McIntyre v. Longwood Central School District

Page 400

658 F.Supp.2d 400

Dr. Levi McINTYRE, Plaintiff, v. LONGWOOD CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, Dr. Allan Gerstenlauer, Middle Island Administrators Association, and Kathleen Brennan, Defendants.

No. 07-CV-1337 (JFB)(ETB).

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

September 30, 2009.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Steven A. Morelli, Anthony Christopher Giordano, The Law Offices of Steven A. Morelli, Steven A. Morelli, Leeds, Morelli & Brown, P.C., Carle Place, NY, for Plaintiff.

Rondiene Erin Novitz, Gary Edward Dvoskin, Cruser Mitchell & Novitz, LLP, Bradford Stuhler, Bradford Stuhler, Esq., Melville, NY, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JOSEPH F. BIANCO, District Judge.

Plaintiff Dr. Levi McIntyre ("McIntyre" or "plaintiff") brings this action against defendants Longwood Central School District ("LCSD" or "the district"), Dr. Allan Gerstenlauer ("Gerstenlauer"), Middle Island Administrators Association ("MIAA") and Kathleen Brennan ("Brennan"), (collectively, "defendants"), alleging violations of his rights under federal and New York State law. Specifically, McIntyre asserts the following federal law claims: (1) discrimination based on race and gender in violation of his rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e ("Title VII"); (2) retaliation for filing a complaint in 2004 under Title VII with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"); (3) discrimination based on his age in violation of the Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et seq. ("ADEA"); and (4) violations of his civil rights, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 and the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution.¹ Specifically, plaintiff, who is a 61-year-old African-American male and has been a junior high school principal in LCSD for over fifteen years, contends that he has been denied the same equal base salary increases as other similarly situated administrators in the LCSD and MIAA because of his race, gender, or age and/or as retaliation for filing a complaint with the EEOC in October 2004.

Defendants LCSD and Gerstenlauer (hereinafter, "the LCSD defendants") and defendants MIAA and Brennan (hereinafter, "the MIAA defendants") move by respective motions for summary judgment in their favor on all of plaintiff's claims. For the reasons set forth below, defendants' motions for summary judgment are granted, and the complaint is dismissed in its entirety. In particular, it is undisputed that plaintiff's salary was approximately $141,000 in 2005-06, approximately $148,000 in 2006-07, approximately $155,000 in 2007-08, and approximately $160,000 in 2008-09. Moreover, at the time of the CBA negotiations, he was the 13th highest paid junior high/middle school principal in all of Suffolk County and the highest paid member of the MIAA. In fact, plaintiff's salary in 2005-06 as a junior high school principal was higher than that of an assistant superintendent in the school district. Although plaintiff contends that his rate of salary increase over the life of the CBA (approximately 17 percent) compared to the increases received by other MIAA members provides evidence of discriminatory intent (based on gender, age and/or race) and retaliation, it is further undisputed that, inter alia, under the CBA, (1) the only other person with a salary almost as high as plaintiff's was a white female, who also received an approximately 17 percent increase; (2) with the exception of the high school principal who runs one of the largest high schools in Suffolk County (with 3,000 students) and who was hired after the CBA was negotiated, plaintiff remains the highest paid MIAA employee for the lifetime of the present CBA; (3) a black male assistant principal received a percentage pay increase of 43.5%, which was at the highest level; and (4) three of the other four black members of the MIAA received the top or near the top raises. Moreover, defendants have articulated a non-discriminatory basis for the salary structure in the CBA— namely, the desire to raise the salaries of the majority of the LCSD school administrators who, unlike plaintiff, ranked among the bottom in salary for their respective positions when compared to other administrators in Suffolk County, while giving a lower percentage increase to the higher-paid senior administrators (such as plaintiff) whose salaries were already equaling or surpassing those of senior management, including assistant superintendents. In short, plaintiff has simply presented no evidence, statistical or otherwise, that could support an inference of retaliation or discrimination based on race, age, or gender in the negotiation and execution of this CBA by the defendants. Accordingly, for this reason and the other grounds set forth herein, summary judgment is warranted on all claims.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Facts

The following facts are taken from the parties' depositions, declarations, exhibits and respective Local 56.1 statements of facts.² Upon consideration of a motion for summary judgment, the Court construes the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the non-moving party. See Capobianco v. City of N.Y., 422 F.3d 47, 50 n. 1 (2d Cir.2005).

1. Plaintiff's Position at LCSD

Plaintiff, who is 61 years-old, became the principal of Longwood Junior High School in 1993, where he remains to date. (LCSD defendants' 56.1 statement ("LCSD Def.'s 56.1") ¶¶ 1-2.) Plaintiff took a $3,000 pay cut to work in LCSD, where his annual salary was approximately $84,000 when he began working in the district. (Plaintiff's counterstatement to LCSD Def.'s 56.1 ("Pl.'s LCSD 56.1") ¶ 3.) Plaintiff became a member of MIAA in 1993, when he started work at the LCSD. (LCSD Def.'s 56.1 ¶ 4.) Plaintiff's salary for 2006-07, including a longevity payment of $2,000, was $148,948, and plaintiff's 2007-08 salary, including a longevity payment of $2,000, was $155,576. (MIAA defendants 56.1 statement ("MIAA Def.'s 56.1") ¶ 32-34.) Plaintiff's 2008-09 salary, including a longevity payment of $2,000 and travel allowance of $750, was $160,314. (MIAA Def.'s 56.1 ¶ 35.)

2. The MIAA

MIAA is an unincorporated association consisting of 34 public school administrators from the LCSD. (MIAA Def.'s 56.1 ¶ 1.) MIAA's membership is comprised of principals, assistant principals, and directors. (MIAA Def.'s 56.1 ¶ 2.) Directors and principals are at the same management level. (MIAA Def.'s 56.1 ¶ 61.) Plaintiff was the highest paid member of the MIAA in 2005-2006 and 2006-2007. (Pl.'s LCSD 56.1 ¶ 14; MIAA Def.'s 56.1 ¶ 30.) Plaintiff is the only junior high school principal in the LCSD. (LCSD Def.'s 56.1 ¶ 32; Brennan Dep., at 43.)

Plaintiff claims that MIAA is affiliated with the Council of Administrators and Supervisors ("CAS"). (Pl.'s MIAA 56.1 ¶ 3.) CAS is an unincorporated association that provides legal and negotiating services to approximately 1,400 public school administrators on Long Island and does not represent, or attempt to represent, any employee or person other than Long Island administrators. (MIAA Def.'s 56.1 ¶¶ 4-6.) CAS is not affiliated with the AFL-CIO. (MIAA Def.'s 56.1 ¶ 8.) According to plaintiff, CAS is affiliated with Empire State Supervisors and Administrators Associations ("ESSAA"), which is a New York state-wide union of over 3,500 members that represents administrators on Long Island representing 72 bargaining units in Nassau and Suffolk counties, and that MIAA enjoys the benefits of belonging to CAS and ESSAA. (Plaintiff's Counterstatement to the MIAA defendants' 56.1 ("Pl.'s MIAA 56.1") ¶ 3.) Further, plaintiff claims that ESSAA is affiliated with the ROSOL insurance agency, 1-800 Flowers, Davis Optical, AVIS Worldwide, and other short and long term group life insurance companies. (Pl.'s MIAA 56.1 ¶ 3.)

In the past, MIAA has successfully filed a salary grievance on behalf of plaintiff, regarding a contract during the 1993-94 period, which indicated a higher pay amount than plaintiff had received. (Pl.'s MIAA 56.1 ¶ 60.)

3. Plaintiff's EEOC Complaint

Plaintiff filed a complaint with the EEOC in October 2004 (hereinafter, "the EEOC complaint"). (LCSD Def.'s 56.1 ¶ 10.) Plaintiff testified that numerous incidents regarding former Superintendent Dr. Candee Swensen ("Swensen") led to his filing of this complaint. (Pl.'s LCSD 56.1 ¶¶ 8-9.) Prior to filing the EEOC complaint, plaintiff sent a letter outlining his concerns to Swensen and sent a copy of the letter to MIAA. (Pl.'s LCSD 56.1 ¶ 8.) Plaintiff accused Swensen of being racist. (LCSD Def.'s 56.1 ¶ 9; Pl.'s LCSD 56.1 ¶ 9.) Swensen retired in 2005, and Gerstenlauer, an assistant superintendent under Swenson, has been superintendent of LCSD since 2005. (LCSD Def.'s 56.1 ¶ 12; Pl.'s LCSD 5 6.1 ¶¶ 33, 46.)

After filing the EEOC complaint in 2004, plaintiff does not recall whether anybody else in the school district gave him any problems regarding age, gender, and race discrimination until the time of the 2006 CBA agreement. (LCSD Def.'s 56.1 ¶¶ 11, 13; Pl.'s LCSD 56.1 ¶¶ 11, 13.) When the EEOC complaint was filed, plaintiff called his MIAA attorney and had a meeting with Swenson with the attorney present but "did not have issues with the union doing nothing." (Pl.'s MIAA ¶ 56.1 58; Pl.'s LCSD 56.1 ¶ 8.) Plaintiff testified that he did, however, have problems regarding a 2005 letter issued by Brennan regarding attendance and provided information to the deputy superintendent proving that the information in that letter was incorrect. (Pl.'s LCSD 56.1 ¶ 11.) Plaintiff also testified that, in 2005, he filed a grievance for being denied a "right to attend a conference on sexual harassment." (Pl.'s LCSD 56.1 ¶ 11.) He also ran for the school board in Brentwood and filed a petition. (Pl.'s LCSD 56.1 ¶ 11.) Around November 2006, plaintiff had a meeting with Ms. Watkins, an assistant superintendent, and a follow-up meeting, where Ms. Watkins gave plaintiff a...