Comerford v. Vill. of N. Syracuse

ROBERTA COMERFORD, Plaintiff, v. VILLAGE OF NORTH SYRACUSE; NORTH SYRACUSE POLICE DEPARTMENT,CHIEF MICHAEL CROWELL; SGT. ANDREW DEGIROLAMO;JEFFREY TRIPP; and JOHN & JANE DOE(S). Defendants.

5:18-cv-01143 (BKS/TWD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

March 12, 2021

Appearances:

For Plaintiff:

A.J. Bosman

Bosman Law Firm, LLC

3000 McConnellsville Road

Blossvale, NY 13308

For Defendants:

Shannon T. O'Connor

John P. Coghlan

Goldberg Segalla, LLP

5786 Widewaters Parkway

Syracuse, NY 13214

Hon. Brenda K. Sannes, United States District Judge:

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Roberta Comerford, a former Sergeant at the North Syracuse Police Department ("NSPD"), brings this employment discrimination action against Defendants Village of North Syracuse (the "Village"), the NSPD, Chief Michael Crowell, Sgt. Andrew DeGirolamo, Jeffrey Tripp, and John and Jane Does. (Dkt. No. 6). Plaintiff alleges Defendants subjected her to gender discrimination, a hostile work environment, and retaliation, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL"), N.Y. Exec. Law § 290 et seq., and retaliation, in violation of the First Amendment, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Dkt. No. 6 (First-Eighth Causes of Action)). In addition, Plaintiff alleges breach of contract, defamation, tortious interference with employment, and violation of the New York State Constitution. (Id. (Ninth-Twelfth Causes of Action)). Presently before the Court is Defendants' motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.¹ (Dkt. No. 65). The parties have fully briefed the motion. (Dkt. Nos. 71, 76). For the reasons that follow Defendants' motion is granted in part and denied in part.

II. FACTS²

A. NSPD Overview

Plaintiff was employed at the NSPD from January 2, 1998 through January 5, 2018 as a police officer and a sergeant. (Dkt. No. 65-93, ¶ 4; Dkt. No. 71-7, ¶ 4). Defendant Michael Crowell served as Chief of Police for the NSPD from 2012 to October 13, 2017. (Dkt. No. 65-20, ¶ 3). The NSPD employed between thirteen and sixteen police officers, (Dkt. No. 65-93, ¶ 14; Dkt. No. 71-7, ¶ 14), two of which were female—Plaintiff and Ashley Smith, who worked part-time. (Dkt. No. 65-93, ¶ 15; Dkt. No. 71-7, ¶ 15).

In 2006, Plaintiff was promoted to the rank of sergeant. (Dkt. No. 65-93, ¶ 5; Dkt. No. 71-7, ¶ 5). Plaintiff and Sergeant Shawn Stassi were the only two sergeants at the NSPD untilDefendant Tripp was promoted to sergeant in April 2016. (Dkt. No. 71-2, ¶ 4; Dkt. No. 71-6, ¶ 1; Dkt. No. 65-85, ¶ 2). When she was sergeant, Plaintiff was the "most senior Sergeant at NSPD" and the "highest ranked NSPD officer below Chief Crowell." (Dkt. No. 71-2, ¶ 5).

B. Events from 2012 to 2015³

Plaintiff does not claim the following events constitute discrete acts of gender discrimination or retaliation for purposes of her present claims, which center on her demotion from sergeant to police officer in September 2016 and Chief Crowell's revocation of her certification as police officer in September 2017. (See generally Dkt. No. 71-8). Plaintiff relies on incidents occurring from 2013 to 2015 as background evidence and as evidence of a gender-based hostile work environment where she was subject to excessive scrutiny. Defendants, on the other hand, assert that her history of discipline supports Chief Crowell's decision to demote her. That history includes: discipline in 2013 for failing to safeguard a handgun, (Dkt. No. 65-93, ¶ 95; Dkt. No. 71-7, ¶ 95; Dkt. No. 65-34, at 2-6), a letter of reprimand in July 9, 2014, for a second accidental discharge of a taser in a seven-month period, (Dkt. No. 65-20, ¶ 101; Dkt. No. 65-41, at 2), four Quality Assurance Reports⁴ from July 26, 2013 to July 29, 2014, finding the reports and documentation Plaintiff had prepared following several investigations and arrests "contained multiple errors," were "missing factual information" and failed "to properly charge individuals with the appropriate crimes." (Dkt. No. 65-20 ¶¶ 91, 93, 97-98, 103; Dkt. No. 65-38,at 2; Dkt. No. 65-37, at 2; Dkt. No. 65-43, at 2), counseling in August 2015 for issues with paperwork, (Dkt. No. 65-20, ¶ 113), and the following incidents.

1. Criticism by Chief Crowell - May 24, 2013 Harassment Complaint

On May 24, 2013, Plaintiff "responded to a harassment complaint where the victim complained the suspect went to her boyfriend's house in violation of a full stay away Protective Order." (Dkt. No. 65-93, ¶ 97). Plaintiff asserts that the "order of protection did not apply to [the victim's] boyfriend's residence," where she responded and though the suspect "had visited" the boyfriend's house, there "was no evidence to suggest that the female was present at that location." (Dkt. No. 71-2, ¶ 18). Plaintiff called the district attorney's office for advice on how to proceed and was advised that "there was no probable cause to make an arrest because the female did not live at the location and there was no evidence she was present there or the male attempted to contact her." (Dkt. No. 71-2, ¶ 19). Chief Crowell disputes this, stating that "[t]here was sufficient information that the suspect was aware that the victim was present at the location and refused to leave, which is a clear violation of a Protective Order." (Dkt. No. 65-20 ¶ 88). "Plaintiff did not arrest the suspect and cleared the complaint." (Dkt. No. 65-93, ¶ 98; Dkt. No. 71-7, ¶ 98). Chief Crowell found "Plaintiff's failure to arrest the suspect . . . was below the appropriate standard for an officer of her rank and experience" but does not appear to have issued any counseling or discipline in connection with this incident. (Dkt. No. 65-20, ¶ 89).

2. Charges of Incompetency and Notice of Discipline - Citizen Request to Take Possession of Handgun

On August 24, 2014, Plaintiff and a second NSPD police officer "responded to a residence . . . at the request of an individual," who wanted them "to take possession of a locked case [that was believed to contain a handgun and] that belonged to the owner of the house who was in his eighties and suffered from dementia." (Dkt. No. 71-2, ¶ 22). The individual "did nothave a key and was unsure what was inside the case," "was not the child of the owner," and "did not have a power of attorney from the owner." (Id.). Plaintiff and the officer spoke with the owner's son on the phone and he indicated that he "would like [them] to take possession of his father's handgun." (Id.). Plaintiff "did not believe [she] should take a locked case with unknown contents to the police department" and as the individual told them that there was no reason "the case needed to be immediately removed," she did not take possession at that time. (Id. ¶¶ 22-23).

On August 24, 2014, Chief Crowell filed charges of incompetency against Plaintiff "resulting from Plaintiff's failure to take possession of a handgun." (Dkt. No. 65-20, ¶ 104; Dkt. No. 65-44, at 2-4). On September 15, 2014, Chief Crowell issued Plaintiff a Notice of Discipline, (Dkt. No. 65-45, at 2), advising that she was the subject of a NSPD Internal Affairs investigation; it alleged that Plaintiff: (1) failed "to maintain sufficient competency based on position and rank"; (2) failed "to protect life and property"; (3) failed "to take appropriate action involving an incident"; (4) failed "to properly secure property discovered upon an investigation"; and (5) engaged in "[c]onduct which brings discredit to the agency." (Dkt. No. 65-45, at 2). After Chief Crowell completed his investigation he "sustained the allegations," and on October 27, 2014, served Plaintiff with a Notice and Statement of Charges. (Dkt. No. 65-20, ¶ 109; Dkt. No. 65-47, at 2-3). Plaintiff requested dismissal of the charges "or that the discipline proceed to the next level under the Collective Bargaining Agreement" ("CBA").⁵ (Dkt. No. 65-93, ¶ 125; Dkt. No. 71-7, ¶ 125). "The Village sustained the charges against Plaintiff" and the Village and Plaintiff "reached a settlement agreement concerning these charges wherein the Village deducted 3 days of Plaintiff's time as a consequence for her actions." (Dkt. No. 65-3, ¶¶ 126-27; Dkt. No. 71-7, ¶ 126-27; Dkt. No. 65-48; Dkt. No. 65-49, at 2-3).

C. Events from 2016 to 2018

1. Counseling Memorandum - Domestic Violence Investigation

On March 7, 2016, Plaintiff responded to a domestic violence report. (Dkt. No. 65-93, ¶ 128; Dkt. No. 71-7, ¶ 128). She was "the highest ranking NSPD to respond." (Dkt. No. 71-2, ¶ 24). While looking for the suspect, Plaintiff located a male "running in the area of the residence we responded to," who "claimed to have run to" a nearby "gas station to buy cigarettes." (Id.). Plaintiff "went with the individual to the gas station to confirm his story." (Id.). Plaintiff "was coordinating with the Sheriff's Department helicopter that was assisting with the search" as well as a sergeant from the Sheriff's Department SWAT team. (Id.). According to Chief Crowell, who later arrived on the scene, "[t]he primary suspect of the investigation was at large and potentially armed" and "there was a belief the suspect may be within a house." (Dkt. No. 65-20, ¶¶ 115-16). Plaintiff states that while the suspect owned a gun, "there was no reason to believe he was a threat." (Dkt. No. 71-2, ¶ 24). Chief Crowell's "conversations with Plaintiff" and "observations on site" led him to conclude that Plaintiff was not "in control of the situation," and "did not have any plan to resolve the situation, which, as the highest ranking member of the NSPD on scene, was Plaintiff's responsibility." (Dkt. No. 65-20, ¶ 118). Chief Crowell asked an officer who had also been on the scene to submit a memorandum. (Id.; Dkt. No. 65-51, at 2-4).

On April 28, 2016, Chief Crowell issued a counseling memorandum to Plaintif...