Hill v. City of N.Y.

136 F.Supp.3d 304

Cynthia HILL, Gail Williams, Denise Inman, Vickie Gordon, Rolando Lopez, Taura Pate, Ellen Ennis, and Andrea Holly, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,

v.The CITY OF NEW YORK, Michael R. Bloomberg, as Mayor of the City of New York, Raymond Kelly, as Police Commissioner, Richard F. Napolitano, Charles P. Dowd, Michael V. Polito, Ljubomir Belusic, Francis Kelly, Donald Church, David Lichtenstein, Local 1549, District Council 37, AFSCME, AFL–CIO, and John and Jane Does 1–20 (said names being fictitious, the persons intended being those who aided and abetted the unlawful conduct of the named Defendant), Defendants.

No. 13 CV 6147(PKC)(JO).

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

Signed Sept. 28, 2015.

Samuel O. Maduegbuna, William W. Cowles, II, Maduegbuna, Cooper LLP, New York, NY, Stephen Z. Williamson, Law Office of Steve Williamson, PLLC, Forest Hills, NY, for Plaintiffs.

Leah Sharon Schmelzer Serrano, New York City Law Department Office of the Corporation Counsel, Donna A. Canfield, Zachary W. Carter Corporation Cousel of the City of New York, Hanan B. Kolko, Meyer, Suozzi, English & Klein, P.C., Jane E. Andersen, New York City Law Department, New York, NY, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

PAMELA K. CHEN, District Judge:

The named Plaintiffs and members of the proposed classes ("Plaintiffs") are a group of minority individuals employed by Defendant New York City (the "City") to answer and direct public calls to the City's 911 emergency response system. (Dkt. 77 ("Am. Compl.") ¶ 12.) Plaintiffs bring this action against the City; Michael Bloomberg as Mayor of the City and Raymond Kelly as New York Police Department ("NYPD") Commissioner, both in their official capacities¹ ; and Richard F. Napolitano ("Napolitano"), Charles P. Dowd ("Dowd"), Michael V. Polito ("Polito"), Ljubomir Belusic ("Belusic"), Francis Kelly ("Kelly"), Donald Church ("Church"), and David Lichtenstein ("Lichtenstein"), all in their official and individual capacities (collectively, "City Defendants"), primarily asserting that the City Defendants discriminated against Plaintiffs on the basis of race, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 ("Section or § 1981") and § 1983 ("Section or § 1983"), and the New York State and City Human Rights Laws (respectively, "NYSHRL" and "NYRCHRL"). (Am. Compl. ¶ 1.)

Plaintiffs assert the following claims against the City Defendants: (1) violation of §§ 1981 and 1983 through a pattern of discriminatory policies and practices principally relating to mandatory overtime and leave usage; (2) violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") through interference with, and retaliation for, Plaintiffs' exercise of FMLA rights; (3) retaliation against Plaintiffs for protected public speech, in violation of the First Amendment; (4) violation of New York Labor Law regarding required meal breaks; and (5) breach of the City's collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") with Plaintiffs' union, Defendant Local 1459, District Council 37, AFSCME, AFL–CIO ("DC 37"), as well as arbitration and settlement agreements. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 1–5, 267.) Plaintiffs also assert two claims against DC 37 for violating its duty of fair representation and for discriminating against Plaintiffs on the basis of race in violation of § 1981 by acquiescing in the City's discriminatory policies. (Id. ¶¶ 3, 303, 308.)

Three motions are currently pending before the Court. The City Defendants move to dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("FRCP") 12(b)(6) for failure to state a cause of action. (Dkt. 91.) DC 37 moves to dismiss Plaintiffs' Section 1981 claim for failure to state a claim of racial discrimination. (Dkt. 89.)² Plaintiffs move for certification of two classes pursuant to FRCP 23(b)(a) and (b)(2) for liability and injunctive relief. (Dkts. 104; 105 at 2–5.)³ For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' motions to dismiss are granted in part and denied in part, and Plaintiffs' motion for certification is granted.

BACKGROUND

The following facts are taken from the Amended Complaint and exhibits, and are taken as true and construed favorably to Plaintiffs, for purposes of deciding the motions to dismiss.

I. The Parties

Plaintiffs are employed in the NYPD Communications Section as Police Communications Technicians ("PCTs") and Supervisor Police Communication Technicians ("SPCTs," collectively, "911 Operators"). (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 12–13.)⁴ Their responsibilities include answering and directing public emergency calls to the City's 911 response system so that the appropriate police, fire, or emergency resources can be dispatched. (Id. ¶¶ 13, 100.) Both SPCTs and PCTs are overseen and managed by Principal Police Communication Technicians ("PPCTs"). (Id. ¶ 20.)

As of the date of the Amended Complaint, the City employed 1,200 PCTs and 91 SPCTs in the NYPD Communications Section as part of the City's overall emergency call and response system, which consisted of a total of approximately 1,800 dispatchers. (Id. ¶¶ 14, 17.) Other dispatcher units existed within the City's Fire Department ("FDNY"), Department of Sanitation ("DOS"), and Office of Emergency Medical Services ("EMS"). (Id. ¶¶ 258–59.) The City stationed most of the City's dispatchers, including the 911 Operators, at the Public Safety Answering Center ("PSAC") at 11 MetroTech Brooklyn. (Id. ¶¶ 15, 262–64.) Some 911 Operators were stationed at One Police Plaza. (Id. ¶ 17.)

Over 95% of 911 Operators are minorities. (Id. ¶ 257.) Seven of the eight named Plaintiffs—Cynthia Hill ("Hill"), Gail Williams ("Williams"), Denise Inman ("Inman"), Vickie Gordon ("Gordon"), Taura Pate ("Pate"), Ellen Ennis ("Ennis"), and Andrea Holly "Holly")—are African–American women. (Id. ¶ ¶ 22, 26, 30, 34, 42, 46.) The eighth named Plaintiff, Rolando Lopez ("Lopez"), is a Hispanic male of Puerto Rican ancestry. (Id. ¶ 38.)

Plaintiffs name several individual Defendants, all of whom are white males. (Id. ¶¶ 56, 59, 63, 66, 70, 73, 76, 79, 82.) Plaintiffs are pursuing official capacity claims against the Mayor as the chief policy-making official and the NYPD Commissioner as the official responsible for developing and implementing policies of the NYPD, and for training and supervising NYPD employees. (Id. ¶¶ 56–57, 60–62.) According to the Amended Complaint, the City's Executive branch and Deputy Mayors, the Mayor's Office of Operations, and the Office of Citywide Emergency Communications "centrally determine and oversee all major and strategic emergency communications policy and implementation for the City [.]" (Id. ¶ 14.)

Plaintiffs also name several individual Defendants in the NYPD Communications Section in their official and personal capacities. At all times relevant to this action, Napolitano was the Inspector and Deputy Inspector in charge of the section, and Dowd was a section Chief. (Id. ¶¶ 63, 66.) Plaintiffs allege that Naplitano and Dowd were responsible for developing, implementing, and enforcing employment policies within the NYPD Communications Section. (Id. ¶¶ 64, 67.) Kelly was a PPCT and section Platoon Commander who directly supervised other PPCTs. (Id. ¶¶ 20–21, 76.) Polito, Belusic, and Church were section Captains who supervised PPCTs. (Id. ¶¶ 20–21, 70, 73, 79.) Plaintiffs allege that Dowd, Polito, Belusic, Kelly, and Church were responsible for developing and implementing personnel policies, and for imposing and enforcing disciplinary measures against 911 Operators. (Id. ¶¶ 68, 71, 77, 80.)

The Amended Complaint additionally names Lichtenstein in his official and personal capacity. At all relevant times, Lichtenstein was a Deputy Chief Surgeon in the Medical Division of the NYPD. (Id. ¶ 82.) Plaintiffs assert that Lichtenstein was responsible for conducting examinations to determine if 911 Operators who sought reasonable accommodations for disabilities were medically fit for duty under New York Civil Service Law § 72 ("§ 72"). (Am. Compl. ¶ 83.)

Defendant DC 37 is a labor organization that represents municipal employees, including 911 Operators, and serves as the bargaining representative for these employees with the City. (Id. ¶¶ 86–88.)

II. Plaintiffs' Factual Allegations Regarding the City Defendants' Policies and Practices

Plaintiffs recite a litany of policies and practices that the City Defendants imposed on the 911 Operators as part of the alleged pattern of racial discrimination and hostility toward the group. These policies and practices, Plaintiffs maintain, were not imposed on the predominantly non-minority dispatcher units of the FDNY, DOS, or EMS. (Id. ¶¶ 258–59, 264–65, 267.) Plaintiffs allege that FDNY and EMS dispatchers serve the same function as 911 Operators, in that they also answer emergency calls, provide intake of caller information, and dispatch emergency response units, and that 911 Operators often work in tandem with these other dispatchers in response to emergencies, sometimes jointly handling calls. (Id. ¶¶ 259–61.) According to Plaintiffs, most 911 Operators and FDNY dispatchers work on the same floor of the "fully-integrated" PSAC. (Id. ¶¶ 259, 262–64.) Plaintiffs further assert that none of the challenged policies are imposed on other non-minority NYPD employees, including Police Administrative Aids ("PAA"). (Id. ¶¶ 239, 266.) The following summarizes the policies that Plaintiffs allege are indicative of a discriminatory pattern and practice by the City Defendants.

A. Overtime, Scheduling, and Breaks

The Amended Complaint alleges that the City Defendants instituted several policies starting in May 2013 that overworked 911 Operators without regard for their health and safety. 911 Operators were required to work several double-shifts of undefined lengths, often consecutively, without meal or rest breaks. (Id. ¶¶ 111, 211–14.) Specifically, between May and July 2013, the NYPD mandated that 911 Operators work double-shifts of eight hours each, three times a week. (Id. ¶ 103.) Seven of the named Plaintiffs...