Nieblas-Love v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth.

165 F.Supp.3d 51

Pedro D. Nieblas-Love, Plaintiff,

v.New York City Housing Authority, et al., Defendants.

14-CV-5444 (JMF)

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

Signed February 26, 2016

Pedro D. Nieblas-Love, Brooklyn, NY, pro se.

Judith Agatha Joseph, Donna Marie Murphy, New York City Housing Authority, Kelly MacNeal, Law Department of the City of New York, New York, NY, for Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge:

Plaintiff Pedro D. Nieblas-Love, who brings this action pro se , was employed by the New York City Housing Authority (“NYCHA”) as a janitor for about ten weeks in 2013 before his probationary employment was terminated. Plaintiff brings a slew of claims against NYCHA and NYCHA employees Jeffery Otero, Efrain Diaz, Russell Hartfield, and Joshua Colon, alleging principally that they discriminated against him on the basis of race, national origin, and disability and that they retaliated against him for complaining of discrimination during the course of his employment. In particular, Plaintiff pursues claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (“Section 1981”), the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), the New York State Human Rights Law (the “NYSHRL”), the New York City Human Rights Law (the “NYCHRL”), and the New York Correction Law, as well as state law claims for negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, aiding and abetting, and supervisor liability. Defendants and Plaintiff now cross-move, pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for summary judgment on all of Plaintiff's claims; Plaintiff also moves, pursuant to Rule 23, for class certification. For the reasons discussed below, both of Plaintiff's motions are denied in their entirety, while Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part.

BACKGROUND

The relevant facts, taken from the Amended Complaint and materials submitted in connection with the pending motions, are either undisputed or described in the light most favorable to Plaintiff. See Costello v. City of Burlington , 632 F.3d 41, 45 (2d Cir.2011).

On July 8, 2013, NYCHA hired Plaintiff on a probationary basis as a “Caretaker J,” a position responsible for janitorial work in NYCHA developments. (Rule 56.1 Statement (Docket No. 52) (“Pl.'s SOF”) ¶ 1). Caretaker Js are generally assigned specific floors within a building with a schedule of tasks to be performed each day. (Defs.' Rule 56.1 Statement Supp. Their Mot. Summ. J. (Docket No. 60) (“Defs.' SOF”) ¶¶ 7-8). NYCHA assigned Plaintiff to work at Isaacs Houses in Manhattan, where—at all relevant times—Defendant Diaz was the Property Manager, Defendant Hartfield was the Property Maintenance Supervisor, and Defendant Otero was the Supervisor of Caretakers. (Id. ¶ 6). On July 16, 2013, Otero assigned Plaintiff to the thirteen lower floors of 1780 First Avenue, part of the Isaacs Houses. (Pl.'s SOF ¶¶ 2-3; Defs.' SOF ¶¶ 5-6, 11-12). Defendant Colon, another Caretaker J, was assigned to the same building. (Def's SOF ¶ 6). From the very beginning of his employment, Plaintiff had an antagonistic relationship with Otero, confronting him about “his public mistreatment of workers and arbitrary decision making” and “bully[ing].” (Pl.'s SOF ¶¶ 2, 5). Shortly after he began working at Isaacs Houses, Plaintiff informed Otero that he had diabetes and an enlarged heart. (Defs.' SOF ¶ 14). Otero allowed Plaintiff to take breaks whenever he requested them if he needed to take medication or go to the bathroom, but required Plaintiff to notify Otero before he took such breaks. (Pl.'s SOF ¶ 6).

Almost immediately after Plaintiff started working, residents of Isaacs Houses began to make complaints about his work performance. (See Defs.' SOF ¶¶ 20-21, 24). On August 12, 2013, after only about a month of probationary employment, Plaintiff filed a complaint of alleged discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). (Pl.'s SOF ¶¶ 7-8). On August 19, 2013, Plaintiff accused Otero of racist behavior in front of Diaz and informed them of the fact that he intended to pursue a discrimination complaint. (Id. ¶ 9). In response to Plaintiff's allegations, Diaz and Otero conducted a hearing with Plaintiff's union on August 20, 2013, at which Plaintiff was provided an opportunity to present proof of his accusations against Otero. (Id. ¶ 10). On August 21, 2013, Plaintiff received an instructional memo from Otero informing him of deficiencies in his work performance. (Defs.' SOF ¶ 26). It is uncontested that Plaintiff repeatedly fought and argued with Otero, made threats to Diaz about Otero, and sometimes refused direct instructions from Otero. (Id. ¶ 30–31).

On the morning of September 10, 2013, Plaintiff confronted Colon in the compactor room of 1780 First Avenue, accusing him of moving garbage to Plaintiff's side of the room. (Pl.'s SOF ¶ 17). Otero, Diaz, and eventually Hartfield were called to break up the argument that then ensued between Colon and Plaintiff, which quickly became heated and confrontational. (Id. ). Later that day, Diaz prepared a memorandum requesting Plaintiff's termination. (Diaz Decl., Ex. 1). Diaz stated that Plaintiff was uncooperative and resented receiving instructions from supervisors and specifically cited his interactions with Plaintiff on September 10th and August 19th as support for the termination request. (Decl. Efrain Diaz Supp. Defs.' Mot. Summ. J. (Docket No. 65) (“Diaz Decl.”) Ex. 1). Diaz's memorandum was sent to NYCHA Director of Manhattan Property Management, Calcedonio Bruno, who approved the request and forwarded it to NYCHA's Department of Human Resources for approval. (Defs.' SOF ¶¶ 40-41; Diaz Decl., Ex. 2). Plaintiff's employment was then terminated, effective September 16, 2013. (Defs.' SOF ¶ 41). Plaintiff filed this action in the Supreme Court of the County of New York on June 18, 2014, alleging numerous claims of discrimination and retaliation. The case was subsequently removed to this Court. (Docket No. 1).

LEGAL STANDARDS

Summary judgment is appropriate where the admissible evidence and the pleadings demonstrate “no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ; see also Johnson v. Killian , 680 F.3d 234, 236 (2d Cir.2012) (per curiam). A dispute over an issue of material fact qualifies as genuine “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a judgment for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) ; accord Roe v. City of Waterbury , 542 F.3d 31, 35 (2d Cir.2008). The moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). “In moving for summary judgment against a party who will bear the ultimate burden of proof at trial, the movant's burden will be satisfied if he can point to an absence of evidence to support an essential element of the nonmoving party's claim.” Goenaga v. March of Dimes Birth Defects Found. , 51 F.3d 14, 18 (2d Cir.1995) (citing Celotex , 477 U.S. at 322–23, 106 S.Ct. 2548 ); accord PepsiCo, Inc. v. Coca – Cola Co. , 315 F.3d 101, 105 (2d Cir.2002) (per curiam).

In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, all evidence must be viewed “in the light most favorable to the non-moving party,” Overton v. N.Y. State Div. of Military & Naval Affairs , 373 F.3d 83, 89 (2d Cir.2004), and the court must “resolve all ambiguities and draw all permissible factual inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought,” Sec. Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc. , 391 F.3d 77, 83 (2d Cir.2004). When, as in this case, both sides move for summary judgment, the district court is “required to assess each motion on its own merits and to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of that party.”

Wachovia Bank, Nat'l Ass'n v. VCG Special Opportunities Master Fund, Ltd. , 661 F.3d 164, 171 (2d Cir.2011). Thus, “neither side is barred from asserting that there are issues of fact, sufficient to prevent the entry of judgment, as a matter of law, against it.” Heublein, Inc. v. United States , 996 F.2d 1455, 1461 (2d Cir.1993).

To defeat a motion for summary judgment, a non-moving party must advance more than a “scintilla of evidence,” Anderson , 477 U.S. at 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505, and demonstrate more than “some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts,” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp. , 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). The non-moving party “cannot defeat the motion by relying on the allegations in [its] pleading or on conclusory statements, or on mere assertions that affidavits supporting the motion are not credible.” Gottlieb v. Cty. of Orange , 84 F.3d 511, 518 (2d Cir.1996) (citation omitted). Affidavits submitted in support of, or opposition to, summary judgment must be based on personal knowledge, must “set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence,” and must show “that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein.” Patterson v. Cty. of Oneida , 375 F.3d 206, 219 (2d Cir.2004) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) ).

It is well established that courts must give “special solicitude” to pro se litigants in connection with motions for summary judgment. Tracy v. Freshwater , 623 F.3d 90, 101 (2d Cir.2010). Thus, a pro se party's papers opposing summary judgment are to be read liberally and interpreted to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest. See, e.g. , Clinton v. Oppenheimer & Co. Inc. , 824 F.Supp.2d 476, 481 (S.D.N.Y.2011). This special solicitude is not unlimited, however, and does not “relieve” a plaintiff of his...