McNeil v. Vradenburgh

JOSHUA MCNEIL, Plaintiff, v. WAYNE VRADENBURGH and CITY OF NEWBURGH., Defendants.

18-CV-09353 (PMH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

February 26, 2021

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

PHILIP M. HALPERN, United States District Judge:

Plaintiff Joshua McNeil ("Plaintiff"), commenced this action on October 12, 2018 and presses claims against Wayne Vradenburgh ("Vradenburgh") and the City of Newburgh (the "City," and collectively, "Defendants") related to his allegedly wrongful termination. (Doc. 1, "Compl."). Plaintiff asserts claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000-e, et seq. ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 1981 ("Section 1981"), and the First Amendment. (See generally id.).

Defendants moved, by motion dated March 2, 2020, for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. (Doc. 39; Doc. 43, "Defs. Br."). Plaintiff filed a brief in opposition to Defendants' motion on June 11, 2020 (Doc. 53, "Pl. Br.") and the motion was fully submitted with the filing of Defendants' reply brief on July 1, 2020 (Doc. 56, "Reply").

For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' motion is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

The facts, as recited below, are taken from Plaintiff's Complaint, Defendants' Local Civil Rule 56.1 Statement (Doc. 44, "56.1 Stmt."), Plaintiff's opposition to the Rule 56.1 Statement (Doc. 54, "56.1 Opp'n"), and the admissible evidence submitted by the parties.

Plaintiff, an African American male, was hired by the City on March 17, 2014 as an Assistant Maintenance Mechanic for the City's Water Department. (Compl. ¶ 10; 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 1). Plaintiff's employment was for a three-year probationary period. (56.1 Stmt. ¶ 8 (citing Doc. 52, "Monroe Decl.," McNeil Dep.¹ at 22:20-25)). The Assistant Maintenance Mechanic is an entry level position within the Water Department, and Plaintiff reported to the Maintenance Mechanics who, in turn, reported to the Deputy Superintendent of the Water Department. (Id. ¶¶ 17-18). Plaintiff's primary job duty was to assist the Maintenance Mechanics in any way that was requested by them.² (Id. ¶ 19).

At the time Plaintiff was hired, Jeff Wyans ("Wyans") was the City's Water Superintendent and Reynaldo Santiago ("Santiago") was the Deputy Superintendent. (Id. ¶ 7). After Wyans and Santiago departed, at some time in 2015 or 2016, Vradenburgh was promoted to the position of Deputy Superintendent; and, thereafter, Plaintiff reported directly to Vradenburgh. (Id. ¶¶ 13, 16 (citing Doc. 42, "Mehnert Decl." Ex. D, "Vradenburgh Dep." at 41:22-42:5)).

According to City procedure, if an employee believes there has been a violation of the City's Ordinance on Workplace Violence Prevention, the employee writes an incident report related to the incident and sends the report to the City Manager and Corporation Counsel's Office for review. (Id. ¶ 29 (citing Vradenburgh Dep. at 54:14-55:5)). After an incident report is submitted, the City retains an outside company to investigate the allegations raised in the report and make conclusions and recommendations. (Id. ¶ 30 (citing Vradenburgh Dep. at 57:24-58:7)). From November 2015 through June 2017, the City, on four separate occasions, retained an investigator to investigate allegations of workplace misconduct related to Plaintiff that were raised in incident reports. Those investigations are described below.

I. The November 2015 Investigation

In November 2015, an investigator was hired by the City to investigate three separate incidents involving Plaintiff. (See generally Mehnert Decl. Ex. H, "Nov. City Rep."). The primary incident investigated occurred on August 21, 2015 when Plaintiff got into a verbal altercation with his supervisor, Maintenance Mechanic Steve Brodsky ("Brodsky"). (56.1 Stmt. ¶ 27 (citing McNeil Dep. at 152:7-154:2; see generally Nov. City Rep.)). After the August 21 incident, both Plaintiff and Brodsky filed incident reports with the City. (Id. ¶ 28 (citing Nov. City Rep. at 2-4)). According to Plaintiff, he had complained to Brodsky that a co-worker, Leo Schnetzler ("Schnetzler"), had spoken to him in a rude, disrespectful, and inappropriate manner including calling Plaintiff an "asshole and fucking dummy." (Nov. City Rep. at 2). After Brodsky addressed the situation in a way that Plaintiff believed to be insufficient, Plaintiff told Brodsky that he was going to report Schnetzler's comments to "higher ups." (Id.). According to Brodsky, Plaintiff accused Brodsky of giving certain employees preferential treatment and raised his voice to Brodsky. (Id. at 3). Brodsky denied that he had acted with racial bias towards anyone. (Id. at 4).

During the course of the investigation into the August 21 incident, Plaintiff presented two additional incident reports related to other incidents between Plaintiff and co-workers that also occurred in August 2015. According to Plaintiff, on August 18, 2015, Plaintiff got into a verbal altercation with Schnetzler about Schnetzler's use of his cell phone on the job (id. at 5), and on August 20, 2015, Plaintiff claimed that Vradenburgh unnecessarily "caus[ed] panic and distress" while Plaintiff was working. (Id.).

The investigator recommended, in a report dated November 13, 2015, that the City issue a Counseling Memorandum to Plaintiff because Plaintiff had "exhibited behaviors that have contributed to [a] negative work environment" and had "demonstrated a lack of respect for his co-workers as well as Mr. Brodsky." (Id. at 23). The investigator recommended that Plaintiff be given a Counseling Memorandum to "send a strong message that further violations will result in disciplinary action, up to and including termination of employment." (Id. at 25). The investigator recommended that the City take other actions as well involving other City employees including issuing a Counseling Memorandum to Schnetzler, providing supervisor and employee training, providing diversity training, and developing a cell phone use policy. (Id. at 25-26). On February 11, 2016, Plaintiff was given a Counseling Memorandum by the City Manager, who had adopted the investigator's findings. (56.1 Stmt. ¶ 33 (citing Mehnert Decl. Ex. I, "Counseling Mem.")). The Counseling Memorandum notified Plaintiff that he had violated the City's Workplace Violence Prevention Policy and that he had unnecessarily provoked his fellow coworkers. (Counseling Mem. at 1-2).

II. The April 2016 Investigation

A second investigation was conducted in April 2016 related to incidents involving Plaintiff and Vradenburgh that took place in February 2016. (56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 35-37 (citing Mehnert Decl. Ex.J, "Apr. City Rep.")). According to Vradenburgh, on February 2, 2016, Plaintiff disobeyed a direction from Vradenburgh and Plaintiff accused Vradenburgh of being racist. (Apr. City Rep. at 2-3, 5-6). On February 5, 2016, Vradenburgh apparently arrived at a job site and questioned whether Plaintiff and another employee had directed him to the proper location. (Id. at 7). A third incident occurred on February 12, 2016 and involved a contentious verbal exchange between Plaintiff and Vradenburgh. (Id. at 10-14). A fourth incident occurred on February 24, 2016 and involved Vradenburgh telling Plaintiff how to use a demo saw because Vradenburgh believed Plaintiff was using the saw in a dangerous manner. (Id. at 15-24). The investigator who investigated these incidents concluded, in a report dated April 15, 2016, that Plaintiff had engaged in several acts of insubordination and had not been truthful during his interview with the investigator. (56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 36-37 (citing Apr. City Rep. at 25-28)). Plaintiff stated that he was truthful during the investigation and disagrees with the conclusions reached by the investigator. (56.1 Opp'n ¶ 37). The investigator recommended that "the City should proceed with corrective action against [Plaintiff] on the basis of the insubordination that he displayed on February 2, 2016, and for providing false information in the course of a workplace investigation." (Apr. City Rep. at 28). The City adopted the investigator's recommendations, suspended Plaintiff without pay for four days, and issued a letter of reprimand on July 29, 2016.³ (56.1 Stmt. ¶ 38 (citing Mehnert Decl. Ex. K)).

III. The June 2016 Investigation

On April 22, 2016, another verbal altercation occurred between Plaintiff and Vradenburgh. (Id. ¶ 39 (citing Mehnert Decl. Ex. L, "June City Rep.")). After Vradenburgh perceived Plaintiffto be disobeying his directions, he directed Plaintiff to go home for the day. (June City Rep. at 1). Plaintiff apparently refused and stated "No, I don't have to listen to you." (Id.). The investigator concluded, in a report dated June 6, 2016, that Plaintiff "was insubordinate in refusing to go home for the day after being directed to by his supervisor, Mr. Vradenburgh." (Id. at 6). The investigator recommended that the City proceed with corrective action "on the basis of the insubordination that [Plaintiff] displayed on April 22, 2016."⁴ (56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 40-41 (citing June City Rep. at 6)). The City adopted the investigator's report and Plaintiff was suspended without pay for eight days and issued a letter of reprimand on November 15, 2016.⁵ (Id. ¶ 42 (citing Mehnert Decl. Ex. M)).

IV. The March 2017 Investigation

A fellow coworker, Frank Grady ("Grady"), filed a report on February 8, 2017 stating that he believed Plaintiff had made a racist comment. (Id. ¶¶ 43-44 (citing Mehnert Decl. Ex. N, "Mar. City Rep.")). According to the report, Plaintiff made a comment to Grady about "monkeys training their trainers." (56.1 Opp'n ¶ 43 (quoting Mar. City Rep. at 1)). Plaintiff maintains that Grady misinterpreted the comment and it was not intended to be racist in nature. (Id.). An investigator was retained for the fourth time to investigate the incident, and the investigator concluded that Plaintiff had made derogatory comments towards his coworker. (56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 45-46 (citing Mehnert Decl. Ex. N)). Specifically,...