Royall v. City of Beacon

1

DONOVAN ROYALL, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF BEACON, et al, Defendants.

No. 24-CV-3 (KMK)

United States District Court, S.D. New York

September 23, 2024

Pamela Gabiger, Esq. Poughkeepsie, NY Counsel for Plaintiff

David L. Posner, Esq. McCabe & Mack LLP Counsel for Defendant City of Beacon

Kimberly H. Lee, Esq., Sokoloff Stern LLP, Counsel for Defendant City of Beacon

Leslie C. Perrin, Esq. Civil Service Employees Association, Inc Counsel for Defendants Civil Service Employees Association and Emilio Giordano

Deanna L. Collins, Esq. Silverman & Associates Counsel for Defendants Board of Education of Beacon City School District Nicholas Miller, Brian Archer, Jessica Verdile, and Jessie Morrill

OPINION & ORDER

KENNETH M. KARAS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff Donovan Royall ("Plaintiff) brings this Action against the City of Beacon (the "City"); the Civil Service Employees Association ("CSEA") and Emilio Giordano ("Giordano," and together with CSEA, the "CSEA Defendants"); and the Board of Education of Beacon City School District (the "District"), Nicholas Miller ("Miller"), Brian Archer ("Archer"), Jessica Verdile (" Verdile"), and Jessie Morrill ("Morrill," and together with the District, Miller, Archer, and Verdile, the "District Defendants"). (See generally Compl. (Dkt. No. 1-1).)^[1]In the Complaint, Plaintiff raises multiple causes of action against Defendants, alleging that certain Defendants unlawfully maintained a hostile work environment, and discriminated and retaliated against Plaintiff on the basis of his race, gender, and age, in violation of both 42 U.S.C. § 1981 ("§ 1981") and the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law §§ 290, et seq. (the "NYSHRL"). (See Id. ¶¶ 29-51 .)^[2] Plaintiff also brings two additional claims arising under New York state law-one for breach of contract and another for defamation. (See Id. ¶¶ 52-74.)

Before the Court are three Motions To Dismiss. First, the City filed a Motion To Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 12(b)(6) (the "City's Motion"). (See City Not. of Mot. (Dkt. No. 23).) Second, the CSEA Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1)-(2), (4)-(6). (the "CSEA Defendants' Motion"). (See CSEA Defs' Not. of Mot. (Dkt. No. 26).) And third, the District Defendants filed a Motion To Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) (the "District Defendants' Motion"). (See District Defs' Not. of Mot. (Dkt. No. 27).) For the reasons that follow, Defendant's Motions are granted.

I. Background

A. Factual Background

Unless otherwise stated, the following facts are drawn from the Complaint. The facts alleged therein are assumed true for the purpose of resolving the instant Motion. See Buon v. Spindler, 65 F.4th 64, 69 n. 1 (2d Cir. 2023). However, given that the Complaint is replete with legal conclusions, (see, e.g., Compl. ¶ 25 (alleging that Plaintiff "suffered because of Defendants' biased, discriminatory, hostile[,] and retaliatory conduct and unlawful employment practices, which were apparently and/or implicitly influenced by his skin tone, race/ethnicity (African American)[,] sex (male)[,] age (over 40)[,] and/or a combination of these protected characteristics. Defendants' conduct. . . changed [Plaintiff's] terms and conditions of employment for the worse.")), the Court emphasizes at the outset that it need not-and will not-accept such conclusions as true, at least to the extent that they are unaccompanied by supporting factual allegations, see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556U.S. 662, 678 (2009) ("[T]he tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions.'" (emphasis added)); see also Id. at 679 ("While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they mustbe supported by factual allegations." (emphasis added)).^[3]

1. The Parties

The City is a municipal corporation located in Dutchess County and organized under the laws of the State of New York. (See Compl. ¶¶1, 11.) The District is a public school district that administers schools in, at minimum, the City. (See id.. ¶ 10.) SAS and Beacon High School (the "High School") are among the schools that the District administers. (See Id. ¶¶ 6, 15-17; see also Id. ¶ 38 (subparagraph B, ECF page 48).)

As alleged, Plaintiff-who resides in the City-is an African American male and, at the time the Complaint was filed, he was 51 years old. (See Id. ¶¶1,8.) He was a District employee from around November 2022 until at least the time the Complaint was filed in December 2023. (See Id. ¶ 8.) In particular, during that time he was assigned to SAS and appears to have worked as a custodian. (See Id. ¶¶ 16, 22.)

Archer is a Caucasian male and the "founder" of the District and SAS. (See Id. ¶ 16.) He is alleged to have been the District's "highest ranking officer with the title of Working Supervisor from October 2018" until at least the time the Complaint was filed, and he "supervised a staff of [thirty] custodial works and maintenance professionals[.]" (See id.)^[4] As alleged, Miller was Plaintiff's "boss" at SAS. (Id. ¶ 22.) Verdile is a Caucasian female and was Plaintiff's supervisor at SAS. (See Id. ¶ 18.)

CSEA is the union that represents Plaintiff as a District employee. (See Id. ¶¶ 54, 58-59.)^[5]

2. Incidents Giving Rise to this Action

a. Events in September & October 2023

On September 29, 2023, Plaintiff was approached by his "boss" at SAS, Miller. (See Id. ¶ 22.)^[6] Although he "boost[ed]" Plaintiff "up like the best employee," he informed Plaintiff that he was being transferred to the High School and that he would be working the night shift. (Id.)^[7]In light of this labor-management issue, a meeting was set for October 3, 2023. (See id.)

During the October 3 meeting, Miller-at first-told Plaintiff and an unnamed "union rep" that Plaintiff "did nothing wrong and that the move was to help . . . the [H]igh [S]chool." (Id.) Later during that meeting, however, Miller informed Plaintiff that two women "put in an informal complaint about him[,] stating [that] he made them feel uncomfortable." (Id.) Although Plaintiff demanded that the complainants formalize their complaints, for two weeks after the October 3 meeting, neither Plaintiff nor CSEA received any requested documentation of the complaints. (See id.)

Plaintiff next met with Archer and Miller's "boss," Morrill, as well as a "union rep," regarding the complaints on October 16, 2023. (See id.)^[8] Although he was shown no formal complaints, Plaintiff was told there were issues with "how many times [he] smoke[d] cigarettes," and that SAS had gotten a complaint about him from Verdile. (Id.) With respect to Verdile-a "friend" of Plaintiff s "outside of work"-Plaintiff was told that she did not "feel comfortable around him because he sent her a text message" in which he said that she "was a fucked up friend and he would never be a friend like that." (Id.) Upon learning this information, Plaintiff responded, saying "there [was] no way she should be uncomfortable around him because she felt comfortable to call him at [2:00 a.m., expressing suicidal ideation] and he talked her down[.]" (Id.) Further, to show how comfortable Verdile actually was with him, Plaintiff asserted that she "sat at work and told him about her sex life and the size of one of their co-worker's private parts." (Id.) Plaintiff then went on to suggest that Miller and Verdile conspired to "get him moved because he was outperforming [Verdile] at work." (Id.) Following his comments, Plaintiff alleges that Archer and Morrill "agreed in front of [the] union rep that the contract was broken[,] but they continued to bully him into going to [the H]igh [S]chool and [to] shut up." (id.)^[9]

Plaintiff avers that the transfer and shift change imposed upon him evidenced "underhanded racism," given that these actions were part of "a pattern" unidentified Defendants "have with minorities and immigrants that work for the [District." (Id.) Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that he had "a co[-]worker that went through the same thing and it wasn't until he had a lawyer on the case that [unidentified individuals and/or entities] backed off and fixed the situation." (Id.)

Finally, Plaintiff asserts that his transfer to the night shift at the High School "sabotaged and/or prevented [him] from advancing in his career." (Id. ¶ 26.)

b. Incident Involving Verdile & Mr. McNair

Plaintiff also alleges that on or around December 1, 2023, while on a cigarette break, Verdile told "a landscaping man named Mr. McNair" ("McNair") that Plaintiff "sexually harassed people." (See Id. ¶¶ 67-68.) Verdile further told McNair that Plaintiff "was sleeping in the office" and that Plaintiff "would leave the building and go across the street to the projects in which he grew up [] and [where he] still [had] family." (Id. ¶ 69.) Plaintiff asserts that everything Verdile told McNair was a lie. (See Id. ¶¶ 67, 69.)

Notably, Plaintiff had been doing some work on the side for McNair. (See Id. ¶¶ 67, 70.) But, after he spoke with Verdile, McNair informed Plaintiff that "because [Plaintiff] sexually harassed people, [McNair] would not allow [Plaintiff] to do landscaping for his company." (Id. ¶70.)

3. Additional General Allegations

In addition to the foregoing facts, the Court notes that Plaintiff raises several additional allegations. Although the timing is far from clear, Plaintiff alleges that he raised complaints with unidentified Defendants concerning unspecified discriminatory treatment that those Defendants failed to address. (See Id. ¶¶26, 33 (ECF page 41), 40, 44 (subparagraph C, ECF page 58); see also Id. ¶ 38 (subparagraph A, ECF page 47) (asserting-in connection with his § 1981 hostile work environment claim-that "Defendants...