Mohammed v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ.

932 F.Supp.2d 420

Lucienne MOHAMMED, Plaintiff,

v.NEW YORK CITY DEP'T OF EDUC., et al., Defendants.

No. 10–CV–219.

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

March 26, 2013.

Anthony C. Ofodile, Brooklyn, NY, for Plaintiff.

Devor Deland Perry, NYC Law Department, Maxwell Douglas Leighton, Jane E. Andersen, New York City Law Department, New York, NY, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

WILLIAM F. KUNTZ, II, District Judge.

Lucienne Mohammed (“Plaintiff”) brings this action against the New York City Department of Education (“DOE”), the City of New York, and Daysi Garcia (“Defendants”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, New York Executive Law § 296 (“NYSHRL”), and New York City Administrative Code § 8–107(1) (“NYCHRL”). Plaintiff alleges that her employment as an elementary school teacher was discriminatorily terminated because of her race and in retaliation for protected activity and speech. Plaintiff also alleges that she suffered a retaliatory hostile work environment. Defendants move for summary judgment to dismiss the action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. For the reasons stated below, the motion of the Defendants is granted.

BACKGROUND

From 1991 to 2008, Plaintiff, an individual of African descent, was employed as an elementary school teacher at Public School 65 (“P.S. 65”). Compl. at ¶ 15; Defendants' Rule 56.1 Statement at ¶¶ 2–3 (“Defs.' 56.1 St.”). Defendant Daysi Garcia (“Principal Garcia”) became the principal of P.S. 65 in 2004. Defs.' 56.1 St. at ¶ 4. Dionne Jaggon (“Ms. Jaggon”), a math coach at P.S. 65, was promoted to Assistant Principal in March 2007, following the retirement of Assistant Principal Mendez (“AP Mendez”). Id. at ¶¶ 5–6. Plaintiff taught a fifth grade class during the 2004–2005, 2005–2006, and 2006–2007 school years. Id. at ¶ 7.

I. Alleged Discrimination and Hostile Work EnvironmentA. 2005–2006 School Year

On March 3, 2006, AP Mendez performed a formal observation of Plaintiff's classroom and issued her an overall rating of satisfactory. Id. at ¶ 10. The written evaluation included both “commendable aspects” of Plaintiff's lesson plan and “recommendations for improvement.” Id. Plaintiff received an overall rating of satisfactory during her annual performance review and report for the 2005–2006 school year. Id. at ¶ 11.

B. 2006—2007 School Year

On October 18, 2006, AP Mendez observed Plaintiff's classroom and again provided several recommendations for improvement, and again issued an overall rating of satisfactory. Id. at ¶ 14; Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Rule 56.1 Statement (“Pl.'s 56.1 St.”) at ¶ 14.

During a professional development session held on November 7, 2006, Plaintiff was asked to read the part of “the Black ugly Negro” from a children's book, a task that Plaintiff found humiliating. Defs.' 56.1 St. at ¶ 15. Though Principal Garcia did not attend the professional development session, Plaintiff asserts that the meeting would not have occurred without Principal Garcia's knowledge. Id. at ¶ 16. Plaintiff also claims that Principal Garcia likely knew Plaintiff would be asked to read the part of the offensive stereotyped character because teachers often vetted material to be used in such meetings through Principal Garcia beforehand. Pl.'s 56.1 St. at ¶ 17.

On December 27, 2006, Casey Phillip, also a teacher of African descent, filed a charge of discrimination against Principal Garcia with the New York DOE Office of Equal Opportunity (“OEO”), alleging that Principal Garcia had discriminated against him and other teachers of color based on race and national origin. Ofodile Affirm., Ex. 3. On January 29, 2007, Plaintiff supported Phillip's claim during a phone interview with William Brewton, a representative from the OEO. Id., Ex. 4. On February 20, 2007, the OEO issued a report concluding that Phillip's discrimination claims lacked a credible basis. Id. The OEO provided a copy of that report to Principal Garcia. Id., Ex. 5. That same report also contained a claim by Ms. Jaggon that she had overheard Plaintiff speaking to Mr. Phillip, allegedly plotting to destroy Principal Garcia's career by encouraging Mr. Phillip to report that Principal Garcia was racially discriminating against them. Id., Ex. 4.

Beginning in late April 2007, Plaintiff began to receive several critical letters from Principal Garcia and Ms. Jaggon, who had become Assistant Principal in March 2007, relating to various aspects of her classroom performance and administration. Defs.' 56.1 St. at ¶¶ 25–28, 32–33, 37. On May 14, 2007, Ms. Jaggon observed Plaintiff's classroom and provided several recommendations for improvement. Id. at ¶ 29. While it was standard practice for teachers to undergo classroom observations twice a year, the May 14, 2007 observation was the third Plaintiff had received that year. Pl.'s Dep. Tr. at 48:5–13. In a written report dated May 22, 2007, Ms. Jaggon rated Plaintiff's May 14, 2007 lesson as unsatisfactory, the first time Plaintiff had ever received such an evaluation. Andersen Affirm., Ex. S; Ofodile Affirm., Ex. 6.

On May 16, 2007, Plaintiff filed a “Step I” grievance, pursuant to the DOE Equal Opportunity Policy, alleging that Principal Garcia had engaged in a “pattern of discriminatory behavior and harassment against [Plaintiff] based on [her] race, color, and national origin.” Ofodile Affirm., Ex. 2. Principal Garcia denied the grievance on May 23, 2007. Id. On June 1, 2007, Principal Garcia was notified that Plaintiff had filed a complaint with the OEO on May 29, 2007, alleging that Principal Garcia had discriminated against her on the basis of color, ethnicity, race, religion, and retaliation. Defs.' 56.1 St. at ¶ 34.

On June 11, 2007, Iris Battino Bernstein, a regional supervisor responsible for mathematics for all schools within the district, observed Plaintiff's math lesson. Defs.' 56.1 St. at ¶ 36. According to Plaintiff, observations by regional supervisors were rare, except for teachers who had complained of discrimination by Principal Garcia, such as Plaintiff and Casey Phillip. Pl.'s 56.1 St. at ¶ 36. Bernstein's report included both suggestions for improvement and commendations, and the lesson as a whole was rated as unsatisfactory. Id.

Plaintiff's annual performance review and report for the 2006–2007 school year contained an overall rating of unsatisfactory. Id. at ¶ 38. This was the first time Plaintiff had received an unsatisfactory rating on an end of the year review. Pl.'s 56.1 St. at ¶ 38.

By letter dated July 24, 2007, Principal Garcia was informed that OEO's investigation of Plaintiff's discrimination claims had concluded that there had been no violation of relevant regulations. Defs.' 56.1 St. at ¶ 41.

C. 2007–2008 School Year

Plaintiff was assigned to teach a third grade class for the 2007–2008 school year. Id. at ¶ 43. During that school year, Principal Garcia and Ms. Jaggon wrote several dozen letters to Plaintiff, often issuing several letters per month, evaluating and criticizing Plaintiff's classroom performance on a number of levels. Id. at ¶¶ 45–51, 53, 55, 57–58, 62–66, 68–72, 75. Some letters reprimanded Plaintiff for relatively minor infractions such as failing to submit weekly lesson plans to Principal Garcia. Id. at ¶ 46. Other letters raised more serious allegations, such as failure to complete lesson plans or properly complete student report cards. Id. at ¶¶ 47–48, 55, 64. Plaintiff does not dispute that Principal Garcia and Ms. Jaggon wrote such letters, but she alleges that every critical letter was baseless and written in an attempt to create a false paper trail that would later be used to destroy Plaintiff's career. Pl.'s 56.1 St. at ¶¶ 45–51, 53, 55, 57–58, 62–66, 68–72, 75.

Plaintiff's classroom also underwent an unusually high number of observations during the 2007–2008 school year. For instance, on October 17, 2007, Ms. Jaggon observed Plaintiff's classroom, offered recommendations for improvement, and ultimately rated Plaintiff's lesson as unsatisfactory. Defs.' 56.1 St. at ¶ 52. On November 26, 2007, Principal Garcia and a consultant from the Teacher Performance Unit/Labor Support Unit, Joseph Belesi, observed Plaintiff's third grade literacy lesson, again resulting in a rating of unsatisfactory. Id. at ¶ 54. Likewise, Principal Garcia and Ms. Jaggon separately observed Plaintiff's classroom on January 29, 2008, May 9, 2008, May 28, 2008; the lessons observed on all three dates were rated unsatisfactory. Id. at ¶¶ 59, 67, 74. Again, Plaintiff does not dispute that she received unsatisfactory ratings for these five classroom observations, but she alleges that the ratings were part and parcel of a scheme to retaliate against Plaintiff because she had filed an OEO complaint of discrimination. Pl.'s 56.1 St. at ¶¶ 52, 54, 59, 67, 74.

In December 2008, Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination based upon race, color, religion, and national origin with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). Defs.' 56.1 St. at ¶ 56. The charge also claimed retaliation and a hostile work environment. Id.

II. The Peer Observation and Evaluation Program (“PIP Plus”)

On February 5, 2008, Plaintiff chose to participate in the Peer Observation and Evaluation Program (“PIP Plus”). Id. at ¶ 60; Pl.'s 56.1 St. at ¶ 60–61. The program was jointly developed by the DOE and the United Federation of Teachers (“UFT”) and was designed for tenured teachers identified as in need of instructional improvement and in danger of having disciplinary charges filed against them. Defs.' 56.1 St. at ¶ 60. The program is run by an outside company that uses outside observers—independent of the DOE or the UFT—to observe participating teachers. Id. In turn, those independent observers provide feedback to participating teachers and their principals regarding areas of need, plans for improvement, methods...