Potash v. Fla. Union Free Sch. Dist.

972 F.Supp.2d 557

Carol POTASH, Plaintiff,

v.FLORIDA UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, Douglas Burnside, Superintendent of Schools, Michael Rheaume, Principal, both sued in their individual capacities, Defendants.

No. 10 Civ. 3299(ER).

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

Sept. 18, 2013.

Michael Howard Sussman, Esq., Christopher Dale Watkins, Esq., Sussman & Watkins, Goshen, NY, for Plaintiff.

Mark Craig Rushfield, Esq., Shaw, Perelson, May & Lambert, LLP, Poughkeepsie, NY, for Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

RAMOS, District Judge.

Plaintiff Carol Potash (“Plaintiff”) brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging gender discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the Florida Union Free School District (the “District”), Douglas Burnside, Superintendent of the District, and Michael Rheaume, Principal of the District's middle and high schools (collectively, “Defendants”). Doc. 1. Defendants now bring a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of Plaintiff's Complaint in its entirety pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. Doc. 21. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

I. Background

a. Factual Background

The following facts are based on the Court's independent review of the record, including: (1) the Reply Affirmation of Mark C. Rushfield, Esq., in Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (“Rushfield Reply Aff.”), Doc. 32; (2) the Affidavit of Paula Aston in Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (“Aston Aff.”), Doc. 24; (3) the Affidavit of Douglas W. Burnside in Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (“Burnside Aff.”), Doc. 25; (4) the Affidavit of Michael H. Sussman, Esq., in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (“Sussman Aff.”), Doc. 29; (5) the Affidavit of Carol Potash in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (“Potash Aff.”), Doc. 30; (6) Plaintiff's Response Statement of Material Facts Pursuant to Local Rule 56.1 (“Pl.'s Resp. 56.1”), Doc. 27; and (7) Defendants' Reply Statement of Material Facts Pursuant to Local Rule 56.1 (“Defs.' Reply 56.1”), Doc. 34. The facts are undisputed unless otherwise noted.¹

i. 2000–04 School Years

In September 2000, Plaintiff was hired by the District's Board of Education (the “Board”) as a “Technical Assistant,” contingent upon successful completion of the required Civil Service exam. Potash Aff., Ex. 1. The Technical Assistant job was a 10–month position with a salary of $24,515 for the 2000–01 school year. Id. Plaintiff was responsible for assisting the Orange–Ulster Counties Board of Cooperative Educational Services (“BOCES”) personnel with the maintenance and repair of computers and computer networking systems within the District, supporting computer technicians and computer network specialists, installing basic computer software, and assisting technical personnel with manual work such as moving equipment and installing electronic wires. Id.; see Potash Dep. 8.²

Plaintiff was supervised by Maureen Flaherty, then-Superintendent of the District (“Flaherty”) through the 2002–03 school year, and by interim Superintendent Edward Rhine (“Rhine”) for 2003–04. Potash Dep. 14–15.

Within five or six months of working at the District, Plaintiff began to suspect that she was being underpaid. She found the job much more demanding than she had initially expected and felt that while she “was called upon to resolve all computer-related issues in the school district,” she was not “provided the staff [she] needed to handle all district-related IT functions.” Postah Aff., ¶ 5; Potash Dep. 12, 14, 45. Plaintiff testified that she was told by Flaherty and Rhine that she was underpaid; however, she thought that during the first two years, Flaherty was trying to raise her salary to be comparable to employees in other districts performing the same job functions. Potash Dep. 39, 43–44. During her second year, 2001–02, Plaintiff began to suspect that she was being underpaid because of her gender. Id. 45. During this time, “[she] started to learn about what other people were making,” and “[s]ome of them” were men. Id.

Plaintiff also began to suspect discrimination because she was paid on the District's custodian pay scale, even though she was not part of the custodial staff, and “kept getting compared to” Tom Andryshak (“Andryshak”), the District's Buildings and Grounds Coordinator “on the [custodial] salary scales.” Id. 46. However, Plaintiff admits that she was placed on the custodian pay scale because there was no pay scale for computer personnel. Id. 80. Plaintiff further admits that Andryshak's duties were completely distinct from hers, that he had been employed by the District for “many more years” than she, that he “was a 12–month employee and supervised or coordinated a staff of between five and ten custodians. Pl.'s 56.1 Resp. ¶ 11; Potash Dep. 79.

Under Flaherty's supervision, Plaintiff began receiving a yearly stipend of approximately $1,500. She believed the stipend amount reflected gender discrimination by Flaherty because Andryshak received a higher stipend. Potash Dep. 61–62. Other than by reference to Andryshak, Plaintiff testified that she had no reason to believe that the District was paying her less based on her gender. Id. 49–50. Meanwhile, Plaintiff's wages increased to $32,876 during the 2001–02 school year, to $40,711 during 2002–03, and to $41,086 during 2003–04. Id. 33–34, 36, 38, 51.

ii. 2004–05 School Year

In summer 2004, Defendant Douglas Burnside was hired as the District Superintendent (“Superintendent Burnside”). Superintendent Burnside was Plaintiff's direct supervisor during the 2004–05 school year. Id. 16–17; Burnside Aff. ¶ 1. Shortly after he began, Plaintiff informed him that she considered herself to be underpaid. In response, he approached the Board to request a stipend. Burnside Aff. ¶ 3; Potash Dep. 55.

On September 24, 2004, Superintendent Burnside informed Plaintiff that the Board had appointed her to the position of “Information Technology Coordinator” for the 2004–05 year and would provide her with a stipend of $2,500. Burnside Aff., Ex. A. Plaintiff testified that she did not believe that any of her duties had changed by being appointed to this new position and she considered the stipend to cover duties that she had already been performing. Potash Dep. 55–56, 58. She also testified that the stipend amount reflected gender bias because Andryshak was receiving a larger stipend, even though she understood that he was receiving a stipend for coordinating a custodial staff of five to ten full-time District employees while she was only responsible for overseeing one BOCES employee one day per week. Id. 60–61. Plaintiff also believed that Superintendent Burnside's “attitude” and the fact that “he wasn't coming in and questioning ... Andryshak's stipend [amount]” reflected gender animus on his part. Id. 68. She also testified that before Superintendent Burnside was hired, the union had been negotiating with Rhine for a higher stipend for Plaintiff of $4,500 for the 2005–06 school year and $9,000 for 2006–07. Id. 58, 65; Potash Affi., Ex. 10. During 2004–05, Plaintiff's salary increased to $47,319.94. Potash Dep. 49–50, 52; see Burnside Aff. ¶ 4.

iii. 2005–06 School Year

In September of 2005, Plaintiff alleges that she met with Defendant Michael Rheaume, Principal at the District's middle and high schools (“Principal Rheaume”), and Susan Moore.³ During the discussion, Principal Rheaume complained to Plaintiff about the state of the computer network and was “belligerent and loud” to her. Potash Dep. 382–38. Afterwards, Plaintiff went to Superintendent Burnside and “complained about Mr. Rheaume's level of anger towards [her] and feeling berated and belittled.” Id. 493. Plaintiff testified that Superintendent Burnside responded by laughing at her and told her that if she wanted to be a director of technology, she would have to learn how to handle administrators. Id. 494.

In November 2005, Plaintiff completed her Master of Education/Curriculum and Educational Technology. At some point thereafter, she notified Superintendent Burnside that she had obtained an advanced degree and should be compensated accordingly. Id. 85–86. On January 12, 2006, Plaintiff told Superintendent Burnside that she was qualified for the Civil Service position of “Director of Technology,” a position which did not currently exist in the District. Burnside Affi., Ex. B. Plaintiff testified that she believed that Superintendent Burnside might not select a woman as a Director of Technology because she had a “feeling” that “he wasn't confident” in putting a woman in that role. Potash Dep. 96–99.

In April 2006, Plaintiff wrote a letter directly to the Board complaining of her salary. In response, Superintendent Burnside decided that he would no longer negotiate with Plaintiff personally and would instead negotiate with the Florida Teachers Association (“FTA”), which represented both teachers and a separate bargaining unit for non-teaching personnel (“SRP”). Burnside Aff. ¶ 5. Then, on April 10, Superintendent Burnside informed her that, as she had requested, the District created the “Director of Technology” position with an anticipated start date of September 1, 2006 and would be eliminating her current position. He further stated, “I am hoping that you are interesting in applying” and provided her with a copy of the job posting that the District had created for the position. The new position was to have to have a salary range of $55,000 to $60,000 for the 2006–07 year. Burnside Aff., Ex. C. According to Plaintiff, she understood that this position was created to fit the duties that she had already been performing and there was no intention to increase the duties of her job. Potash Dep. 104, 111.

On April 12, Plaintiff met with Superintendent Burnside to discuss the new position. According to Plaintif...