq.

401 Rutger Street

Utica, NY 13501

FOR THE DEFENDANTS:

Office of Frank W. Miller

6575 Kirkville Road

East Syracuse, NY 13057

OF COUNSEL:

MICHAEL A. ARCURI, ESQ.

KEVIN J. DWYER, ESQ.

ZACHARY C. OREN, ESQ.

CHARLES C. SPAGNOLI,

ESQ.

FRANK W. MILLER, ESQ.

Gary L. Sharpe Senior District Judge

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

I. Introduction

Plaintiff Jason Carpenter brings this action against defendants Mohawk Valley Community College (MVCC), Kimberly Evans-Dame, Oneida County, and Gary Broadhurst, alleging sixteen claims pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act¹ (FLSA), 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Drivers' Privacy Protection Act² (DPPA), and New York state law. (See generally Am. Compl., Dkt. No. 31.) Now pending are defendants' motions to dismiss and/or for partial summary judgment. (Dkt. Nos. 39, 49, 50.) For the reasons stated below, defendants' motions are granted in part and denied in part.

II. Background

A. Facts³

MVCC, a community college and member of the National Junior College Athletic Association (NJCAA), is sponsored and "significantly control[led]" by Oneida County. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 17, 21, 34.) Dame and Broadhurst were employees of MVCC throughout the relevant time period. (Id. ¶¶ 24, 26.) Dame served as Executive Director of Human Resourcesand Broadhurst served as the Associate Dean of Physical Education and Athletics. (Id.) Both Dame and Broadhurst "ha[d] the power to fire and hire employees." (Id. ¶ 28.)

Carpenter was hired as the head coach of MVCC's women's basketball team in 2009. (Id. ¶ 36.) In 2010, he began to simultaneously serve as the assistant to Broadhurst. (Id. ¶ 38.) Throughout Carpenter's employment with MVCC, Dame and Broadhurst "supervise[d] and control[led] [his] work schedule, conditions of employment[,] and rate of pay," and "maintained [his] employment records." (Id. ¶¶ 29-30.)

As head coach of the women's basketball team, Carpenter was tasked with recruiting; organizing and participating in practices; reviewing film; "attend[ing] all women's basketball practices, games, [and] team meetings"; scouting; "travel[ing] to and from games with the team"; "oversee[ing] all scheduling for games and practices"; and fundraising. (Id. ¶ 41.) And, as the assistant to Broadhurst, Carpenter "develop[ed] the student athletic success program"; ensured compliance with the NJCAA's "eligibility requirements[,] which included . . . ensur[ing] students maintained eligible GPAs, [and] managing study halls"; performed on-site management at "games for all sports teams"; "coordinate[d] travel andarrange[d] for transportation for all sports teams"; filled in for Broadhurst when he was unavailable; and "implement[ed] the orders, directives[,] and directions of [Broadhurst]." (Id. ¶ 40.) All of Carpenter's actions pursuant to this role were subject to the consent and approval of Broadhurst. (Id.)

Carpenter spent approximately thirty-five hours per week in his role as assistant to Broadhurst. (Id.) And, during the basketball seasons, he spent at least the same amount of time performing his coaching duties. (Id. ¶ 42.) Carpenter was paid approximately $34,000 for his work as assistant, and was paid a stipend of between $9,000 and $12,000 each basketball season for his coaching job. (Id. ¶¶ 37, 48-49.) At the end of the 2016-17 basketball season, "MVCC paid to the assistant women's basketball coaches[] retroactive overtime pay." (Id. ¶ 53.) From February 2017 through February 2018, Carpenter was paid an additional sum of $81,541.23 as compensation for his coaching job. (Id. ¶ 55.) Prior to this, Carpenter was not offered, or paid, the overtime pay he earned while performing this job. (Id. ¶ 56.)

Carpenter had success as the head coach of MVCC's women's basketball team, reaching the national semi-finals in five seasons from 2010 through 2017. (Id. ¶ 52.) Additionally, before the 2017-18 seasonwas cancelled for reasons explained below, the team was ranked third in the country and was expected to qualify for the national semi-finals again. (Id. ¶ 65.)

As part of Carpenter's employment agreement with MVCC for his assistant job, he was subject to a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between MVCC and the MVCC Professional Association (hereinafter "the Association"). (Id. ¶ 44.) Carpenter was a dues-paying member of the Association. (Id. ¶ 47.) Pursuant to the CBA, MVCC "was required to take certain steps and follow certain procedures before terminating an employee." (Id. ¶ 46.)

At some point during the 2017-18 basketball season, Dame received information from an anonymous source that Carpenter "made an improper loan to one or more student-athletes . . . in violation of NJCAA rules[,] and that [he] was not respecting proper 'boundaries'" with the athletes. (Id. ¶ 57.) Dame knew that the anonymous source was Carpenter's ex-wife with whom he was going through a "contentious divorce." (Id. ¶¶ 57, 84.)

Dame directed Broadhurst to self-report the loan violation to the NJCAA, and to include in that report that Carpenter would be terminated as a result. (Id. ¶¶ 60-61.) This direction was made "without doing interviewswith the necessary parties, without requesting and reviewing relevant documents available to her through MVCC[,] and without conducting a proper investigation . . . or substantiation of the allegations." (Id. ¶ 62.) Carpenter alleges that Dame has a "history of performing gender biased internal administrative investigations resulting [in] terminations . . . and . . . in female replacement hires." (Id. ¶ 63.)

On February 28, 2018, Carpenter was served with a notice of termination, signed by Dame, which advised Carpenter that he was terminated for violations of the NJCAA bylaws, and because he "acted inappropriately with the student-athletes." (Id. ¶ 66.) Carpenter met with Dame on March 13, 2018, at which time she explained that this notice was actually a notice of charge, and he had not yet been terminated at that time. (Id. ¶¶ 102-04.)

B. Procedural History

Carpenter commenced this action in New York State Supreme Court in Oneida County on September 26, 2018. (Compl., Dkt. No. 2.) Defendants removed the action to this court on the basis of federal question and supplemental jurisdiction, (Dkt. No. 1), and then moved to dismiss and for summary judgment, (Dkt. No. 11). In response, Carpentercross-moved for leave to amend. (Dkt. No. 19.) The court denied defendants' motion and granted Carpenter's cross-motion for leave to amend. (Dkt. No. 22.)

Carpenter filed the amended and operative complaint on August 1, 2019,⁴ in which he alleges, sixteen causes of action. (Am. Compl.) Specifically, Carpenter asserts the following claims against all defendants: an FLSA claim; a New York Labor Law (NYLL) claim; a Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983; a Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983; a Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983; a New York Human Rights Law⁵ (NYHRL) claim; and a DPPA claim. (See generally Am. Compl.) Additionally, Carpenter alleges a Fourteenth Amendment stigma plus claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a defamation claim pursuant to New York state law against MVCC, Dame, and Oneida County only. (Id.) Finally, Carpenter asserts a gender discrimination claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against MVCCand Oneida County only. (Id.)

Motions to dismiss pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) and/or for partial summary judgment pursuant to F.R.C.P. 56 were subsequently filed by MVCC and Dame, (Dkt. No. 39); Broadhurst, (Dkt. No. 49); and Oneida County, (Dkt. No. 50).

III. Standards of Review

A. Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

The standard of review under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 is well settled and will not be repeated here. For a full discussion of the governing standard, the court refers the parties to its prior decision in Wagner v. Swarts, 827 F. Supp. 2d 85, 92 (N.D.N.Y. 2011), aff'd sub nom. Wagner v. Sprague, 489 F. App'x 500 (2d Cir. 2012).

B. Motion to Dismiss

The standard of review under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) is well settled and will not be repeated here. For a full discussion of the governing standard, the court refers the parties to its prior decision in Ellis v. Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP, 701 F. Supp. 2d 215, 218 (N.D.N.Y. 2010).

IV. Discussion

A. Motions for Partial Summary Judgment

Defendants move for partial summary judgment only as to Carpenter's FLSA and NYLL claims. (Dkt. No. 39, Attach. 5 at 6-11; Dkt. No. 49, Attach. 5 at 6-11; Dkt. No. 50, Attach. 5 at 4-9.) Carpenter brings these claims against all defendants, alleging that they violated the FLSA and the NYLL by failing to pay him overtime from September 26, 2015 through January 2017. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 123-57.)

1. Need for Discovery

Summary judgment should only be granted if "after discovery, the nonmoving party has failed to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of [its] case with respect to which [it] has the burden of proof." Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., 321 F.3d 292, 303 (2d Cir. 2003) (citation omitted).

Although F.R.C.P. 56 "allows a party to move for summary judgment before discovery is complete, such a motion is successful '[o]nly in the rarest of cases' because '[t]he nonmoving party must have had the opportunity to discover information that is essential to [its] opposition to the motion for summary judgment.'" Great Wall De Venez. C.A. v. Interaudi Bank, 117 F. Supp. 3d 474, 492-93 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (quoting Hellstrom v. U.S. Dep't of Veteran Affairs, 201 F.3d 94, 97 (2d Cir. 2000)). However,"an opposing party's mere hope that further evidence may develop prior to trial is an insufficient basis upon which to justify the denial of [a summary...