Cassagnol v. Vill. of Hempstead

DIDIER CASSAGNOL, Plaintiff, v. VILLAGE OF HEMPSTEAD, DON RYAN, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MAYOR,CHERICE P. VANDERHALL, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS VILLAGE ATTORNEY, ANDLISA BARRINGTON, IN HER OFFICIALCAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES, Defendants.

20-CV-606 (JMA) (AKT)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

March 31, 2021

For Online Publication Only

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

APPEARANCES:

Kristina S. Heuser

P.O. Box 672

Locust, NY 11560

Attorney for Plaintiff

Richard S. Finkel

1399 Franklin Avenue, Suite 200

Garden City, NY 11530

Attorney for Defendants

AZRACK, United States District Judge:

Plaintiff Didier Cassagnol ("Plaintiff") is a former police officer for the Village of Hempstead who remains employed by the Village in a civilian role. He brings various claims following his purported demotion to "Neighborhood Aide" in July 2019. (ECF No. 1.)

Defendants Village of Hempstead, Don Ryan (sued in his official capacity as Mayor), Cherice P. Vanderhall (sued in her official capacity as Village Attorney), and Lisa Barrington (sued in her official capacity as Director of Human Resources) (collectively, "Defendants") now move to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 15.) In addition, they seek sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. (ECF No. 18.) For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS Defendants' motion to dismiss in its entirety and dismisses this case. However, the Court DENIES Defendants' motion for sanctions, as set forth in more detail below.

I. BACKGROUND

The Court takes the factual allegations in the complaint as true and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of Plaintiff. See Goldstein v. Pataki, 516 F.3d 50, 56 (2d Cir. 2008).

According to the complaint, Plaintiff began working as a police officer for the defendant Village of Hempstead in 2005. (ECF No. 1 at 3.) On August 31, 2011, Plaintiff was injured in an off-duty motorcycle accident in which he lost the use of his lower extremities and was paralyzed from his T1-T2 vertebrae down. (Id.) Plaintiff claims that he requested to return to work in February 2012, but his chiefs asked him to wait to return so they could assess accessibility issues with police headquarters. (Id. at 4.) For nearly a year, Plaintiff contacted his chiefs requesting to return to work, but they rebuffed him, citing accessibility issues they still needed to resolve. (Id.) Plaintiff claims that he used his vacation and sick days during this time. (Id.) Eventually Plaintiff reached an agreement with the Village on December 4, 2013. (Id.) Though he was represented by counsel, Plaintiff alleges that he executed the Stipulation of Settlement, ("the Settlement"), "[u]nder extreme duress." (Id.)

Following the Settlement, Plaintiff returned to work. He was reassigned from his prior role in Police Headquarters to the Domestic Violence Bureau, which is located in a separate building, the Armory. (Id. at 4-5.) According to the complaint, he believes that he was reassigned to the Armory because that building has a ramp, unlike Police Headquarters. (Id. at 5.) However, the complaint raises several accessibility issues with the Armory. In particular, Plaintiff contends that the ramp into the building is inadequate and explains how he uses a women's restroom because no men's restroom has sufficiently wide stalls to fit his wheelchair. (Id.)

Plaintiff claims that though the Settlement required that he resign in September 2016, he nevertheless continued to work in the Domestic Violence Bureau until July 2019. At this time, a new Village Attorney took office and insisted that the Settlement be enforced. (Id.) In the months that followed, the Director of Human Resources "deemed plaintiff to have retired as a police officer in spite of him not putting in a resignation letter nor any retirement paperwork." (Id. at 6.) According to Plaintiff, Defendants gave him the civilian title of "Neighborhood Aide," "reduced his salary by two-thirds," and stripped him of certain benefits, including paid leave time and tier status in the pension program. (Id.) However, Plaintiff claims that he was still required to perform "exactly the same duties as he was when he was a police officer." (Id.) Plaintiff also alleges that his partner in the Domestic Violence Bureau was a detective and that they both performed the same duties. (Id. at 5-6.)

As explained below, in June 2019, Plaintiff sued Defendants in state court, challenging the enforceability of the Settlement. On November 18, 2019, the state court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss that action.

Plaintiff also filed a Charge of Discrimination in 2019 and received a Right-to-Sue Letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on November 5, 2019. (Id.)

On February 4, 2020, Plaintiff initiated the instant litigation, in which he brings claims for violations of: (1) Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"); (2) Title III of the ADA; (3) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act; (4) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Due Process; (5) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Equal Protection; (6) 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985, 1986 Conspiracy to Violate Civil Rights; (7) New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL"); and (8) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. For relief, Plaintiff seeks an order that directs the Village to bring its facilities into compliance with the ADA; reinstates him as a police officer or detective; and pays damages consisting of a retroactive award of all salary, benefits, and compensation for his new title as well as $8 million in compensatory damages and attorney's fees. (Id. at 14-15.)

Following a pre-motion conference before the undersigned on March 11, 2020, Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint. (ECF No. 15.) Their motion contains several key facts that supplement the complaint and are critical to the Court's analysis.

In particular, Defendants attach a copy of the December 4, 2013 Settlement to their motion.¹ The Settlement contains certain provisions that are critical to the Court's resolution of the instant motion. It provided:

For the purpose of resolving the Notice of Claim and while still asserting that [Plaintiff] is unable to perform the essential functions of a Police Officer in the Department with or without a reasonable accommodation, the Village shall continue to employ [Plaintiff] as a Police Officer until in or about September 2016 when he is scheduled to accrue ten (10) years of service credit with the New York State Police and Fire Retirement System ("PFRS"). The Village's obligation to employ [Plaintiff] as a Police Officer shall cease in or about September 2016 on the date he is scheduled to accrue ten (10) years of service credit with PFRS.

(ECF No. 17-3 at 2.) As part of the Settlement, the Village agreed to assign Plaintiff to a "transitional 'light duty' position" from December 9, 2013 "until in or about September 2016 when [Plaintiff] is scheduled to accrue ten (10) years of service credit with PFRS." (Id.) Upon accrual of the ten years of service credit, the Village was to hire Plaintiff as a "Neighborhood Aide" or a "Police Communications Operator, (i.e., Police Dispatcher)," both of which were to be "at the 'bottom step' starting salary set forth in the applicable collective bargaining agreement." (Id.) His hiring was also conditional on taking and scoring a certain score on a Civil Service examination. (Id.) Plaintiff was also permitted to take a qualifying exam for an off-duty weapon. (Id.)

As part of the Settlement, Plaintiff agreed that "as a result of the injury he suffered on or about August 31, 2011, he is unable to perform the essential functions of a Police Officer, or any of the superior ranks, in the Department, with or without a reasonable accommodation." (Id. at 4.) The Settlement also explained that "the Village is providing him with an accommodation and benefits in excess of and beyond any accommodation required by the federal Americans with Disabilities Act or the New York State Human Rights Law." (Id.) Further, the Settlement provided that Plaintiff "hereby irrevocably resigns as a Police Officer effective in or about September 2016 on the date when he is scheduled to accrue ten (10) years of service credit with PFRS" and commits to "timely file a letter of resignation to that effect with the Village in accordance with applicable law." (Id.) He also agreed not to "apply for promotion to any rank above Police Officer in the Department" and "waive[d] any and all rights he has, or may believe he has, to apply for, be considered for, or be appointed, now or in the future, to any of the superior ranks of the Department." (Id.) The Settlement detailed the precise parameters of Plaintiff's "transitional light duty assignment" and noted that there "are no permanent 'light duty' positions in the Department." (Id.)

Plaintiff also agreed to refrain from seeking "future employment with the Village as a Police Officer." (Id. at 6.) Further, he waived:

his right to bring or pursue any lawsuit, grievance, charge, arbitration or administrative proceeding, upon any claim [he] may have or may have had against the Village regarding any matter arising on or before the date of [his] execution of this Agreement, whether or not such claims have been asserted in the Notice of Claim or elsewhere, and whether or not such claims are known at the time of the execution of this Agreement. [Plaintiff] hereby irrevocably and unconditionally releases and forever discharges the Village of and from any action, charge, causes of action, suit, obligation, promise, stipulation, damage, debt, complaint, liability, claim, grievance, arbitration, cost, loss, right, expense and/or any controversy in law or equity of any nature whatsoever asserted or unasserted, known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, which [he] ever had, now has or hereinafter may have against the Village regarding any matter arising on or before the date of [his] execution of this

...