Servello v. N.Y. State Office of Children & Family Servs.

1

MATTHEW SERVELLO, Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Defendant.

No. 1:18-CV-0777 (LEK/DJS)

United States District Court, N.D. New York

September 30, 2021

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

Lawreft6e E. Kahn, U.S. District Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Matthew Servello originally commenced this action against defendant New York State Office of Children and Family Services (“OCFS”) alleging civil rights violations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Equal Pay Act (“EPA”). Dkt. No. 1 (“Complaint”). Presently before the Court is Defendant's motion for summary judgment, and Plaintiff's cross-motion to amend the Complaint and in opposition to Defendant's motion. Dkt. Nos. 63 (“Motion”), 63-8 (“Defendant's Statement of Material Facts”), 63-9 (“Defendant's Memorandum of Law”), 64 (“Cross-Motion”), 64-33 (“Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Statement of Material Facts”), 64-34 (“Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law”), 71 (“Reply”). For the following reasons, the Court grants Defendant's motion and denies Plaintiff's cross-motion.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Factual History

The following facts are undisputed, except where otherwise noted.

Defendant is an executive agency of New York State. Def.'s SMF ¶ 1; Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SMF ¶ 1. It operates the Statewide Central Register (“SCR”), a call center that receives and processes reports of violence, neglect, and abuse of minors. Def.'s SMF ¶ 2; Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SMF ¶ 2. SCR is staffed primarily with Child Protective Services Specialists. Def.'s SMF ¶ 3; Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SMF ¶ 3.

1. Creation of Traineeship

Prior to December 2016, the entry-level position for Child Protective Services Specialists at SCR was Child Protective Services Specialist 1 (“CPSS1”), with a salary of $42, 833. Def.'s SMF ¶ 4; Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SMF ¶ 4; see Dkt. No. 63-5, Ex. 1. The New York State Department of Civil Service (“Civil Service”) set the qualifications for a CPSS1 as: (i) a bachelor's degree in any field and either (ii) one year of experience directly providing child protective services at least fifty percent of the time, or (iii) two years of experience working directly in child welfare programs such as prevention, foster care, or adoption services. Def.'s SMF ¶ 5; Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SMF ¶ 5; see Dkt. No. 63-5, Ex. 1.

According to Defendant, Civil Service revised the minimum qualification standards for a CPSS1 in December 2016, raising the salary to $47, 796, and at the same time, created the Child Protective Service Specialist Trainee (“CPSST”) position with a salary of $40, 507. Def.'s SMF ¶ 6; see Dkt. No. 63-5, Exs. 2, 4. According to Plaintiff, the CPSST position was not established until March 16, 2017, at the earliest, Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SMF ¶ 6; see Dkt. No. 64-11 (“certification of eligibles” list for the CPSST position with an issue date of March 16, 2017), or March 28, 2017, see Dkt. No. 64-12 (memo stating the first eligible list was established March 28, 2017).

Defendant contends that the new minimum qualifications for the CPSS1 position, instated in December 2016, were: (i) a bachelor's degree in a human services field (no work experience needed); or (ii) an associate's degree in a human services field, plus two years' experience directly providing child protective services at least fifty percent of the time; or (iii) four years of experience (no degree required) with working directly in child welfare programs such as prevention, foster care, or adoption services. Def.'s SMF ¶ 7; see Dkt. No. 63-5, Ex. 2. Plaintiff argues these qualifications are irrelevant because they were put in place after he was hired. Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SMF ¶ 7.

A human services degree was defined by Civil Service as “[a]udiology, community mental health, nursing, nutrition, occupational therapy, physical therapy, psychology, rehabilitation counseling, social work, speech/language pathology, therapeutic recreation, gerontology, human services, sociology, speech communication, counseling education, and human development.” Def.'s SMF ¶ 9; Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SMF ¶ 9; see Dkt. No. 63-5, Ex. 2.

Defendant asserts that the minimum qualifications for the new CPSST position, instated in December 2016, were: (i) a bachelor's degree or higher in any field (no work experience needed); or (ii) an associate's degree in any field, and two years working directly for child welfare programs, such as foster care or adoption services; or (iii) four years of experience working directly for child welfare programs, such as prevention, foster care, or adoption services. Def.'s SMF ¶ 8; see Dkt. No. 63-5, Ex. 2. Again, Plaintiff argues these qualifications are irrelevant. Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SMF ¶ 8.

Defendant also claims that the determinations to create the CPSST title and change the minimum qualifications of the CPSS1 title were made solely by Civil Service, and that Defendant did not direct, mandate, or require Civil Service to revise the CPSS1 requirements or create the CPSST title. Def.'s SMF ¶¶ 15-16. Plaintiff argues the changes were the result of a collaboration between OFCS and Civil Service. Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SMF ¶¶ 15-16; Dkt. No. 64-3 (“Servello Affidavit”) ¶ 24.

2. Differences in the Positions

According to Defendant, the CPSST title was the entry level of the series and required successful completion of a twelve-month traineeship, after which a trainee would advance to the CPSS1 title. Def.'s SMF ¶ 10; see Dkt. No. 63-5, Ex. 2. The trainee's performance would be closely “observed and evaluated, ” as noted in the classification standards. Def.'s SMF ¶ 11; see Dkt. No. 63-5, Ex. 2. And the traineeship would include “extensive on-the-job training” and “carefully designed and monitored work experience.” Def.'s SMF ¶ 12; see Dkt. No. 63-5, Ex. 2.

Plaintiff argues there was no clearly established rule allowing for promotion from CPSST to CPSS1 when Plaintiff was hired, and that Plaintiff was not notified he would undergo additional on-the-job scrutiny. Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SMF ¶¶ 10-11. Further, Plaintiff asserts that two CPSS1s were given “far more training and support opportunities” than he was. Id. ¶ 12; Servello Aff. ¶ 16.

The parties agree that a CPSST who did not meet the required standards could be terminated any time after the first eight weeks of the traineeship and up until its completion. Def.'s SMF ¶ 13; Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SMF ¶ 13. The parties also agree that both CPSSTs and CPSS1s were subject to a fifty-two-week probationary period, during which time Defendant could terminate an appointee if he or she did not meet the required standards. Def.'s SMF ¶ 14; Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SMF ¶ 14; see Dkt. No. 63-5, Ex. 2.

3. Hiring

In November 2016, Plaintiff applied to Civil Service for employment with Defendant as a CPSS1. Def.'s SMF ¶ 17; Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SMF ¶ 17. At that time, Plaintiff held a bachelor's degree in business administration-not considered a human services degree by Civil Service-and had been employed by the Fulton County Department of Social Services for approximately thirteen months. Def.'s SMF ¶¶ 18, 22; Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SMF ¶¶ 18, 22. Civil Service deemed Plaintiff eligible for the CPSS1 title and placed him on the eligible list for that position. Def.'s SMF ¶ 19; Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SMF ¶ 19.

Defendant argues that in December 2016, Civil Service revised the minimum requirements for the CPSS1 title. Def.'s SMF ¶ 20. Then, pursuant to 4 NYCRR § 4.1, Civil Service generated a list of eligible employees for the CPSST and CPSS1 positions, which designated Plaintiff as an eligible candidate for the CPSST position. Def.'s SMF ¶ 25; See Dkt. No. 63-5, Ex. 4. Using this list, Defendant sent canvass letters to eligible candidates, including Plaintiff, inquiring about their interest in working at SCR. Def.'s SMF ¶ 27; Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SMF ¶ 27. The canvass letters referenced only the CPSS1 title. Def.'s SMF ¶ 29; Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SMF ¶ 29. Defendant asserts this was because it had chosen to inform candidates of the changes to the minimum qualifications of the CPSS1 title and the creation of the CPSST title during the interview process. Def.'s SMF ¶ 28.

Plaintiff, as described above, argues that the certified eligible list was not created until mid to late March 2017. Def.'s SMF ¶ 25.

Plaintiff responded to the canvass letter and was selected for an interview. Def.'s SMF ¶ 30; Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SMF ¶ 30. Defendant claims that before and during the interview, Plaintiff was informed he was being considered for the CPSST position. Def.'s SMF ¶ 31. Plaintiff admits in a phone call before the interview he was told only that the CPSST position was a “possibility.” Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SMF ¶ .3^[1]1

After the interview, Plaintiff contacted Defendant's human resources department and asked why he was not being considered for the CPSS1 position. See Dkt. No. 63-2 (“Servello Deposition”) at 57:23-58:9. Defendant contends that Plaintiff was told Civil Service, not Defendant, had changed the minimum qualifications for the CPSS1 position and determined that Plaintiff was no longer eligible. Plaintiff also contacted Civil Service and was told he was no longer eligible for the CPSS1 position. Def.'s SMF ¶ 33; Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SMF ¶ 33.

Subsequently Defendant sent Plaintiff a letter, dated January 27, 2017, confirming his appointment as a Child Protect Services Specialist 1 at salary grade 16. See Dkt. 64-15, Ex. 12. When Plaintiff later contacted the Staffing Resources Liaison who sent him this letter, she then sent a revised letter stating Plaintiff was appointed as a CPSST. Servello Aff. ¶ 26. Plaintiff's employment with Defendant began on February 2, 2017. Def.'s SMF ¶ 39; Pl.'s Resp. to...