Klymn v. Monroe Cnty. Supreme Ct.

641 F.Supp.3d 6

Rebecca KLYMN, Plaintiff, v. MONROE COUNTY SUPREME COURT, Unified Court System of the State of New York, Office of Court Administration, Office of the Managing Inspector General for Bias Matters, Cosmas Grant, Ronald Pawelczak, Mary Aufleger, Ann Marie Taddeo, Carolyn Grimaldi, Margaret Allen, Amy Fields, and Matthew Rosenbaum, Defendants.

21-CV-6488 (JLS)

United States District Court, W.D. New York

Signed November 15, 2022

Anna Marie Richmond, Buffalo, NY, Lindy Korn, Electric Tower, Buffalo, NY, for Plaintiff.

Heather Lynn McKay, Michele Romance Crain, New York State Attorney General's Office Department of Law, Rochester, NY, Pedro Morales, NYS Office of Court Administration, New York, NY, for Defendants Monroe County Supreme Court, Unified Court System of the State of New York, Office of Court Administration, Office of the Managing Inspector General for Bias Matters.

Heather Lynn McKay, Michele Romance Crain, New York State Attorney General's Office Department of Law, Rochester, NY, for Defendants Cosmas Grant, Ronald Pawelczak, Mary Aufleger, Ann Marie Taddeo, Carolyn Grimaldi, Margaret Allen, Amy Fields.

David Rothenberg, Rothenberg Law, Rochester, NY, Heather Lynn McKay, New York State Attorney General's Office Department of Law, Rochester, NY, for Defendant Matthew Rosenbaum.

DECISION AND ORDER

JOHN L. SINATRA, JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff Rebecca Klymn brings this action 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, and the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. L. § 290 et seq. ("NYHRL"). She asserts various claims under those statutes against Defendants Monroe County Supreme Court, Unified Court System of the State of New York ("UCF"), Office of Court Administration ("OCA"), Office of the Managing Inspector General for Bias Matters ("OIG"), Cosmas Grant, Ronald Pawelczak, Mary Aufleger, Ann Marie Taddeo, Carolyn Grimaldi, Margaret Allen, Amy Fields, and Matthew Rosenbaum. See Dkt. 49. Plaintiff sues Grant, Pawelczak, Aufleger, Taddeo, Grimaldi, Allen, Fields and Rosenbaum in their personal and official capacities. See id. ¶¶ 16, 19-25.

Before the Court are three motions to dismiss: one filed by Rosenbaum (Dkt. 19); one filed by Grant, Pawelczak, Aufleger, Taddeo, Grimaldi, Allen, and Fields (collectively, the "Individual Defendants") (Dkt. 21);¹ and one filed by UCS, OCA, and OIG (collectively, the "State Court Defendants") (Dkt. 17).

For the reasons discussed below, Rosenbaum's motion (Dkt. 19) is DENIED. As a result, Plaintiff's claims against Rosenbaum under the NYHRL and Section 1983 for retaliation and harassment may proceed.

The Individual Defendants' motion (Dkt. 21) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. All of Plaintiff's official-capacity claims against the Individual Defendants for money damages are dismissed as barred by the Eleventh Amendment without leave to amend. Plaintiff's NYHRL claims otherwise survive. Plaintiff's claims against the Individual Defendants under Section 1983 are dismissed as insufficiently pleaded. Plaintiff is granted leave to leave amend her Section 1983 claims against the Individual Defendants, to the extent they are not barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity, if she can allege the requisite personal involvement.

The State Court Defendants' motion (Dkt. 17) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff's Title VII claims against the State Court Defendants may proceed to the extent that they post-date December 2019, but are otherwise dismissed without leave to amend.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff commenced this action on July 16, 2021. Dkt. 1. The State Court Defendants filed their motion to dismiss (Dkt. 17) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) on November 10, 2021. Plaintiff opposed the motion, and the State Court Defendants replied. Dkt. 26, 30. The Individual Defendants filed their motion to dismiss (Dkt. 21) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) on November 12, 2021. Plaintiff opposed the motion, and the Individual Defendants replied. Dkt. 27, 29. Rosenbaum filed his motion to dismiss (Dkt. 19) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) on November 12, 2021. Plaintiff opposed the motion, and Rosenbaum replied. Dkt. 25, 28.

On August 4, 2022, while Defendants' motions to dismiss (Dkt. 17, 19, 21) were pending, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the Complaint, and attached a Proposed Amended Complaint. Dkt. 42. The Individual Defendants and Rosenbaum filed submissions stating that they take no position with respect to Plaintiff's motion. Dkt. 44, 45. The State Court Defendants, however, opposed the motion on the grounds that the proposed amendments are futile, and Plaintiff replied. Dkt. 46, 47.

On August 29, 2022, this Court granted Plaintiff's motion (Dkt. 42) and ordered Plaintiff to file the Amended Complaint. Dkt. 48. The Court stated that it will consider the pending motions to dismiss (Dkt. 17, 19, 21) in light of the facts alleged in the Amended Complaint. Id. The Court also stated that it will consider the State Court Defendants' futility arguments when deciding the pending motions to dismiss. Id. Further, the Court ordered that "Defendants may file supplemental papers, as necessary, in support of their pending motions to dismiss" and "Plaintiff may file responding papers." Id. Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on August 30, 2022. Dkt. 49.

On September 23, 2022, Defendant Rosenbaum and the State Court Defendants filed supplemental memoranda in support of their pending motions to dismiss. Dkt. 50, 52, 53. The Individual Defendants, however, filed a new motion seeking dismissal of the Amended Complaint. Dkt. 51.² On October 14, 2022, Plaintiff replied to the supplemental submissions. Dkt. 54, 55, 56.

THE AMENDED COMPLAINT³

Plaintiff alleges that she was previously "employed as a Secretary" to Matthew Rosenbaum, a "Supreme Court Justice in Monroe County, New York" who assumed office on March 28, 2005. Dkt. 49, ¶¶ 25, 27-28. She was employed in that position from "March of 2005 until December of 2019," when Rosenbaum resigned from his judicial position. Id. ¶¶ 28, 128.

According to Plaintiff, Rosenbaum compelled Plaintiff to perform numerous unwanted sexual acts between 2005 and 2009. Specifically, she claims he repeatedly forced her to "perform fellatio" upon him in his judicial chambers. See id. ¶¶ 29, 31, 38-39, 44-45, 71-72, 77-78. This supposedly occurred dozens of times each year. See id. Rosenbaum also allegedly "addressed Plaintiff using demeaning terms," commented "inappropriately" on Plaintiff's clothing, "touched and hugged Plaintiff in the presence of others" and sometimes required Plaintiff "to perform personal errands" for himself and his family members during work hours over the approximately four-year period. See id. ¶¶ 34, 42, 48, 75. In addition, on one occasion in 2006, Rosenbaum "raped Plaintiff in her home after work hours." Id. ¶ 41. Even though Rosenbaum's advances were unwanted, he allegedly "threatened" that Plaintiff must comply "if she wanted to keep her job." Id. ¶ 33.

On May 14, 2007, Plaintiff allegedly informed Judge Ann Marie Taddeo—another Supreme Court Justice in Monroe County—about Rosenbaum's "sexual demands." Id. ¶¶ 21, 54. Taddeo then told Plaintiff there "wasn't much" she could do about it, and that, "unfortunately, women [have] to endure sexual harassment from male judges because there [is] no way to have them reprimanded." Id. ¶¶ 57, 58. On November 20, 2007, Plaintiff met with Defendant Margaret Allen—head of Human Resources at Monroe County Supreme Court—about Rosenbaum's "conduct" and "asked for help." Id. ¶¶ 23, 61. According to Plaintiff, both Taddeo and Allen were "obligated" pursuant to internal policy to provide Plaintiff with a copy of the relevant "sexual harassment complaint form" and then "send the complaint to OIG," but neither of them did so. Id. ¶¶ 56-57, 62-63.

The forced sexual encounters between Plaintiff and Rosenbaum allegedly ceased on June 1, 2009, when Plaintiff refused a demand from Rosenbaum for oral sex "and told him she would no longer respond" to such demands or "acquiesce to his threats." Id. ¶ 83. Nevertheless, on a "daily basis" from 2009 to 2017, Rosenbaum "continued to touch Plaintiff, put his arm around" her, comment "inappropriately" on her clothing, and address her "by demeaning" and "inappropriate" names such as "sweetie" and "honey." Id. ¶ 84. This behavior was "unwelcome" to Plaintiff. Id. ¶ 85. During this same period of time, Rosenbaum also "continued to require Plaintiff to perform personal errands" for Rosenbaum and his family. Id. ¶ 86. The touching and comments continued "[t]hroughout 2018, and during the first months of 2019." Id. ¶ 93.

In January 2018, Plaintiff received "UCS' updated form for filing a complaint and discriminatory treatment." Id. ¶ 89. She "submitted a second complaint" to "OIG" on January 8, 2018, but received no response. Id. ¶¶ 89-91. She claims that "OIG" and Grant "did not investigate" either of her 2007 or 2018 complaints and failed to report them "to the appropriate administrative judges." Id. ¶ 92.

In June 2019, Rosenbaum allegedly "urged" Plaintiff to "take a leave of absence" to "get her head on straight" and then "stopped speaking to Plaintiff altogether in July 2019." Id. ¶¶ 96-97. On July 31, 2019, Plaintiff met separately with Taddeo, Defendant Pawelczak (District Executive of the Seventh Judicial District of the State of New York), and Defendant Fields (a Principal Court Analysist assigned to Human Resources at Monroe County Supreme Court). Id. ¶ 98. Plaintiff was "told by each that they could do nothing to help her." Id. ¶ 101. She claims that, although Pawelczak was "obligated" to provide a copy of the relevant sexual harassment complaint form," he did not do so. See id. ¶¶ 19, 24, 99-100.

In August and September of 2019, Rosenbaum was "verbally abusive" toward Plaintiff and "encouraged or directed his...