Petrisch v. Chase

789 F.Supp.2d 437

Harold PETRISCH, Plaintiff,

v.JP MORGAN CHASE, et al., Defendants.

No. 08 Civ. 4479(RJS).

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

Jan. 11, 2011.Opinion Denying Reconsideration April 20, 2011.

Stephen Curtis Jackson, Esq., New York, NY, for Plaintiff Harold Petrisch.Tara A. Griffin, Esq., JP Morgan Chase & Co., Legal Department, New York, NY, for Defendants JP Morgan Chase, Phyllis Pressa, and Rhonda Dauway.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, District Judge.

Plaintiff Harold Petrisch brings this action against his former employer, JP Morgan Chase (“Chase”), and former managers, Phyllis Pressa and Rhonda Dauway,¹ pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. ; the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981(b); the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law § 296 et seq. (“NYSHRL”); and the New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8–109 et seq. (“NYCHRL”). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants discriminated against him on the basis of his national origin, and that Chase and Dauway retaliated against him for bringing a complaint of discrimination against Pressa.

Before the Court is Defendants' motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court also considers whether sanctions should be imposed on Plaintiff's counsel for repeated violations of the Court's Orders.² For the following reasons, Defendants' motion is granted and the Court imposes sanctions on Plaintiff's counsel.

I. Background

A. Facts³

1. Parties

Plaintiff considers himself to be of Spanish/Hispanic origin. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 1.) He began working for Chase in August 2005, as one of three assistant branch managers of Chase Branch 150. ( Id. ¶ 6, 30.) Plaintiff served as sales manager, with his principal job responsibility to increase sales at the branch. ( Id. ¶¶ 30–31.)

Defendant Chase is a banking corporation which has its principal offices in Ohio. ( Id. ¶ 3.) Among other activities, it conducts business through a number of retail financial services branches in Manhattan. ( See id. ¶¶ 24, 27.) Branch 150 is a large branch located at Madison Square Garden/2 Penn Plaza. ( Id., ¶¶ 28–29.)

At all times relevant to this action, Defendant Pressa was the district manager for Chase's Midtown West District, which included Branch 150 and nine other branches. ( Id. ¶¶ 23, 27.) Defendant Dauway was the district manager for Chase's Upper Westside District, to which Plaintiff was transferred in late 2006. ( Id. ¶¶ 23, 94–95, 177.)

2. Branch 150

When Plaintiff was hired at Branch 150, he reported to Jack Hallak, the branch manager. ( Id. ¶ 28.) After Hallak left his position in January 2006, the job was not immediately filled and Plaintiff assumed the role of acting branch manager. ( Id. ¶¶ 38–40.) Plaintiff's additional responsibilities as acting branch manager included ensuring that the branch was running smoothly on a daily basis and maintaining the branch's cleanliness and general appearance. ( Id. ¶¶ 45, 47.) However, Plaintiff's principal focus remained sales. ( Id. ¶ 45.) When Plaintiff assumed the role of acting branch manager, Pressa became his immediate superior. ( Id. ¶ 41.) Plaintiff served as acting branch manager until July 2006, when Jose Feliciano, who is also a Hispanic male, fully assumed the responsibilities of the job. ( Id. ¶ 38–41, 56, 58.) Plaintiff continued to serve as an assistant branch manager until he left the branch in September 2006. ( Id. ¶ 45.)

a. Alleged Mistreatment of Plaintiff

According to Plaintiff, Pressa began making excessive work demands of him almost immediately after he became acting branch manager. ( Id. ¶ 114.) Plaintiff contends that Pressa began visiting his branch almost every day, but did not visit other branches with the same regularity. ( Id. ¶ 116.) If Plaintiff had not yet eaten lunch, she would prevent him from doing so. ( Id. ¶ 126.) Plaintiff also contends that Pressa routinely kept him at the office long after normal business hours, until 10:30 or 11:00 p.m., although she never kept white managers after hours ( id. ¶¶ 116, 127–28); that Pressa frequently directed him to do maintenance work outside of the scope of his responsibilities, such as throwing paper, old equipment, and other trash into garbage bags ( id. ¶¶ 117–21); that Pressa belittled him in front of branch staff by throwing away items from his desk ( id. ¶ 125); that white managers were given a corporate credit card while he was not ( id. ¶ 133); that Pressa would not allow Chase to pay for his dry cleaning expenses ( id. ¶ 124); and that Pressa harangued him after work on several occasions when they rode the same train home ( id. ¶ 131).

Plaintiff also claims that Pressa treated him and other branch employees in a degrading manner based on characteristics related to their national origins. In particular, Plaintiff contends that Pressa asked him, more than once, “Must I speak to you in Spanish for you to understand?” (the “Speaking Spanish Remark”) ( id. ¶ 134); that Pressa made derogatory remarks about the accent of a Haitian coworker, Jean Hercule ( id. ¶ 137); that Pressa bullied an Asian assistant branch manager, Kamamah Ramdhany ( id.); that she once directed Feliciano to move furniture in the branch ( id.); and that, when Pressa introduced Feliciano to the branch staff as their new branch manager, she commented that they might have to ask him things several times because Felicano had a thick accent and might be difficult to understand ( id. ¶ 135).

Plaintiff also contends that Pressa made false allegations that his job performance was poor. ( Id. ¶ 114.)

b. Plaintiff's Exit from the Branch

Hallak wrote performance reviews of Plaintiff that, while complimentary of his individual sales skills, included criticisms of his ability to manage his sales team. ( Id. ¶ 61.) Hallak told Pressa that Plaintiff was not “proactively managing the team,” even though that was what his position demanded. ( Id. ¶ 64.) Branch 150 had consistently poor sales results compared to other branches in its peer group throughout Plaintiff's tenure as sales manager. ( Id. ¶¶ 69, 74, 81–85.) For example, in the first and second quarter of 2006, Branch 150 was the lowest performing branch in its Midtown West District in terms of meeting its new account acquisition target. ( Id. ¶¶ 81–82.) Feliciano thought Plaintiff was in the wrong role at the branch. ( Id. ¶ 75.) In addition, Pressa received a number of consumer complaints about Plaintiff during his tenure as acting branch manager. ( Id. ¶ 68.)

Plaintiff, Pressa, and Feliciano each contacted Julie Ginsburg, a human resources professional at Chase. (Aff. of Julie Ginsburg, dated Feb. 23, 2010, Doc. No. 24 (“Ginsburg Aff.”) ¶¶ 1–2; Defs.' 56.1 ¶¶ 76–77, 92, 146.) Plaintiff contends that he contacted Ginsburg at least four times in 2006 (although he cannot remember any of the dates on which he contacted her), complaining that Pressa had made excessive work demands of him and had behaved in a discriminatory fashion. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 231.) Pressa and Feliciano contend that they came to Ginsburg with concerns about Plaintiff's poor job performance. (Aff. of Phyllis Pressa, dated Feb. 23, 2010, Doc. No 20 ¶ 15; Aff. of Jose Feliciano, dated Feb. 23, 2010, Doc. No. 23 ¶ 12.) Ginsburg states that Plaintiff contacted her in late June or early July 2006 to complain about feedback he had received from Pressa, but did not mention any inappropriate remarks, improper work assignments, or the other behavior Plaintiff now attributes to Pressa. (Ginsburg Aff. ¶¶ 9, 12.) Ginsburg confirms that Pressa contacted her to raise concerns Pressa and Feliciano had about Petrisch's performance. ( Id. ¶ 7.)

Both Pressa and Ginsburg discussed with Plaintiff the possibility of him changing positions at Chase to serve as a personal banker. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶¶ 90, 94.) Plaintiff stated that he did not want to report to a former peer in his district. ( Id. ¶ 94.) In September 2006, Plaintiff left his position at Branch 150 to begin training to become a personal banker in the Upper Westside District. ( Id. ¶¶ 108, 175–77.) Plaintiff entered the “Immersion Study Program,” a six-week intensive study program run by Chase designed to train personal banker candidates to take the Series 6, Series 63, and Life Insurance examinations, which candidates had to pass in order to work as personal bankers. ( Id. ¶¶ 178, 181.) Shortly after Plaintiff left Branch 150, sales at the branch significantly improved. ( Id. ¶¶ 111–13.)

3. The Immersion Study Program

The Immersion Study Program consists of self-study, review sessions, and a series of practice exams. ( Id. ¶¶ 183–87.) Participants in the program are expected to adhere closely to the deadlines set in a detailed study schedule. ( Id. ¶ 186.) Plaintiff did not keep pace with the schedule, leaving study periods early or not coming in at all several times and failing to complete practice exams on time. ( Id. ¶ 195.) He received low scores on the practice tests he did complete. ( Id.)

Dauway was made aware of Plaintiff's lack of progress by the program's administrator ( id.) and met with Plaintiff to stress the importance of following the calendar ( id. ¶ 198). Dauway believed that Plaintiff was not committed to the program. ( Id. ¶ 206.) After this meeting with Dauway, Plaintiff missed another class. ( Id. ¶ 204.) His scores on later practice tests remained well below passing. ( Id.) Nonetheless, Dauway told the program administrator to postpone Plaintiff's taking of the Series 6 exam by one week, to give him extra time to prepare. ( Id. ¶ 230.) The administrator had Plaintiff attend a review session. ( Id. ¶ 209.) The day before the exam, Plaintiff left early after he said he was feeling ill. ( Id. ¶ 212.)

Plaintiff alleges that on several occasions, Pressa interrupted his studying and harassed him by asking him about client information that she could not locate after his departure...