Krause v. Kelahan

LISA KRAUSE, Plaintiff, v. GREG KELAHAN, Superintendent, Oriskany Central School District, et al., Defendants.

6:17-CV-1045 (LEK/ATB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

May 29, 2020

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Lisa Krause brings this action against the Oriskany Central School District (the "District"), the Oriskany Central School District Board of Education (the "Board") (together with the District, the "Municipal Defendants"), former District Superintendent Greg Kelahan, and several current or former members of the Board (together with Kelahan, the "Individual Defendants"). Dkt. No. 52 ("Amended Complaint"). On April 26, 2018, the Court dismissed several of Plaintiff's claims, but found that the following claims could proceed: gender discrimination and hostile work environment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.; gender discrimination and hostile work environment under the New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL"), N.Y. Exec. Law § 290, et seq.; and, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, gender discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. Dkt. No. 49 ("April 2018 MDO"); see also Dkt. Nos. 16 ("Municipal Defendants' Motion to Dismiss"); 43 ("Individual Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings"). In the same decision, the Court also granted Plaintiff's request to file the Amended Complaint, see Dkt. No. 22, noting that the "claims dismissed by [the April 2018 MDO] shall remain dismissed." Apr. 2018 MDO at 37.¹, ²

After proceeding through discovery, all Defendants filed a single motion for summary judgment. Dkt. No. 78 ("Summary Judgment Motion" or "SJ Motion"); see also Dkt. Nos. 78-46 ("SJ Memorandum"); 78-45 ("Defendants' Statement of Material Facts" or "Defendants' SMF"). Plaintiff opposed Defendants' Summary Judgement Motion, Dkt. No. 83-11 ("Response"); see also Dkt. Nos. 83-9 ("Plaintiff's Responsive SMF"); 83-10 ("Plaintiff's Additional SMF"), and Defendants filed a reply. Dkt. No. 90-8 ("Reply"); see also Dkt. Nos. 90-6 ("Defendants' Reply to Plaintiff's Responsive SMF"); 90-7 ("Defendants' Response to Plaintiff's Additional SMF"). Defendants have also filed two motions requesting that the Court strike various affirmations and documents submitted by Plaintiff. Dkt. Nos. 87 ("First Motion to Strike"); 100 ("Second Motion to Strike") (together, "Motions to Strike"); see also Dkt. No. 96 ("Response to First Motion to Strike").

For the reasons that follow, Defendants' Summary Judgment Motion is granted in part and denied in part. Defendants' Motions to Strike are also granted in part and denied in part.

II. BACKGROUND

This case turns on two competing narratives of Plaintiff's brief, tumultuous tenure as principal of Oriskany High School. According to Plaintiff, she was a capable, hard-working principal dragged down by a sexist superintendent and acquiescent board. Defendants tell a muchdifferent story, claiming that Plaintiff was in over her head from day one, and only grew more ineffective as the school careened from crisis to crisis under her mismanagement.

Before moving to the specifics, the Court turns briefly to Defendants' Reply to Plaintiff's Responsive SMF, in which Defendants object that Plaintiff's Responsive SMF does not comply with the local rule requiring that "[t]he non-movant's response shall mirror the movant's Statement of Material Facts by admitting and/or denying each of the movant's assertions in a short and concise statement, in matching numbered paragraphs. Each denial shall set forth a specific citation to the record where the factual issue arises." Defs.' Reply to Pl.'s Responsive SMF at 1 (quoting N.D.N.Y. L.R. 7.1(a)(3)). For the most part, Defendants' grievance is well founded. For instance, in response to Defendants' statement that "[o]ne of the incidents in September 2016 that prompted Plaintiff's termination was her abandonment of the 'bell' system used at the high school to announce the beginning and end of class periods," Defs.' SMF ¶ 108, Plaintiff responds: "Admit that the 'bell system' is a pretextual excuse used by Defendants to make their discriminatory termination of Plaintiff's employment," Pl.'s Responsive SMF ¶ 108. The Court disregards Plaintiff's inappropriate insertion of legal arguments in Plaintiff's Responsive SMF, and deems admitted any of Defendants' statements that are not countered with denials and specific citations to the record. See N.D.N.Y. L.R. 7.1(a)(3); Maioriello v. New York State Office for People With Developmental Disabilities, 272 F. Supp. 3d 307, 311 (N.D.N.Y. 2017) ("[T]hroughout Plaintiff's Rule 7.1 Response, she "admits" many of the facts asserted by Defendants in their Rule 7.1 Statement but then includes additional facts and/or legal argument in those responses. Where this occurs, the Court will deem those facts admitted and disregard the additional factual assertions and/or argument that Plaintiff provides in her responses." (citations omitted)).

The rest of this section summarizes the facts as recounted by both parties.

A. Plaintiff is Hired

Despite the numerous defendants and third parties named in this litigation, the case centers around the interactions of only two people: Plaintiff and Greg Kelahan. Kelahan was superintendent of schools for the District from 2010 to June 30, 2017. Defs.' SMF ¶ 4; Pl.'s Responsive SMF ¶ 4. Plaintiff was high school principal for the District from December 16, 2014 until her termination on October 19, 2016. Defs.' SMF ¶ 17; Pl.'s Responsive SMF ¶ 17.

According to Defendants, the District had already gone through three "cycles" of candidates before Plaintiff applied; in each of those cycles, Kelahan had recommended an individual be hired, and the Board had rejected his recommendation. Defs.' SMF ¶ 22. Kelahan contacted Plaintiff to invite her to interview in late 2014, and Kelahan recommended she be hired over two other candidates in that cycle, one of whom was male. Defs.' SMF ¶¶ 23-25. The Board then hired Plaintiff for a probationary term of three years before consideration of tenure. Defs.' SMF ¶¶ 26, 30. Plaintiff has no firsthand knowledge of the other candidates that Kelahan interviewed or recommended, but she agrees that the Board hired her on Kelahan's recommendations for a three-year probationary term. Pl.'s Responsive SMF ¶¶ 23-30.³

B. Problems from the Start

According to Defendants, "[a]lmost immediately it became apparent that Plaintiff lacked the knowledge, experience, or work ethic to perform her duties properly, and her work performance was poor from the outset." Defs.' SMF ¶ 32. However, "[Mr.] Kelahan believed he could teach [Plaintiff] and bring her along." Defs.' SMF ¶ 34. Plaintiff was assigned a"leadership mentor" and offered development seminars. Defs.' SMF ¶¶ 36-37. Plaintiff responds that "her work performance was within standards from the very beginning, even according to Defendant Kelahan," though she agrees that Margaret Beck, an executive leadership coach, served as her leadership mentor. Pl.'s Responsive SMF ¶¶ 32, 36.

Defendants claim that Plaintiff's job performance deteriorated further throughout her tenure, and assert that she was unfocused, uncommunicative, unable to handle pressure, and that as a result, the school was "in a virtually continuous state of chaos." Defs.' SMF ¶¶ 40-48. Defendants describe an incident, for instance, in which Plaintiff thought a state test had gone missing and "panicked, questioning and accusing people throughout the high school" when in actuality "the test had simply not yet been delivered." Id. ¶ 42.⁴ Plaintiff disputes this, Pl.'s SMF ¶ 42, and touts a variety of accomplishments such as creating a school book-store, increasing passing rates and tutoring opportunities, and building a "15-20 minute advisory period for students to provide resources for test prep." Dkt. No. 83-2 ("Krause Affirmation") at 10.

More significantly, Plaintiff attributes any lapses in her focus or performance to Kelahan's harassment and attempts to undermine her. Pl.'s Responsive SMF ¶¶ 40-48. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Kelahan, who worked in a different building, would come by her office everyday—far more often than he ever did when there was a male principal. Pl.'s Add'l SMF ¶¶ 158-59. During these visits, Kelahan would treat Plaintiff "disrespectfully and dismissively." Id. ¶ 162. He "mocked things in [Plaintiff's] office as 'girly' and 'stupid,'" andcriticized the way Plaintiff raised her daughter, stating, "What kind of a Mother are you?" Id. ¶¶ 161, 165-66. Plaintiff also claims that Kelahan told her "your family is such a distraction. You're not able to do a good job because of your family," and on another occasion stated that "you're not allowed to talk about your daughter, because it's your passive aggressive way of getting me not to fire you." Dkt. No. 83-4 ("Krause 50-h Hearing") at 20-21. Further, Kelahan regularly screamed at Plaintiff, often reducing her to tears. Id. ¶ 167. On one such occasion, after Plaintiff started crying, Kelahan stated, "It's what I hate about working with women, so emotional." Id. ¶ 168. In February 2016, Kelahan became upset at Plaintiff for failing to include a message he requested in the morning announcements, and he "threw papers in [Plaintiff's] face" and said "[t]ake these while I go do your fucking job."

Kelahan denies that he made any of these statements. 83-8 ("Kelahan Deposition") at 185-86.⁵ Kelahan also denies that he "threw papers," instead stating that he "tossed a one- or two-page document on the desk Plaintiff was standing behind." Defs.' SMF ¶ 74 (citing Dkt. Nos. 78-9 ("Sojda Affidavit") ¶¶ 16-17; Kelahan Dep. at 129, 131. In Kelahan's deposition, in response to the question on whether "any of [the papers] hit [Plaintiff]," Kelahan replied, "I definitely do not know. Hit, I do not know the answer to that." Kelahan Dep. at 131; see also Sojda Aff. at 16.

Pl...