Gallagher v. The Unified Court Sys. of State

1

RACHELLE GALLAGHER; and MARK KACHADOURIAN, Plaintiffs, v. THE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK; and RICHARD MILLER, II, individually and in his official capacity, Defendants.

No. 3:18-CV-01476 (GTS/ML)

United States District Court, N.D. New York

March 7, 2024

DECISION AND ORDER

GLENN T. SUDDABY, United States District Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs Rachelle Gallagher and Mark Kachadourian commenced this employment discrimination action against Defendants the Unified Court System of the State of New York ("UCS"), and former Broome County Family Court Judge Richard Miller, II. See Compl., ECF 1. Plaintiffs assert claims pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“§ 1983”), the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. L. § 290 et seq. (“NYHRL”), and New York State common law. See id. More specifically, Plaintiffs assert the following claims: Title VII retaliation by UCS and Miller (First Cause of Action); Title VII hostile work environment by UCS and Miller (Second Cause of Action); a § 1983 Equal Protection violation by Miller (Third Cause of Action) intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”) by Miller (Fourth Cause of Action) negligent infliction of emotional distress (“NIED”) by Miller (Fifth Cause of Action); NYSHRL retaliation and aiding and abetting retaliation by Miller (Sixth Cause of Action); and NYSHRL aiding and abetting a hostile work environment by Miller (Seventh Cause of Action). See id.

Miller moves for summary judgment on all claims against him. See ECF 159. Plaintiffs oppose this motion in part, see ECF 170, and Miller files a reply. See ECF 173. UCS also moves for summary judgment on all claims against it. See ECF 163. Plaintiffs oppose this motion, see ECF 169, and UCS files a reply. See ECF 172.

The Court will decide the pending motions on the papers and without oral argument. For the following reasons, each motion is granted in part and denied in part.

II. BACKGROUND^[1]

Plaintiffs' Initial Employment Positions

Miller was elected to a ten-year term as a Broome County Family Court Judge, a position he began on January 1, 2015. See UCS Local Rule 56.1 Statement (“UCS Stat.”), ECF 163-7, ¶ 1.^[2] Judges in Broome County Family Court, including Miller, have a team comprised of judicial and nonjudicial personnel. See Miller Statement of Material Facts (“Miller Stat.”), ECF 159-1, ¶ 24. Carolyn Grimaldi, Director of Human Resources and Director of Labor Relations in the Office of Court Administration (“OCA”), states that New York law provides that “Family Court judges outside of New York City, who are independently elected judicial officers, have appointment, oversight, and removal authority over their personal staff appointees.” Grimaldi Jan. 13, 2023 Declaration (“Grimaldi Decl.”), ¶¶ 4-5 (citing N.Y. Const. Art. VI, §§ 28(b), 28(c), and 22 NYCRR § 80.1(b)(3)). Grimaldi also asserts that “unlike all other non-judicial employees, UCS and the Chief Administrator of the Courts do not have authority to appoint, remove, or oversee the personal staff appointees of a judge or justice, where the delegated authority under 22 NYCRR § 80.1(b)(3) exclusively places that sole authority with each individual justice or judge, including Family Court Judges outside of New York City.” Id. § 7. UCS asserts that pursuant to UCS policy, UCS employees do not engage in the selection or removal of personal staff appointees of judges or justices, including Family Court judges outside of New York City. See UCS Stat., ¶ 15. Plaintiffs deny this contention in part and indicate that, on December 31, 2021, they were removed from their positions by UCS and not by a judge. Pls. Resp. to UCS Stat., ECF 169-13, ¶ 15 (citing Gallagher Decl., ¶ 29, Kachadourian Decl., ¶ 28).

Gallagher was a personal friend of Miller, had worked with him in Johnson City Village Court for approximately ten years before he ran for Broome County Family Court Judge, and assisted Miller in his campaign for Family Court Judge. See UCS Stat., ¶¶ 2-3. After Miller was elected, he appointed Gallagher as his Judicial Secretary, a position she began on January 2, 2015. Miller Stat., ¶ 19; UCS Stat., ¶ 4. UCS accepted Gallagher's nomination for appointment for this position, which was ultimately approved by the Chief Administrator of the Courts. Gallagher 02/21/23 Declaration (“Gallagher Decl.”), ECF 169-2, ¶ 4. Gallagher was provided an office adjoining Miller's chambers on the first floor of the Broome County Family Court courthouse. Id., ¶ 5; see Miller Stat., ¶ 20. Gallagher's duties included answering the phone, taking messages, and sitting at her desk “manning the office.” UCS Stat., ¶ 5; see id., ¶ 21.

Kachadourian also assisted with Miller's campaign. UCS Stat., ¶ 7. Miller selected Kachadourian as his Court Attorney - the equivalent of a law clerk - a position Kachadourian began on January 2, 2015. Miller Stat., ¶ 19; UCS Stat., ¶ 6. UCS accepted Kachadourian's nomination for appointment, which was ultimately approved by the Chief Administrator of the Courts. Kachadourian 02/21/23 Declaration (“Kachadourian Decl.”), ECF 169-8, ¶ 4. Kachadourian was provided office space on the second floor of the Broome County Family Court courthouse. Id., ¶ 5. While he did not sit in Miller's chambers on the first floor, he spent time there consistent with Miller's preference. See Miller Stat., ¶ 21; UCS Stat. ¶ 19. Kachadourian's duties included assisting in writing decisions and holding conferences with attorneys on behalf of Miller. UCS Stat. ¶ 8. Kachadourian also took a number of trips with Miller as part of Kachadourian's job duties. Id., ¶ 20.

Alanna Vroman, a Principal Court Analyst responsible for Human Resources matters within UCS, testified that “judges have discretion to evaluate [their employees] in whatever way they deem appropriate.” Vroman Dep., ECF 163-5, at 81. Vroman further testified that personal appointees, such as Plaintiffs, “serve at the discretion of their judge . . . .” Id., at 165. Gregory Gates, former District Executive for the Sixth Judicial District, testified that “Court staff, chamber staff[,] are supervised only by the judges that appoint them . . . .” Gates Dep., ECF 163-6, at 95.

There is no dispute that Miller conducted Plaintiffs' performance evaluations while they worked directly for him. UCS Stat. ¶¶ 9-11. Plaintiffs contend, however, that upon Miller's reassignment in July 2017 (discussed below), and his subsequent removal from the bench (also discussed below), Plaintiffs were not personal appointees serving at Miller's discretion. Rather, they contend, they reported to and were supervised by other UCS personnel. See Gallagher Decl., ¶¶ 15-19; Kachadourian Decl., ¶¶ 12-19. In this context, Plaintiffs admit that from January 2015 to July 2017, they were Miller's personal judicial appointees, but contend that after July 2017 they “were employees or de facto employees of UCS and no longer personal appointees of Judge Miller.” Pls. Resp. to Miller Stat., ¶ 22.

Plaintiffs' allegations of sexual harassment and threats by Miller

Plaintiffs contend that from January 2015 to July 2017, they were subjected to ongoing sexual harassment and threats of physical violence by Miller. See Gallagher Decl., ¶¶ 6-7; Kachadourian Decl., ¶¶ 6-7. Plaintiffs assert: These incidents were many, but included the following:

- Judge Miller stated if [either Plaintiff] ever betrayed him, [they] would be found at the bottom of the river in cement boots.

- Judge Miller would repeatedly complain out loud about his lack of sexual activity with his wife and demand that his needs be satisfied.

- Loud and obscene phone and in-person conversations by Judge Miller and his friends about their sexual relationships, including intimate and graphic details about another female court employee.

- Judge Miller would attempt to show [Plaintiffs] pornographic images of women on his phone[,] showed [Kachadourian] a nude photograph of another female court employee[,] and would trick [Gallagher] into viewing pornographic images. -Ongoing comments by Judge Miller about other women's anatomies and breast size, including sexual comments about other female court employees.

Gallagher Decl., ¶ 6; Kachadourian Decl., ¶ 6.

In addition, Plaintiffs assert that in May 2017, Miller was upset that a local State Senator refused to give him his personal cell phone number. Gallagher Decl., ¶ 7; Kachadourian Decl., ¶ 7. Kachadourian asserts that Miller told him that he “had to speak with Ms. Gallagher about satisfying the State Senators sexual needs in order to curry political favor for Judge Miller.” Kachadourian Decl., ¶ 7. Kachadourian contends that this made him “extremely uncomfortable.” Id. Gallagher contends that Miller “began screaming at [her] to go up to Albany and take care of the State Senator's sexual needs, in order to curry political favor for Judge Miller.” Gallagher Decl., ¶ 7. Gallagher asserts that she refused and “became visibly upset and frightened.” Id.

Plaintiffs assert that overall the “comments and demands by Judge Miller were degrading, embarrassing and made [them] fearful.” Gallagher Decl., ¶ 10; Kachadourian Decl., ¶ 10.^[3]

Plaintiffs' Complaints About Miller's Conduct

The Sexual Harassment Policy in effect at the time (“the Original Sexual Harassment Policy”) provided in pertinent part that UCS employees who believed they had been sexually harassed had a “number of options,” and employees “[didn't] have to try any one in particular, and … may try more than one in succession or at the same time.” Original Sexual Harassment Policy, ECF 169-5, at 5-6. These options included “[d]iscuss[ing] the problem with any supervisor or manager within the...