Patacca v. CSC Holdings, LLC

LUIGI PATACCA, Plaintiff, v. CSC HOLDINGS, LLC, CABLEVISION SYSTEMS CORPORATION,¹And LOUIS MANISCALCO, Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-0679 (SFJ)(ARL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

April 17, 2019

Memorandum and Order

FEUERSTEIN, S., Senior District Judge:

I. Introduction

Plaintiff Luigi Patacca ("Plaintiff" or "Patacca") commenced this action against Defendants CSC Holdings, LLC ("CSC"), Cablevision Systems Corporation ("Cablevision"; together with CSC, the "Company") and Louis Mainscalco ("Maniscalco"; together with CSC and Cablevision, the "Defendants"), alleging various claims of discrimination under federal and state law. (See generally Compl. (ECF No. 1).) Presently before the Court is the Defendants' motion seeking summary judgment in their favor on all of Plaintiff's claims (hereafter, the "Summary Judgment Motion") (see ECF No. 60; see also ECF Nos 61-64), which Plaintiff opposes (hereafter, "Opposition" or "Opp'n") (see ECF No. 66; see also ECF Nos. 65, 67, 68). For the reasons that follow, Defendants' Summary Judgment Motion is GRANTED.II. Background

A. Factual Background²

1. Generally

Cablevision provides television, phone and internet services to residential and business customers in the New York metropolitan area. Since many customers rely on Cablevision for these services, it is essential that the Company's system operate at all times. One of the departments at Cablevision is its Network Operating Center ("NOC"), which ensures the Company's cable network is operating correctly. Among other things, the NOC is responsible for providing advanced network support, including monitoring the network, responding quickly, efficiently, and effectively to alarms sent from vendor equipment (e.g., routers and switches), identifying and triaging network issues, and fixing network issues. Cablevision's operations require that the NOC be staffed, whether on-site or remotely, 24 hours per day, seven days per week, throughout the year; this coverage made reliable work attendance essential for NOC staff. Further, in addition to their regular work schedules, certain NOC operators were also scheduled to be on call one week approximately every three weeks.

As stated in its Employee Handbook, the Company: does not discriminate against the disabled; provides reasonable accommodations to employees with disabilities; and encourages any employee to request a job accommodation if needed. Cablevision also maintains a medicalleave policy, which provides employees with leave pursuant to the Family Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") and other applicable federal, state and local laws.

Plaintiff, a paraplegic who also suffers from lymphedema,³ was hired by Cablevision in June 1998 as a Tech Support Coordinator. In September 2000, he accepted a Technician position in the NOC at the Company's Hicksville, New York location. In April 2006, Plaintiff became a Network Operator in the Radio Frequency Data Network ("RFDN") operations group. In April 2013, Plaintiff was promoted from an Operator III in the NOC to one of its Senior Operators. Like other NOC Senior Operators, Plaintiff was generally responsible for monitoring the network according to departmental procedures to ensure continued service to Cablevision's customers. This could involve, inter alia: performing daily administrative duties; supporting maintenances; monitoring, troubleshooting, and break-fixing network infrastructures; triaging and reacting to alarms received for supporting infrastructure, including seeking help from other departments or outside vendors when necessary (in Company parlance, known as "escalating" an issue); documenting system problems; and working closely with other centers and departments.

Maniscalco began his employment with the Company in 2001 as a Technical Support Representative. In September 2006, he was transferred to a position in the RFDN operations group, at which time he met Plaintiff, as they both worked in the same department. In 2013, Maniscalco became a manager of the NOC Level Three Network Group. As a manager, Maniscalco oversaw: two supervisors, Joseph Bourguignon ("Joe B.") and Bartlett Todd ("Todd"); a group lead, Vito Gaudino; and, any consultant working within the group; he was not Plaintiff's direct supervisor.

Prior to Maniscalco becoming a NOC manager, Plaintiff had been disciplined by other managers, having received: a verbal warning in 1998 due to inappropriate behavior; a final written warning in 2002; a written reprimand in 2008; a formal written reprimand in 2011 for causing a power outage for over 200 customers; and a written reprimand in 2014. Plaintiff does not allege that any of his other managers discriminated against him.

In Winter 2013-14, there were instances when Plaintiff did not go to work due to inclement weather. He testified that "somewhere around that time" and during a conversation about anticipated weather, Maniscalco made a comment to the effect that he knew what the weather was going to be if Plaintiff called out for work. (See Plaintiff's Depo. Tr., 372:11-373:5; see also id. at 274:17-275:23.) However, Plaintiff did not recall whether Maniscalco said anything to him about any of the days he took off that Winter. (See id. at 373:6-21.) While Plaintiff testified that others laughed when Maniscalco made the comment, he did not recall who those people were. (See id. at 375:2-7.) Further, he could not recall any other occasion when Maniscalco made other derogatory or negative comments about Plaintiff's disability. (See id. at 286:19-25.)

Having been called into work by Joe B. because of department understaffing, Plaintiff worked on February 2, 2014. During that shift, Plaintiff's wife called him, informing him that she was experiencing labor pains; apparently, her "water broke" while Plaintiff was working that shift. After completing his shift, Plaintiff: first, went home; then, went to the hospital; and, thereafter, was present for the birth of his son.

Beginning in March 2014, Plaintiff made several performance errors. For example, he: escalated a basic issue which he possessed the expertise to resolve; failed to properly investigate a reported video server issue; and failed to follow through in communicating an absence fromwork. (See Ex. AA (ECF No. 62-27), attached to Hoey Decl.) Then, on April 24, 2104, Plaintiff erred by configuring wrong network devices, resulting in a network outage for upwards of 80,000 Cablevision customers. As a consequence, on April 25, 2014, Maniscalco informed Plaintiff that, in conjunction with other written warnings, he would be receiving a final written warning (hereafter, the "Final Warning"). On May 7, 2014, Maniscalco met with Plaintiff to give him a written warning regarding the March 2014 incidents; however, it was not the Final Warning. The same day, Plaintiff went to the Company's Human Resources Department (hereafter, "HR") and complained to HR personnel Jenny Bartling ("Bartling") of discriminatory treatment based upon his disability.

On May 12, 2014, because he was not feeling well, Plaintiff informed Maniscalco that he needed to take time off from work because of health issues; Maniscalco did not object. On May 13, 2014, Plaintiff began his leave under the FMLA. One consequence thereof was that Maniscalco was unable to deliver the Final Warning document to Plaintiff.

Plaintiff's FMLA leave expired on July 23, 2014, but prior to its expiration, Plaintiff requested an extension. In assessing that request, which would be an ADA⁴ accommodation, there was communication between HR, Maniscalco, and others regarding whether granting the extension would be an "undue hardship" on Plaintiff's department. (I.e., Could the NOC adequately function without Plaintiff?). The impetus for that discussion was an unidentified excerpt regarding ADA accommodations sent in an email thread, which stated, inter alia: "Under the ADA, a qualified individual with a disability may work part-time in his/her current position, or occasionally take time off, as a reasonable accommodation if it would not impose anundue hardship on the employer." (See Ex. JJ (ECF No. 62-36 at 5)(emphasis added), attached to Hoey Decl.) As part of the discussion, Maniscalco stated:

It looks like Luigi was approved for [extended leave]. I am not 100% sure.

I feel like I do have a hardship as I continue to not be able to staff a full team. I have guys jumping through hoops, changing schedules and such.

I am very vulnerable to not being able to cover shifts if any of my people call in sick. I have already had missing overnight shifts.

I am not sure if this has been discussed with HR.

If it's a law that we have to accommodate or it just gets approved, we will do the best we can but note we may have continued shifts where we are not able to staff a full team.

We haven't had this occur during the evening shift yet but when we do and an outage breaks, we will be seriously impaired.

(Id. at 4.) Plaintiff's request for additional leave was granted; he returned to work on September 23, 2014. When Plaintiff returned to work, he submitted a note from his treating physician stating, inter alia, that: Plaintiff's impairments did not impact his ability to perform the essential functions of his position; he needed "standard handicap accommodations only"; and he required "wheelchair accessability [sic]". (Ex. EE (ECF No. 62-31 at 5), attached to Hoey Decl.) Also, upon Plaintiff's request, Plaintiff was not scheduled for on-call coverage from his September 2014 return date through the end of the December 2014; however, his request to be switched to a four-day workweek was denied.

Since Plaintiff's FMLA leave in May 2014 prevented Maniscalco from providing Plaintiff with the Final Warning, it was given to Plaintiff by Maniscalco on November 7, 2014. At that time, Maniscalco advised Plaintiff that, going forward, Plaintiff was expected to: follow department policies and procedures; thoroughly research work issues which...