Richard v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ.

1

PATRICK RICHARD, Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Defendant.

No. 16-CV-957 (MKB)

United States District Court, E.D. New York

September 15, 2022

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

MARGO K. BRODIE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

I. Background 4

a. Procedural background ....................................................................................................... 5

i. The 2015 EEOC Charge ................................................................................................. 5

ii. The March 31, 2017 Memorandum and Order .............................................................. 5

iii. The 2017 EEOC charge ................................................................................................. 6

iv. The TAC ......................................................................................................................... 7

v. Plaintiff's additional requests ......................................................................................... 8

b. Factual background ............................................................................................................ 9

i. Alleged failures to promote ............................................................................................ 9

1. Senior Project Manager............................................................................................. 9

2. Senior Business System Analyst ............................................................................. 10

3. Analyst, Office of Space Planning .......................................................................... 10

4. Business IT Specialist ............................................................................................. 10

5. Senior Program Manager ........................................................................................ 11

6. Senior Director of Special Projects, CSE ............................................................... 11

7. Deputy Chief Technology Officer .......................................................................... 12

8. Chief Technology Officer ....................................................................................... 12

9. Strategic Initiatives Manager .................................................................................. 13

10. Chief Information Officer ....................................................................................... 13

11. Instructional Technology Director ......................................................................... 14 12. Chief Product Officer ............................................................................................. 14

13. Other failures to promote alleged in the Proposed FAC ........................................ 15

ii. Alleged acts of retaliation ........................................................................................... 15

1. The April 22, 2014 Letter ...................................................................................... 15

2. Referral for medical evaluation, temporary relocation pending evaluation, and the removal of Plaintiff's holiday decorations ................................................ 16

iii. Plaintiff's disparate pay allegations ............................................................................ 17

iv. Alleged constitutional violations ................................................................................ 18

v. Plaintiff's resignation .................................................................................................. 18

II. Discussion .......................................................................................................................... 20

a. Standard of review ........................................................................................................... 20

b. Plaintiff's previously dismissed claims are barred by the law of the case doctrine......... 22

c. Claims barred on procedural grounds .............................................................................. 25

i. Plaintiff's Title VII failure to promote claims are not time-barred .............................. 25

ii. Exhaustion of administrative remedies ........................................................................ 27

iii. State and city law claims .............................................................................................. 33

1. NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims ............................................................................. 35

A. Failure to promote claims .................................................................................. 37

B. Retaliation and hostile work environment claims .............................................. 39

2. Claims under New York State Constitution............................................................ 40

d. Plaintiff's Title VII, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL claims fail as a matter of law ............... 43

i. Title VII and NYSHRL failure to promote claims ....................................................... 43

1. Defendant has proffered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its hiring decisions .............................. 46

2. Plaintiff fails to establish a triable issue as to pretext ............................................. 51

ii. Title VII disparate pay claim ........................................................................................ 54

iii. NYSHRL hostile work environment claim .................................................................. 57

iv. Title VII and NYSHRL retaliation claims ................................................................... 61

1. Plaintiff's Title VII and NYSHRL retaliation claims based on the April 22, 2014 Letter ................................................... 63

2. Plaintiff's Title VII and NYSHRL retaliation claims based on his referral for a medical evaluation and temporary reassignment ....................... 67

v. NYCHRL claims .......................................................................................................... 70

e. Constitutional claims ...................................................................................................... 74

f. The Court grants in part Plaintiff's request for leave to amend ...................................... 77

i Failure to promote claims .............................................................................................. 80

ii. Constructive discharge and defamation claims ............................................................. 83

1. Constructive discharge claims ................................................................................ 85

2. Defamation claims .................................................................................................. 87

III. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 88

Plaintiff Patrick Richard, proceeding pro se, commenced the above-captioned action on February 25, 2016, against Defendant the New York City Department of Education (the “DOE”). (Compl., Docket Entry No. 1.) Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) on April 13, 2018, and has also filed a Proposed Fourth Amended Complaint (the “Proposed FAC”) and a request to further amend the Proposed FAC.^[1] Plaintiff brings claims in the TAC of employment discrimination under federal, state, and city law and for constitutional violations based on Defendant failing to promote him, giving him unequal pay, issuing him a disciplinary letter, referring him for a medical evaluation, temporarily reassigning him, removing his holiday decorations from his cubicle, asking him not to say and do certain things at work, and removing materials from his briefcase. (See generally TAC.) In the Proposed FAC, Plaintiff adds claims based on additional failures to promote him, his resignation, and claims made in a report about him. (See generally Proposed FAC.)

Defendant moves for summary judgment as to the TAC pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and opposes the Proposed FAC, and Plaintiff opposes the motion for summary judgment.^[2] The Court liberally construes the TAC as alleging claims of (1) failure to promote, (2) disparate pay, and (3) hostile work environment based on race, color, and national origin, and (4) retaliation claims in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”), the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law § 290 et seq. (“NYSHRL”), and the New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-101 et seq. (“NYCHRL”), (TAC ¶¶ 337-346), as well as (5) claims for miscellaneous violations of the New York State Constitution and Federal Constitution, the latter of which the Court construes as Monell claims,^[3] (id. ¶¶ 347-352). The Court liberally construes the Proposed FAC as alleging additional claims of (1) failure to promote and (2) constructive discharge under Title VII, the NYSHRL, and the NYCHRL, and (3) a defamation claim under New York law. (Proposed FAC ¶¶ 336k, 336m, 336o, 336p, 336t, 336ae, 355-356, 357-358.) For the reasons discussed below, the Court grants Defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismisses the TAC in its entirety and grants in part Plaintiff's request for leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint.

I. Background

The following facts are undisputed unless otherwise noted.^[4]

a. Procedural background

i. The 2015 EEOC Charge

On January 2, 2014, Plaintiff filed a “largely blank,...