Paul v. Postgraduate Ctr. for Mental Health

97 F.Supp.3d 141

Jean Robert PAUL, Plaintiff

v.POSTGRADUATE CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH, Defendant.

No. 12 CV 362VMS.

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

Signed March 31, 2015.

Jean Robert Paul, Jamaica, NY, for Plaintiff.

Greg A. Riolo, Michael Louis Abitabilo, Jackson Lewis LLP, White Plains, NY, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

SCANLON, VERA M., United States Magistrate Judge.

Pro se Plaintiff Jean Robert Paul (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Postgraduate Center for Mental Health (“Defendant”).¹ Docket No. 1. Plaintiff, who is of Haitian descent and was 53 years of age when Defendant hired him in March 2009, alleges that Defendant harassed him and discriminated against him on the basis of his national origin and his age, and that in so doing, Defendant violated his rights under federal law, namely Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. Id.² Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant retaliated against him for complaining about that harassment and discrimination, again in violation of Title VII and the ADEA. Id.

Before this Court is Defendant's motion for summary judgment. Docket Nos. 39–43. Plaintiff opposes,³ Docket Nos. 36, 44,⁴ and Defendant replies, Docket Nos. 45–46 . For the reasons discussed below, I grant Defendant's motion, and the Clerk of the Court is ordered to enter judgment for the Defendant and close this case.⁵

I. Background

a. Underlying Facts

The following factual summary is compiled principally using Defendant's Rule 56.1 Statement of Facts and supporting exhibits, as Plaintiff failed to submit a responsive Rule 56.1 Statement and exhibits of his own. Docket No. 43.⁶ Instead, Plaintiff has only submitted unsworn letters. Docket Nos. 31, 33, 44; see Russo v. N.Y. Presbyterian Hosp., 972 F.Supp.2d 429, 441 n. 12 (E.D.N.Y.2013) (disregarding three notarized but unsworn letters as evidence on summary judgment, and listing cases). Thus, Plaintiff has admitted these facts. Local Civil Rule 56.1(c) (“Each numbered paragraph in the statement of material facts set forth in the statement required to be served by the moving party will be deemed to be admitted for purposes of the motion unless specifically controverted by a correspondingly numbered paragraph in the statement required to be served by the opposing party.”); Sutton v. City of Yonkers, No. 13 Civ. 801(GBD)(GWG), 2015 WL 876459, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2015) (“[T]he non-moving party's burden on summary judgment applies to pro se plaintiffs, notwithstanding the liberal construction of a pro se plaintiff's pleadings and the deference accorded to the non-moving party on summary judgment.”). In recognition of Plaintiff's pro se status, I will from time to time cite to Plaintiff's Complaint and two letters he has submitted to the Court to identify places in which Plaintiff's allegations go beyond the existing record. Docket No. 1 (Plaintiff's Complaint); Docket No. 31 (Plaintiff's summary letter to the Court); Docket No. 44 (Plaintiff's response in opposition to Defendant's summary judgment motion).

i. Introductory Synopsis Of The Action And This Motion

Defendant has employed Plaintiff as a case manager at a residential facility for adults needing a variety of social and health services.⁷ Plaintiff and two other case managers tended to their clients out of a small shared office at that residential facility. Unfortunately, Plaintiff and his fellow case managers did not get along well and fought often. This action deals with those disagreements and related incidents. The most alarming of these alleged incidents was an alleged attempted shooting that Plaintiff may have experienced while on his lunch hour near the office. Other incidents involved more workaday matters such as Plaintiff's co-worker making personal telephone calls in the office and counseling one of Plaintiff's clients when she should have referred the matter to Plaintiff. There is also an allegation that Plaintiff's colleagues stated he could not advance in the office due to his national origin and age.

It is Plaintiff's position that these incidents together represent his co-workers' unlawful harassment of him and discrimination against him on the basis of his national origin and age. Plaintiff imputes the unlawful harassment and discrimination to Defendant because Plaintiff believes that management assigned partial blame to Plaintiff for office tension which, according to Plaintiff, emboldened his co-workers to harass and discriminate against him further. Finally, Plaintiff argues that Defendant retaliated against him for his harassment and discrimination complaints against his co-workers.

It is Defendant's position that Plaintiff's problems with his co-workers were nothing more than personality conflicts and that management addressed Plaintiff's complaints promptly and appropriately.

ii. The Nature Of Defendant's Business And Plaintiff's Employment And Work Responsibilities

Defendant is a non-profit organization that provides mental health and residential services to individuals in need in four of the five New York City boroughs. Docket No. 43 ¶ 1; Docket No. 41–3 ¶ 4. Among the services provided are supportive case management services, the purpose of which is to assist the Defendant's clients in reaching various social, physical and/or mental-health goals. Docket No. 43 ¶ 2; Docket No. 41–3 ¶ 5. Defendant has a written EEO Harassment and Sexual Harassment policy (“the EEO policy”) in which its employees are encouraged to bring any complaints or grievances regarding unlawful discrimination directly to their supervisor or management. Docket No. 43 ¶ 3; Docket No. 41–3 ¶ 9; Docket No. 41–4. In brief, the EEO policy explains: (1) that Defendant's policy is to “recruit, hire, train and promote” and to ensure that “all personnel actions such as compensation, benefits, transfers, layoffs, [Defendant]-sponsored training, education, tuition assistance, and recruiting programs” are administered without regard to employees' or applicants' “sex, disability, race, religion, color, creed, national origin, age, marital status, sexual orientation or affectional preference, veteran status or citizenship status.” Docket No. 41–4. The EEO policy then outlines a grievance and complaint procedure for an employee to follow in making a complaint about an allegedly discriminatory or harassing incident with his or her supervisor, including the protocol for additional complaint when a supervisor, or even that supervisor's supervisor, responds in a manner which is unsatisfactory to the complainant. Id.

In or around March 2009, Defendant's Vice President of Operations Marcia Holman (“VPO Holman”) and Case Management Program Coordinator Lanre Yoosuf (“Supervisor Yoosuf”) interviewed Plaintiff for a job at Defendant's Seaview Manor Supportive Case Management Program (“Seaview”) at an adult residential facility in Far Rockaway, New York. Docket No. 43 ¶ 6; Docket No. 41–3 ¶ 11. VPO Holman and Supervisor Yoosuf jointly decided to hire Plaintiff; they knew his age and that he was Haitian when they hired him. Docket No. 41 3 ¶ 12; Docket No. 47–1 at 96–97, 269–70. At the time, VPO Holman was approximately 58 years old. Docket No. 41–3 ¶ 1. Supervisor Yoosuf's age is not in the record.

On March 23, 2009, Plaintiff began working for Defendant as a supportive case manager (“SCM”) at Seaview and, at or around that time, Plaintiff received a copy of Defendant's EEO policy. Docket No. 43 ¶¶ 4, 9; Docket No. 41–3 ¶ 10; Docket No. 41–5. Plaintiff continues to work at Seaview in this capacity. Docket No. 43 ¶ 5; Docket No. 41–3 ¶ 13.

At all relevant times, Plaintiff's responsibilities as an SCM at Seaview include, but are not limited to, individually managing the needs of a case load of clients; documenting and recording all services provided to clients; ensuring timely submission of all documentation and recording of services provided to clients in order to keep client charts current; making an adequate number of client visits in order to meet team goals; participating in staff meetings and case conferences, both at Seaview and at other treatment facilities as needed; and providing coverage for other SCM clients when necessary. Docket No. 43 ¶ 10; Docket No. 41–3 ¶ 17.

iii. Plaintiff's Supervisors, Co-workers And Work Space

Supervisor Yoosuf was Plaintiff's supervisor from March 2009 until in or around April 2011, at which time Kathy Momperousse replaced her (“Supervisor Momperousse”). Docket No. 43 ¶¶ 7–8; Docket No. 41–3 ¶ 14. From then until the present day, Supervisor Momperousse has been Plaintiff's supervisor. Docket No. 41–3 ¶ 15. Supervisor Momperousse is of Haitian descent. Docket No. 41–3 ¶ 16. Plaintiff testified that Supervisor Momperousse's parents were born in Haiti and that although Supervisor Momperousse herself was not, “if you speak with her ... in Creole, you can say [that] she was born in Haiti.... She speaks ... fluently and with a correct accent.” Docket No. 47–1 at 271.

Beginning in January 2011 and for all relevant periods after that, Case Management Director Peter Wefers (“CM Director Wefers”) also worked at Seaview. Docket No. 43 ¶ 27. CM Director Wefers was stationed at Seaview in part to help as Supervisor Yoosuf transitioned out of her post and Supervisor Momperousse transitionedin. Docket No. 43 ¶ 27; Docket No. 41–3 ¶ 29. As a result, CM Director Wefers himself directly supervised Plaintiff for a time. Docket No. 41–3 ¶ 29.

At all times relevant to this litigation, Plaintiff has worked out of a small rectangular office on the first floor of a residential care facility unaffiliated with Defendant. Docket No. 43 ¶ 11; Docket No. 41–3 ¶ 18. At all times relevant to this matter, Plaintiff has shared workspace with four people: (1) Supervisor Momperousse; (2) SCM Nicole Hibbert; (3) SCM Errol Miller; and (4) SCM Giselle Nelson.⁸ Docket No. 43 ¶ 12; Docket No. 41–3 ¶ 19...