Crowe v. Leroy Cent. Sch. Dist.

949 F.Supp.2d 435

Patrick CROWE, Plaintiff,

v.LEROY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant.

No. 10–CV–01003.

United States District Court, W.D. New York.

June 7, 2013.

Christina A. Agola, Brighton, NY, Ryan Charles Woodworth, Christina Agola PLLC, Brighton, NY, for Plaintiff.

Cristina A. Bahr, Scott D. Piper, Harris Beach LLP, Pittsford, NY, for Defendant.

DECISION AND ORDER

RICHARD J. ARCARA, District Judge.

The instant employment discrimination case, involving claims that defendant violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.) was referred to Magistrate Judge Jeremiah J. McCarthy pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), for supervision of all pre-trial proceedings. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on September 19, 2012. (Dkt. No. 29)

On March 6, 2013, Magistrate Judge McCarthy issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that defendant's motion for summary judgment be granted and plaintiff's complaint dismissed. (Dkt. No. 36). Magistrate Judge McCarthy found, after construing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, that plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie claim of age discrimination. Specifically, the Magistrate Judge determined that plaintiff's reassignment from teaching 11th grade English to teaching 9th grade English did not constitute an adverse employment action, and that plaintiff could not show that the defendant's nondiscriminatory reason for the transfer served as a pretext for discrimination based on age.

On March 25, 2013, plaintiff filed objections to Magistrate Judge McCarthy's Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. No. 37). Defendant filed a response to plaintiff's objections on April 9, 2013 and plaintiff filed a reply on April 22, 2013. (Dkt. Nos. 40 and 41) The Court determined that oral argument was unnecessary, and deemed the matter submitted.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections have been made.¹ Upon de novo review, and after reviewing the parties' submissions, the Court hereby adopts Magistrate Judge McCarthy's recommendation to grant defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismiss plaintiff's claim in its entirety.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in Magistrate Judge McCarthy's Report and Recommendation, defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case.

SO ORDERED.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

JEREMIAH J. McCARTHY, United States Magistrate Judge.

In this action plaintiff Patrick Crowe, a teacher employed by the Leroy Central School District, alleges that the District violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.) and the New York State Human Rights Law (N.Y. Executive Law § 290 et. seq.) by changing his teaching assignment from twelfth grade students to ninth grade students. Complaint [1].¹ Before me is the District's motion for summary judgment [29]. Oral argument was held on February 28, 2013 [35]. For the following reasons, I recommend that the District's motion be granted.

BACKGROUND

The District operates one junior/senior high school. District's Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute [29–1], ¶ 1. Plaintiff Crowe is certified to teach seventh through twelfth grade English, and has been employed by the District as an English teacher since 1971. Id., ¶¶ 2, 3. Crowe taught seventh, eighth, tenth and eleventh grade English for the District until 1977, when he began teaching twelfth grade. Id., ¶ 3. He also serves as chair of the high school's English department, and has served in that role for at least twenty years. Id., ¶ 6.

In July 2008, Joseph Englebert became the principal of the high school. Id., ¶ 4. For the 2008–09 school year, the District employed six English teachers in the high school, each teaching a grade level (seventh through twelfth). Id., ¶ 7. At the commencement of that school year, Crowe taught twelfth grade, as he had since 1977, plus an Advance Placement (“AP”) English class. Id., ¶ 8. Crowe was 60 years old at that time ( id., ¶ 2), and Englebert believed that he was nearing retirement age. Englebert's deposition transcript [32–4], p. 28.

During the winter of the 2008–09 school year, Englebert decided to make personnel changes to the English department, and he began discussions with the District's Superintendent, Cynthia Herzog. District's Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute [29–1], ¶ 9; Plaintiff's Response [32–1], ¶ 9; Englebert's deposition transcript [32–4], p. 40. Meanwhile, in order to avoid layoffs due to potential reductions in state aid, early retirement incentives were offered to 20 eligible teachers, including Crowe, in January 2009. District's Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute [29–1], ¶¶ 11–13. Pursuant to the Memorandum of Agreement reached between the District and Teachers' Association, no individual teachers were to be targeted with the incentive, which was optional and voluntary. Id., ¶ 12. The incentive was communicated to the eligible teachers by e-mail, which attached the Memorandum of Agreement. Id., ¶ 13. Prior to the February 20, 2009 deadline for accepting the incentive, Barbara Crane, the seventh grade English teacher, notified the District of her intent to accept the incentive. Id., ¶ 14.

Discussions between Englebert, Herzog, and Assistant Principal Lynda Lowe continued concerning personnel changes to the English department, including the vacancy due to Crane's retirement. Id., ¶ 16. Eventually, Englebert decided to reassign Crowe to teach ninth grade English, and to reassign Amy Brotherton from ninth grade to twelfth grade English. Id., ¶¶ 17, 26–27. At Herzog's direction, he notified plaintiff and Brotherton of their reassignments on February 12, 2009, so that plaintiff could still take advantage of the early retirement incentive. District's Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute [29–1], ¶ 27. Although Crowe asked Englebert whether he was trying to get him to retire, Englebert did not provide a reason for the reassignment at this meeting. Plaintiff's Affidavit [32–3], ¶¶ 16–17.

Prior to the reassignment, there had been no complaints about either Crowe's or Brotherton's performance. Englebert deposition transcript [32–4], p. 40. According to the District, the reason for Crowe's reassignment to ninth grade was that he had in-depth knowledge of the English Regents exam offered at the end of students' eleventh grade year, since he had served on a state-wide committee that develops questions for the exam. District's Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute [29–1], ¶¶ 21–23. Although the examination is not given until the conclusion of eleventh grade, preparation for this exam begins in the ninth grade. Id., ¶ 22. At the time of the reassignment, Brotherton was approximately forty-five years old, and had only taught eighth and ninth grades during her tenure. Plaintiff's Affidavit [32–3], ¶¶ 12, 37. However, it is undisputed that she had demonstrated the skills necessary to teach twelfth grade. District's Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute [29–1], ¶ 25.

Crowe alleges that during a February 17, 2009 meeting that he requested with Herzog concerning the reassignment, she stated:

“[W]e know you are not going to be here for forever, and I would rather make a change now while you are still here and can help your replacement than to wait until you are gone. If it were up to me, I would have put you in seventh grade, but Joe [Principal Englebert] didn't want you to go that low. Usually changes like this are made in June, but I told Joe this was so important that he needed to let people know now.” Plaintiff's Affidavit [32–3], ¶ 22.

Dissatisfied with the reassignment, Crowe also met with Englebert. Based on Crowe's negative reaction, Englebert reconsidered his decision to reassign him. District's Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute [29–1], ¶¶ 32–33. However, after meetings with the English department, Englebert concluded in June 2009 that Crowe's reassignment would best serve the students in the ninth grade, and proceeded with the reassignment as originally contemplated, but allowing Crowe to continue to teach AP English to twelfth grade students. Id., ¶ 34.² Crowe alleges that when the students learned of his reassignment, 350 students signed a petition to keep him teaching twelfth grade. Crowe's Affidavit [32–3], ¶ 28. Janelle Rinker, who was 26 years old and taught Academic Intervention Services (“AIS”), filled the seventh grade vacancy created by Crane's retirement.. District's Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute [29–1], ¶ 37–38.

Since the 2009–10 school year, Crowe has taught two-thirds of the ninth grade English classes as well as AP English to twelfth graders. District's Statement of Material Facts Not In Dispute [29–1], ¶ 40. He also remains chair of the English department. Crowe's deposition transcript [32–4], p. 25. He maintains that teaching ninth grade is “less desirable” than teaching twelfth grade, and considers the reassignment to be a demotion. Crowe's Affidavit [32–3], ¶¶ 15, 19.

When asked whether he was enjoying teaching ninth grade classes, Crowe testified that “it's interesting. It's a change, but it's interesting. I've had some problems in a way that I haven't faced in a long time because of the young nature of the children.” Crowe's deposition transcript [32–4], p. 25. When asked whether he was “enjoying them”, he testified “I am.” Id. With respect to whether he thought that he was doing well teaching ninth grade, he testified:

“I'd like to think I'm doing well. I don't think I'm where I should be yet. I'm still playing with the units that we're doing. I'm still adding and subtracting things as we go along and letting them teach me what works and what doesn't in a variety of different ways. I'd like to think we've been successful.” Id., p. 54.

Crowe admits that at no time did Englebert or Herzog...