Ferraro v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ.

404 F.Supp.3d 691

Paul FERRARO, Plaintiff,

v.The NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Ralph K. Honore, and Marc Slippen, Defendants.

13-cv-5837 (LDH) (JO)

15-cv-1117 (LDH) (JO)

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

Signed September 30, 2017

Alan E. Wolin, Wolin & Wolin, Esqs., Jericho, NY, for Plaintiff.

Benjamin Fox Tracy, Joseph D. Lockinger, Kristen Monet McIntosh, William A. Grey, Jay Y. Kim, Monica M. Pogula, New York City Law Department, New York, NY, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER

LaSHANN DeARCY HALL, United States District Judge:

Plaintiff Paul Ferraro brings the instant consolidated action against the New York City Department of Education ("DOE"), Ralph K. Honore, and Marc Slippen (the "Individual Defendants") (together, "Defendants"), alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, retaliation, and hostile work environment under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"),¹ the New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL") and the New York City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL"). Defendants move pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 to dismiss each action in its entirety.

UNDISPUTED FACTS²

Plaintiff began working for the DOE as a tenured teacher at Public School 55Q ("P.S. 55Q") in September 1997. (Pl.'s Amended 56.1 Statement Response ("Pl.'s 56.1") ¶ 2, ECF No. 37.)³ In March 2001, Plaintiff was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis ("MS"), which causes him to experience a variety of symptoms, including numbness of the feet and torso. (Id. ¶ 3.) Plaintiff also has difficulty standing in the heat, walking up flights of stairs, and standing for extended periods of time. (Id. ) In 2002, Plaintiff disclosed his diagnosis to Defendant Slippen, a fellow teacher. (Id. ¶ 4.) Defendant Honore became aware of Plaintiff's MS at some point between 2001 and 2006, while he was an Assistant Principal at PS 55Q. (Id. ¶ 7; Defs.' Reply 56.1 Statement ("Defs.' Reply 56.1") ¶¶ 95, 109-110, ECF No. 39.)

During his tenure as Assistant Principal, Honore consistently gave Plaintiff ratings of "satisfactory," both for classroom observations and year-end ratings. (Defs.' Reply 56.1 ¶¶ 111-12.) In 2007, Slippen was promoted to Assistant Principal, and Honore was promoted to Principal. (Pl.'s 56.1 ¶¶ 5-6.) The following three years proceeded unremarkably. In the fall of 2010, however, Plaintiff began to receive a stream of negative feedback from Defendants and complaints from his students' parents.

I. The 2010-2011 School Year

On September 23, 2010, in response to concerns raised by students' parents, Honore and Slippen met with Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 9.) During that meeting, Parent-Coordinator Lena Corso was left in charge of Plaintiff's class, along with two parent volunteers. (Id. ¶ 10.) When Plaintiff returned to his classroom, the parent volunteers informed him that Ms. Corso said that Plaintiff was not a good teacher, that his handwriting was barely legible, and that he had MS. (Id. ¶ 11.) Plaintiff informed Honore of the conversation later that day. (Id. ) Honore instructed Plaintiff to write an account of the incident and to submit it to him. (Id. ) In response, Plaintiff wrote a letter dated September 23, 2010, recounting that day's meeting with Honore and Slippen, as well as his conversation with the parent volunteers upon returning to his classroom. (Id. ¶ 12.) Plaintiff's letter also stated that he had MS and included the allegation that, since disclosing his MS to Slippen in 2002, he had been "harassed and humiliated at P.S. 55Q by certain colleagues and administrators." (Id. )

On several other occasions that fall, parents of Plaintiff's students asked that their children be assigned to a different teacher. By letter dated September 30, 2010, Honore informed Plaintiff that a parent had complained about Plaintiff's teaching and requested that her child be moved to another class. (Id. ¶ 14.) The letter further stated that Ms. Elizabeth DeJean, the school's Early Childhood Coordinator, would assist Plaintiff in his classroom commencing October 4, 2010. (Id. ) Plaintiff signed the letter to acknowledge its receipt and added the statement, "signed under harassment 9/20/10-present." (Id. ) A November 10, 2010 letter from Slippen to Plaintiff summarized a meeting between Plaintiff, Slippen, and a different parent who had requested that his child be removed from Plaintiff's class. (Id. ¶ 15.) Slippen instructed Plaintiff to submit a plan by November 15, 2010, outlining how Plaintiff would make the child more comfortable in his classroom. (Id. ) Plaintiff signed the letter to acknowledge receipt, and again added the statement, "signed under harassment 9/20/10-present." (Id. ) Plaintiff submitted the requested plan on November 30, 2010, two weeks after the deadline to do so. (Id. )

On December 21, 2010, Honore informed the first-grade teachers at P.S. 55Q, including Plaintiff, that, due to changes in staffing and budgetary constraints, the school would "collapse" class 1-135, which was Plaintiff's class. (Id. ¶ 16.) Of the four first-grade classes at P.S. 55Q, only Plaintiff's class was collapsed. (Defs.' Reply 56.1 ¶ 179.) In January 2011, Plaintiff was reassigned to a position as a Math Intervention Specialist. (Pl.'s 56.1 ¶ 16.)

In March 2011, Plaintiff was accused of engaging in an incident of verbal abuse and corporal punishment against a student. (Id. ¶ 17.) Honore investigated the incident and determined that there was a basis for only the verbal abuse allegation. (Id. ) On April 4, 2011, Honore issued a letter to Plaintiff's file concerning the incident. (Id. ) On April 8, 2011, Plaintiff submitted a response stating, among other things, that, "While I, with regret, agree with the contents of the letter put in my file dated April 4, 2011, I would like to clarify a few details." (Id. )

At the close of the 2010-2011 school year, Honore made grade and class assignments for the upcoming year. Honore assigned Plaintiff to a second-grade classroom for the 2011-2012 school year. (Id. ¶ 19.) This assignment was one of three preferences that Plaintiff had requested. (Id. ) On June 17, 2011, Plaintiff filed a grievance against Honore, alleging that Honore's failure to grant Plaintiff his first choice teaching assignment violated the collective bargaining agreement. (Id. ¶ 20.) Honore denied the grievance on June 23, 2011. (Id. ) At the end of the 2010-2011 school year, Plaintiff received a rating of "satisfactory." (Id. ¶ 18.)

An undated document entitled "2011-2012 VERY Tentative Reorganization" outlined the assignment of teachers to classrooms for that school year. (Id. ¶ 21.) The document assigned Plaintiff to Room 113. (Id. ) On the last day of the 2010-2011 school year, Honore advised the teachers at P.S. 55Q to anticipate that a new plan would be distributed in July 2011. (Id. ) The new organization document assigned Plaintiff to Room 135, which had been Plaintiff's classroom for the previous school year. (Id. ) Other teachers' classroom assignments were also altered. (Id. )

II. The 2011-2012 School Year

At the beginning of the 2011-2012 school year, the teachers at P.S. 55Q were instructed to submit a form to Honore by September 9, 2011, indicating whether they were missing any classroom books. (Id. ¶ 23.) Plaintiff failed to submit the form as required. Instead, on September 12, 2011, Plaintiff asked a fellow teacher whether she had extra copies of certain textbooks that Plaintiff was missing. (Id. ) On September 14, 2011, Honore instructed Plaintiff to submit the requested form by the end of the day. (Id. ) Again, Plaintiff failed to do so. Plaintiff submitted the form on October 28, 2011, over a month and a half late. (Id. )

During the month of October 2011, several other issues came to Defendants' attention regarding Plaintiff's performance. On October 11, 2011, Honore issued a letter to Plaintiff stating that Plaintiff had not attended a required professional development session. (Defs.' Reply 56.1 ¶ 195.) Six days later, on October 17, 2011, Plaintiff met with Honore, Slippen, Plaintiff's union representative Lisa Como, and a parent of one of Plaintiff's students. (Pl.'s 56.1 ¶ 24.) The parent requested that her child be removed from Plaintiff's class because her child did not have appropriate classroom materials available and needed a stricter teacher. (Id. ) Honore assigned the child to a different class. (Id. ) In a self-evaluation form dated October 18, 2011, Plaintiff gave himself several low scores of "1" ("Ineffective") and "2" ("Developing"). (Id. ¶ 25.)

In an undated letter, Honore notified Plaintiff that he would receive a formal observation during the week of December 14, 2011. (Id. ¶ 26.) At Plaintiff's request, Honore later rescheduled the formal observation for the first week of January 2012. (Id. ) In advance of the observation, at Plaintiff's request, Plaintiff met with Ms. DeJean on December 7, 12, 14, and 20, 2011, concerning instructional methods in literacy and math. (Id. ¶¶ 27, 29; Defs.' Reply 56.1 ¶ 199.) Several weeks later, Honore observed Plaintiff's class on January 10, 2012. (Pl.'s 56.1 ¶ 28.) By letter dated January 19, 2012, Honore outlined certain concerns raised by his observation and informed Plaintiff that he would be observed again after Plaintiff met with Ms. DeJean to develop an instructional unit in math. (Id. ; Defs.' Reply 56.1 ¶ 200; McIntosh Decl. Ex. X at D001193, ECF No. 42-24.) Plaintiff met with Ms. DeJean another eight times between January and March 2012. (Pl.'s 56.1 ¶ 29.)

In the months that followed, additional concerns arose regarding Plaintiff's conduct toward his students. In a letter dated February 14, 2012, Honore confirmed a meeting between Plaintiff and the parent of one of his students. (Id. ¶ 30.) The parent had complained to Honore that her child was scared by Plaintiff yelling at the class and that the child needed to be challenged at grade level. (Id. ) Plaintiff and the parent spoke privately and ultimately resolved the parent's...