Case Law Clark v. Jewish Childcare Ass'n, Inc.

Clark v. Jewish Childcare Ass'n, Inc.

Document Cited Authorities (62) Cited in (100) Related

Sheniece Clark, Bronx, NY, pro se.

Andrew Evan Rice, Esq., Jerold D. Jacobson, Esq., Proskauer Rose LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant.

OPINION & ORDER

KENNETH M. KARAS, District Judge.

Pro se Plaintiff Sheniece Clark (Plaintiff or “Clark”) brings this Action against Defendant Jewish Childcare Association, Inc. (“JCCA” or Defendant), alleging that Defendant engaged in discriminatory practices under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq. (the “ADA”). Before the Court is Defendant's Motion For Summary Judgment. (Dkt. No. 35.) For the following reasons, Defendant's Motion is granted.

I. Background
A. The Facts
1. Plaintiff's Work at JCCA

JCCA is a not-for-profit organization providing a full range of social and residential services to children and their families in the New York metropolitan area. (Def.'s Statement of Material Undisputed Facts Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 56.1 (“Def.'s 56.1”) ¶ 1 (Dkt. No. 37); Decl. of Steven Mayo in Supp. of Def.'s Mot. For Summ. J. (“Mayo Decl.”) ¶ 2 (Dkt. No. 39).)1 JCCA's residential treatment center in Pleasantville, New York—the Pleasantville Cottage School (“PCS”)—serves children at risk to themselves or others, who cannot live at home. (Def.'s 56.1 ¶ 2; Mayo Decl. ¶ 3.) The New York State Office of Children and Family Services (“OCFS”) is a government agency that, among other things, oversees and regulates child services programs like PCS, including investigations of complaints of child abuse and maltreatment. (Def.'s 56.1 ¶ 3; Mayo Decl. ¶ 5; Decl. of Andrew E. Rice, Esq. in Supp. of Def.'s Mot. For Summ. J. (“Rice Decl.”) Ex. A (Sheniece Clark Deposition Transcript (“Clark Tr.”)) 120 (Dkt. No. 38).)

Clark began working for JCCA in or around April 2003 as an on-call switchboard operator. (Def.'s 56.1 ¶ 4; Complaint For Employment Discrimination (“Compl.”) ¶ II.E.1 (Dkt. No. 2); Clark Tr. 14, 63.) Clark became a full-time milieu counselor, or childcare employee, for JCAA in April 2006. (Def.'s 56.1 ¶ 5; Mayo Decl. ¶ 4; Clark Tr. 63–64.) As a milieu counselor, Clark worked in the residential cottages at PCS and was responsible for the everyday needs and activities of the residents, including, among other things, the safety, supervision, and accountability of the residents, the upkeep of the cottage to which she was assigned, and escorting residents to appointments. (Def.'s 56.1 ¶ 6; Mayo Decl. ¶ 4; Clark Tr. 79–82; Rice Decl. Ex. E (JCCA Milieu Counselor Job Description).) Clark stated that she was able to do all of the job duties in the JCCA Milieu Counselor Job Description, except: (i) she attended briefings and treatment conference meetings only as assigned by the supervisor of PCS (rather than all such briefings or meetings); (ii) she and the other milieu counselors did not fix the residents' hair; and (iii) she only took residents out with permission from the supervisor and the consent of the residents' legal guardians. (Def.'s 56.1 ¶ 7; Clark Tr. 82–83.) The residents for whom Clark was responsible as a milieu counselor were adolescent females, (Def.'s 56.1 ¶ 8; Clark Tr. 79–80), and Clark worked in several different PCS cottages over the course of her employment as a milieu counselor, (Def.'s 56.1 ¶ 9; Clark Tr. 71, 73–74, 76–78). Clark stated that she was a “target” in one of the cottages, Cottage 16, because the residents in that unit did not like her because of her “structured style of work,” and that JCCA set her up to be in that position in September 2010. (Def.'s 56.1 ¶ 10; Clark Tr. 85–86.)

2. Plaintiff's Disability Leave and Accommodation Requests

Clark went on leave on two occasions while she was employed at JCCA. (Def.'s 56.1 ¶ 11; Clark Tr. 95, 99–100.) From May 3, 2008 through August 2008, Clark took a workers' compensation disability leave due to a torn ligament in her right shoulder. (Def.'s 56.1 ¶ 12; Compl. ¶ II.E.2; Clark Tr. 96–97.) Clark first became disabled when she inured her right shoulder on May 3, 2008, (Def.'s 56.1 ¶ 13; Clark Tr. 101), after a JCCA resident hit her with a chair, (Pl.'s Objections & Responses to Def.'s Mot. For Summ. J. (“Pl.'s Mem.”) at unnumbered 2 (Dkt. No. 46); Clark Tr. 96). Dr. Eial Faierman treated Clark's shoulder every six weeks thereafter and Clark was experiencing increased right shoulder and neck pain for several months. (Def.'s 56.1 ¶¶ 14–15; Clark Tr. 193–195.) On March 30, 2011, Clark re-injured her right shoulder when she attempted to stop a resident from vandalizing her car, (Pl.'s Mem. at unnumbered 3), and went on leave again until August 9, 2011, (Def.'s 56.1 ¶ 16; Clark Tr. 49, 60, 77, 97–98). Because of the incident, Plaintiff was “limited [in her] ability to perform certain manual tasks, lift [her] right arm, turn [her] head, or work.” (Pl.'s Mem. at unnumbered 3.) Clark states that “[s]tarting on or about March 31 through April 19, 2011, [she] called out each of [her] scheduled workdays, citing [her] injury as the reason, (id. ), and she alleges that “JCCA disputed [her] disability for over five weeks before eventually accommodating [her],” (id. at unnumbered 1).2 Clark returned to work in August 2011 because she “felt okay,” and it was not against her doctor's recommendation or wishes. (Def.'s 56.1 ¶ 17; Clark Tr. 110–111.) Clark's doctor did not place any restrictions on her when she returned to work. (Def.'s 56.1 ¶ 18; Clark Tr. 205.)

Clark identified two alleged requests for accommodation that she made related to her disability in 2008, and stated that in 2010 she reported concerns about unsafe working conditions. (Def.'s 56.1 ¶ 19.) Clark testified that she sought, as an accommodation for her alleged disability, [a] change in [her] schedule due to going to physical therapy, [and that] numerous time[s], [she] asked to have [her] schedule change[d] due to the safety of being in certain cottages that [her] supervisor had placed [her] in which [were] dangerous situations due to [her] ... work-related injury....” (Def.'s 56.1 ¶ 20; Clark Tr. 39–40.) Clark also stated that she sought a transfer back to the switchboard as an accommodation, starting in 2008 and again in 2010 and in 2011 before she went on leave after re-injuring her shoulder. (Def.'s 56. ¶ 21; Clark Tr. 42.) Clark believes that JCCA's denial of the requested accommodations was discriminatory because of her history of challenging supervisors, and she testified that JCCA accommodated several other employees with alleged disabilities in various ways. (Def.'s 56.1 ¶¶ 24–25; Clark Tr. 112–114, 205.)

In or around early 2011, Clark requested a transfer out of Cottage 16, and that request was granted that same day with assistance from JCCA Senior Human Resources Associate Michelle Borges (“Borges”). (Def.'s 56.1 ¶ 23; Mayo Decl. ¶ 7; Clark Tr. 76–77, 90–91.) Clark did not request any accommodation upon her return to work in August 2011. (Def.'s 56.1 ¶ 26; Clark Tr. 205.)

3. OCFS Indications and Termination of Plaintiff's Employment

According to the New York Social Services Law, OCFS must timely assess a report of maltreatment of a child made by a mandated reporter. N.Y. Soc. Serv. Law § 424(5–b). OCFS must determine within sixty days whether the report is “indicated” or “unfounded.” Id. § 424(7). An “indicated report” means “a report made ... if an investigation determines that some credible evidence of the alleged abuse or maltreatment exists.” Id. § 412(7). In 2009, OCFS “indicated” Clark in a report of abuse and neglect concerning an incident in late April 2009 involving a resident in her care. (Def.'s 56.1 ¶ 27; Clark Tr. 120–121.) OCFS interviewed Clark in connection with the April 2009 incident and concluded that Clark had abused the resident in her care. (Def.'s 56.1 ¶¶ 28–29; Clark Tr. 128.) JCCA placed a disciplinary notice in Clark's personnel file concerning the 2009 OCFS indication, which stated that it was “a final warning and in the event that another incident of a similar nature occurs, [her] employment [would] be terminated.” (Def.'s 56. 1 ¶ 30; Clark Tr. 135–136; Rice Decl. Ex. F (9/29/09 Disciplinary Action Memorandum).) In March 2010, OCFS upheld the 2009 indication against Clark after an administrative review, determining that there was a “fair preponderance of evidence to [r]etain the report.” (Def.'s 56.1 ¶ 31; Clark Tr. 149–150; Rice Decl. Ex. G (3/29/2010 Letter from OCFS).)

OCFS indicated Clark for abuse of a resident again in 2011, concerning an incident on March 14, 2011. (Def.'s 56.1 ¶ 32; Clark Tr. 150.) Clark states that on the day of the incident she “and two co-workers escorted two residents to another part of the JCCA facility for disciplinary purposes.” (Pl.'s Mem. at unnumbered 2.) The resident “threw a punch” at one of her co-workers, “who in turn restrained the resident by initiating a ‘therapeutic hold’ and Clark “assisted [her co-worker] with the hold, was bitten by the resident, and had to receive medical treatment at Westchester Medical Center's Emergency Room.” (Id. at unnumbered 2–3.) According to Clark, the other two co-workers involved in the incident were not indicated. (Id. at unnumbered 4.) Clark did not complete a critical incident report concerning the March 14, 2011 incident, despite the fact that it was her responsibility to document any such incident. (Def.'s 56.1 ¶ 33; Clark Tr. 156–157, 221–222.) According to Clark, a JCCA social worker Ms. Evensen (“Evensen”) and the JCCA Director of Campus Life, Ms. Fazio (“Fazio”) reported the March 14, 2011 incident to OCFS after the resident-victim reported it to Evensen on June 1, 2011. (Def.'s 56.1 ¶ 34; Clark Tr. 159–161.) Clark acknowledged that upon learning of the incident, Evensen was mandated to report the incident to OCFS. (Def.'s 56.1 ¶ 35; Clark Tr. 161.)

In a letter dated August 3, 2011, OCFS advised JCCA that it indicated Plaintiff for abuse...

5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania – 2016
Sharbaugh v. W. Haven Manor, LP
"...Caldwell v. KHOU-TV & Gannett Co., No. 15-0308, 2016 WL 3181167, at *4 n.21 (S.D. Tex. June 3, 2016); Clark v. Jewish Childcare Ass'n, Inc., 96 F. Supp. 3d 237, 249 n.4 (S.D.N.Y. 2015). 6. Because the court concludes that Sharbaugh's claim survives summary judgment even without direct evide..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York – 2020
Robles v. Medisys Health Network, Inc.
"...or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding , or hearing under this chapter.'" Clark v. Jewish Childcare Ass'n, Inc., 96 F. Supp. 3d 237, 261 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 12203(a)). "[R]equesting a reasonable accommodation of a disability is an ADA protected activi..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York – 2016
Concepcion v. City of N.Y.
"...that the delay was motivated by the employer's discriminatory intent, as opposed to mere negligence." Clark v. Jewish Childcare Ass'n, Inc., 96 F. Supp. 3d 237, 260 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (five week delay in providing reasonable accommodations did not violate the ADA); Saunders v. Queensborough Cm..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York – 2023
Baker v. MTA Bus Co.
"...Scirica also is sufficient to demonstrate pretext at the third step of McDonnell Douglas. See Osekavage, 619 F.Supp.3d at 391; Clark, 96 F.Supp.3d at 256. conclusion is supported further by additional evidence in the record, which, when considered in its “totality” would permit “a reasonabl..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York – 2021
Livingston v. City of New York
"...or mitigating circumstances that would distinguish their conduct or the appropriate discipline for it." Clark v. Jewish Childcare Ass'n, Inc. , 96 F. Supp. 3d 237, 256 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (citation omitted).At the outset, the Court finds that Jennings's testimony on this point is purely conclus..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania – 2016
Sharbaugh v. W. Haven Manor, LP
"...Caldwell v. KHOU-TV & Gannett Co., No. 15-0308, 2016 WL 3181167, at *4 n.21 (S.D. Tex. June 3, 2016); Clark v. Jewish Childcare Ass'n, Inc., 96 F. Supp. 3d 237, 249 n.4 (S.D.N.Y. 2015). 6. Because the court concludes that Sharbaugh's claim survives summary judgment even without direct evide..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York – 2020
Robles v. Medisys Health Network, Inc.
"...or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding , or hearing under this chapter.'" Clark v. Jewish Childcare Ass'n, Inc., 96 F. Supp. 3d 237, 261 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 12203(a)). "[R]equesting a reasonable accommodation of a disability is an ADA protected activi..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York – 2016
Concepcion v. City of N.Y.
"...that the delay was motivated by the employer's discriminatory intent, as opposed to mere negligence." Clark v. Jewish Childcare Ass'n, Inc., 96 F. Supp. 3d 237, 260 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (five week delay in providing reasonable accommodations did not violate the ADA); Saunders v. Queensborough Cm..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York – 2023
Baker v. MTA Bus Co.
"...Scirica also is sufficient to demonstrate pretext at the third step of McDonnell Douglas. See Osekavage, 619 F.Supp.3d at 391; Clark, 96 F.Supp.3d at 256. conclusion is supported further by additional evidence in the record, which, when considered in its “totality” would permit “a reasonabl..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York – 2021
Livingston v. City of New York
"...or mitigating circumstances that would distinguish their conduct or the appropriate discipline for it." Clark v. Jewish Childcare Ass'n, Inc. , 96 F. Supp. 3d 237, 256 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (citation omitted).At the outset, the Court finds that Jennings's testimony on this point is purely conclus..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex