Craddock v. Little Flower Children & Family Servs. of N.Y.

DAVID CRADDOCK, Plaintiff, v. LITTLE FLOWER CHILDREN & FAMILY SERVICES OF NEW YORK,and MONROE HALE, as aider and abettor, Defendants.

12-CV-5062(JS)(GRB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

February 25, 2016

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

APPEARANCES

For Plaintiff:

Jonathan Bell, Esq.

Melissa Jill Beekman, Esq.

Joshua Matthew Friedman, Esq.

Bell & Kilada, PLLC

1 Old Country Road, Suite 347

Garden City, NY 11514

For Defendants:

Jeltje DeJong, Esq.

Joshua S. Shteierman, Esq.

Devitt Spellman Barrett, LLP

50 Route 111

Smithtown, NY 11788

SEYBERT, District Judge:

Plaintiff David Craddock ("Plaintiff") commenced this action against his former employer, defendant Little Flower Children & Family Services of New York, ("Defendant" or "Little Flower"), and Little Flower's Assistant Executive Director, Monroe Hale ("Hale") (collectively "Defendants"), alleging claims of disability discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., and the New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL"), N.Y. EXEC. LAW § 290 et seq. Currently pending before the Court is Defendants' motion for summary judgment. (Docket Entry 24.) For the following reasons, Little Flower's motion is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

I. Factual Background¹

This action arises out Plaintiff's employment and subsequent termination as a child care worker for Little Flower. (Compl. ¶ 10.) Little Flower claims that Plaintiff was terminated because of "insubordination on 8/25/11, [his] misrepresentation of the events that occurred on 8/19/11 and a condition that renders [him] incapable of providing a safe environment for youth . . . ." (Termination Ltr., Defs.' Ex. Z, Docket Entry 24-27, at 2.) Plaintiff disputes this, claiming that Little Flower wrongfully terminated him based on his disability and also in retaliation for lodging complaints regarding the alleged disability discrimination. (Pl.'s 56.1 Counterstmt., Docket Entry 25-1, ¶ 44.)

A. Little Flower

Little Flower is a child welfare organization and residential treatment facility that provides services to children with behavioral and mental health issues. (Defs.' 56.1 Stmt.,Docket Entry 24-28, ¶¶ 3-5.) Little Flower receives the majority of its students from placements made by various school districts' Committees on Special Education ("CSE's"). (Defs.' 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 3.) Some of the children recommended to Little Flower have been physically aggressive toward peers or school staff, and many have been hospitalized for self-mutilation issues, suicidal ideations, difficulty forming relationships with peers, and struggles with bipolar disorder. (Defs.' 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 4.) Little Flower also provides services for a population of children on the autism spectrum that range from Aspergers to pervasive developmental disability and mild mental retardation. (Defs.' 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 5.) Due to the severity of the mental health issues of Little Flower's children, Little Flower maintains a ratio of one child care worker to every five students. (Defs.' 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 7.) Plaintiff disputes this, (Pl.'s 56.1 Counterstmt. ¶ 7), and Little Flower admits that despite their best efforts, there are times when there is only one child care worker to supervise a group of five or more children. (Defs.' 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 8.)

Child care workers at Little Flower are responsible for the supervision of the agency's children and at times transporting them to various places, such as school, shopping, and doctor appointments, both on and off the campus. (Defs.' 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 11-12.) Plaintiff worked as a child care worker at LittleFlower's Wading River campus until his termination in November 2011. (Defs.' 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 9, 44.))

B. Plaintiff's Employment History and Termination

Little Flower hired Plaintiff as a child care worker in 2006. (Defs.' 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 9.) When Plaintiff was first hired he was assigned to San Juan cottage whose residents were largely medicated and all had behavioral issues. (Defs.' 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 13.) About one year later, Plaintiff was reassigned to Claver Cottage where he worked with male residents ages sixteen and older. (Defs.' 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 14.) Plaintiff found Claver Cottage to be a more challenging assignment because the residents were older and therefore bigger; thus, any physical interactions with the residents were more difficult to handle. (Defs.' 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 15.) Plaintiff was then reassigned to Coretta's Cottage, where the residents had even greater special needs. (Defs.' 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 16.) Plaintiff remained at Coretta's Cottage until his termination in 2011. (Defs.' 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 16.)

During his tenure at Little Flower, residents cursed and spit at Plaintiff on a daily basis at. (Defs.' 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 17.) Plaintiff was also physically assaulted on four separate occasions. (Defs.' 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 18.) While at Claver Cottage, a resident threw an ottoman at Plaintiff's face grazing his lip; and on another occasion, Plaintiff was pushed by a resident, which caused him to trip over the curb and tear his labrum in his rightshoulder. (Defs.' 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 19-20.) On yet another occasion, while restraining a resident, Plaintiff was bitten in the chest. (Defs.' 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 21.) Finally, during a fourth occasion, Plaintiff was pushed by a resident when he attempted to thwart the resident's progress towards Plaintiff's supervisor. (Defs.' 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 22.)

Little Flower child care workers are often injured as a result of altercations with residents. (Defs.' 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 23.) In total, during the years of Plaintiff's employment, there were two-hundred and sixty separate incidents involving Little Flower's residents which resulted in injury to child care workers assigned to the various residential treatments centers. (Defs.' 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 24.)

During his employment at Little Flower, Plaintiff, by his count, had three seizures. (Defs.' 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 25.) Plaintiff "blacks out" when seizing.² (Defs.' 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 26.) The first seizure Plaintiff had while working at Little Flower occurred on April 27, 2006, at the front entrance of San Juan Cottage, located on the Little Flower campus. (Defs.' 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 27.) Plaintiff had another seizure on April 30, 2008, while onduty at Claver Cottage. (Defs.' 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 28.) Plaintiff "blacked out" and could not recall the circumstances before or after the seizure. (Craddock Dep. Tr., Defs.' Ex. F, Docket Entry 24-7, at 64:17-25.)

On September 22, 2008, while operating a motor vehicle on the Little Flower campus, Plaintiff drove into a light post located near Claver Cottage. (Defs.' 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 29.) Plaintiff did not remember what caused the accident and did not recall driving into the light post. (Defs.' 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 29.) The police were called and an Incident Report was completed by Officer Gleason of the Riverhead Police Department. (Defs.' 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 29.) On February 23, 2009, while driving a motor vehicle on the Little Flower campus, Plaintiff lost consciousness, causing the vehicle to jump a curb, drive through a fence and strike a tree.³ (Defs.' 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 31; N.Y. State Police Accident Rep., Defs.' Ex. M, Docket Entry 24-14.)

Following the February 23, 2009 accident, Little Flower's then-director of Human Resources, Carol Huck ("Huck"), explained to Plaintiff that due to the two accidents in less than six months where he could not recall what caused his accident, Little Flower could no longer allow the Plaintiff to continuedriving on campus in consideration of the safety of the children and staff on campus. (Huck Dep. Tr., Defs.' Ex. G, Docket Entry 24-8, 45:14-25.) Huck offered Plaintiff flexibility in his work schedule as an accommodation, allowing him the ability not to be constrained by his assigned shift so long as he could arrange for transportation to and from work at different hours. (Defs.' 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 35; Huck Dep. Tr. 46:5-47:10.)

Little Flower's Executive Director, Grace Lo Grande ("Lo Grande"), informed Plaintiff that he would have to park at Bishop Cottage's parking lot, located across the street from the main Little Flower campus, and that he could no longer drive on the Little Flower campus. (Defs.' 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 32; Huck Dep. Tr., 45:14-25; Lo Grande Dep. Tr., Defs.' Ex. D, Docket Entry 24-5, 32:12-20.) In a July 12, 2009 email, Lo Grande informed Plaintiff that "[t]here is a serious risk to children and staff, should you lose control of your vehicle while driving on the main campus. Therefore, the decision to restrict driving onto the campus stands." (Defs.' 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 33; July 12, 2009 Email, Pl.'s Ex. 23, Docket Entry 25-26.) However, in August 2011, Plaintiff parked on little Flower's main campus despite the previously issued directive not to drive onto the campus due to safety concerns. (Defs.' 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 43.)

On June 22, 2009, Plaintiff had a seizure while in an agency van, just after picking up a resident from a home visit.(Defs.' 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 37.) Plaintiff was transported to the hospital with a co-worker and the resident remained home that evening, rather than being transported back to Little Flower as was intended. (Incident Rep., Defs.' Ex. S, Docket Entry, 24-20.) As a result, Little Flower prohibited Plaintiff from going off-campus as a passenger with the residents. (Pl.'s 56.1 Counterstmt. ¶ 37.)

On October 19, 2009, an ambulance was called to the Little Flower campus to care for Plaintiff, who staff workers believed was having a seizure. (Defs.' 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 38.) According to the infirmary staff, Plaintiff was walking around, drooling at times, and appeared confused. (Defs.' 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 38.)

On August 19, 2011, Plaintiff hit his head on a desk and fell to the ground while working at Little Flower. (Defs.' 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 40.) Plaintiff was the only child care worker present at Coretta Cottage at the time of his fall, but a resident of the cottage was also present for the fall. (Defs.' 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 40.) A Coretta Cottage resident provided a statement that indicated that Plaintiff came to the front of the...