Tenemille v. Town of Ramapo

ERNST THEODORE TENEMILLE, Plaintiff, v. TOWN OF RAMAPO, et al., Defendants.

No. 18-CV-724 (KMK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

September 24, 2020

OPINION & ORDER

Appearances:

Christopher Young, Esq.

The Young Law Firm

Washington, D.C.

Counsel for Plaintiff

Dayton P. Haigney, III, Esq.

Dayton P. Haigney

New York, NY

Counsel for Plaintiff

Steven C. Stern, Esq.

Vernee Ciara Pelage, Esq.

Sokoloff Stern LLP

Carle Place, NY

Counsel for Defendants

KENNETH M. KARAS, United States District Judge:

Plaintiff Ernst Theodore Tenemille ("Plaintiff") brings this Action against the Town of Ramapo (the "Town" or "Ramapo"), Town of Ramapo Police Department (the "Police Department"), former Town Supervisor Christopher St. Lawrence ("St. Lawrence"), Councilman Patrick Withers ("Withers"), Chief of Police Bradley R. Weidel ("Weidel"), Chief of Staff Thomas Cokeley ("Cokeley"), Police Lieutenant ("Lt.") David Holmes ("Holmes"), former Administrative Lt. William Gravina ("Gravina"), Squad Lt. Daniel Hyman ("Hyman"), Detective Sergeant ("Sgt.") Brian Corbett ("Corbett"), Squad Sgt. Salomon Matos ("Matos"), Desk Sgt. Christopher Franklin ("Franklin"), and Police Sgt. Al Gumbs ("Gumbs"), alleging that Defendants retaliated against him on the basis of his race, color, national origin, and religion, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 200e, et seq.; 42 U.S.C. § 1981; and New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL"), N.Y. Exec. Law § 290, et seq. (See generally Third Am. Compl. ("TAC") (Dkt. No. 67).) Before the Court is a Motion To Dismiss (the "Motion"), pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), filed by the Town, the Police Department, Weidel, Cokeley, Holmes, Hyman, Corbett, Matos, and Franklin (the "Moving Defendants"). (Not. of Mot. (Dkt. No. 72).)¹ For the reasons discussed below, the Motion is granted.

I. Background

A. Factual Background

The following facts are drawn from Plaintiff's TAC and are assumed to be true for the purpose of resolving the instant Motion.

Plaintiff is a 47-year-old Haitian American who immigrated to the United States from Haiti in 1984. (TAC ¶ 29.) After graduating from high school in 1988, Plaintiff joined the U.S. Navy, from which he was honorably discharged in 1997. (Id. ¶¶ 29-30.) Plaintiff then graduated from State University of New York ("SUNY") Rockland Community College in 1999 with an associate's degree in criminal justice and from SUNY Purchase in May 2017 with a bachelor's degree in liberal studies and a minor in psychology. (Id. ¶ 30.)

In 2000, Plaintiff joined the Rockland Sheriff's Department as a Correction Officer. (Id. ¶ 31.) In 2002, he was hired by the Town as a police officer. (Id.) In the same year, Plaintiff attended the Rockland County Police Academy. (Id. ¶ 34.) While there, he was "abruptly pulled out of his training" and asked questions about alleged inaccuracies in his background report. (Id.) According to Plaintiff, the detectives who conducted his background check for the Police Department could not confirm his service with the Navy, and claimed that the copy of the "U.S. Navy service discharge form (DD-214)" provided by Plaintiff was fraudulent. (Id.) Weidel, who was an administrative sergeant at the time, led this investigation, and questioned whether Plaintiff had instead served in the Republic of Haiti's Navy and whether Plaintiff had falsified information on his application, including his age. (Id. ¶¶ 34-35.) Plaintiff was "in fear of losing his employment" due to this incident. (Id. ¶ 35.) However, the information on Plaintiff's application was confirmed, but no disciplinary action was taken against Weidel or the detectives who performed the investigation. (Id. ¶¶ 35-36.)

In December 2004, Plaintiff heard Corbett, who is white, engage in a "heated rant" against him, during which Corbett stated that Plaintiff "d[idn't] belong" at the Police Department, and that he "need[ed] to go back to where he came from if they will have him." (Id. ¶¶ 37-38 (quotation marks omitted).) Corbett then stated that "they [African Americans] only have [two-fifths] of a brain anyway." (Id. ¶ 38 (first alteration in original) (quotation marks omitted).) Plaintiff complained to his supervisors about these statements, but Corbett was promoted shortly after this incident and was not "reprimanded or disciplined in any way." (Id. ¶ 39.)

Plaintiff was also "continually advised that he needed to improve his report writing skills," and was told that he had "illegible handwriting." (Id. ¶ 40 (quotation marks omitted).)Corbett was Plaintiff's immediate supervisor at the time. (Id.) Plaintiff turned in a report on a domestic violence incident to Corbett that contained several errors that had been covered with white-out, and Plaintiff asked Corbett if he could re-copy the report. (Id.) Corbett replied that the report was fine, and ultimately reviewed and approved it. (Id.) However, the same report was later flagged "further up the chain of command" as "messy and unprofessional," and Corbett then wrote up Plaintiff for "turning in a messy report," despite his earlier approval. (Id. (quotation marks omitted).) Plaintiff was then required to retake a "videotaped[] course on report writing," which he had already taken and passed at the Rockland County Police Academy. (Id. ¶ 41.) Plaintiff alleges that Corbett "knowingly insist[ed] that [the] domestic report be pushed up the chain of command," which resulted in a "green sheet (supervisory contact report)," and was raised with Plaintiff's supervisors. (Id.) According to Plaintiff, this green sheet was "used as a basis for the actions, which led to [Plaintiff's] termination" in 2016. (Id.)

Due to the complaints he received about his handwriting, Plaintiff began typing his reports. (Id. ¶ 40.) Soon after the incident with the report given to Corbett, Holmes summoned Plaintiff to speak to him with Sgt. Reynar, and "expressed surprise" at the improved quality of Plaintiff's reports. (Id. ¶ 42.) During this meeting, Holmes speculated that "perhaps [Plaintiff] was having his wife complete the reports for him." (Id. (quotation marks omitted).) Additionally, Plaintiff's annual evaluation did not include mention of his improved reports. (Id.) Generally, Plaintiff alleges that he was "constantly under-evaluated[,] . . . all in . . . [D]efendants' concerted effort to bolster the . . . Police Department's aim of terminating him," and that he frequently received lower scores than "a majority of [w]hite officers whose productivity were [sic] inferior to his." (Id. ¶ 43.) Instead, Defendants engaged in a pattern of "outright ignoring [Plaintiff's] positive accomplishments," while other officers received awards for similaraccomplishments, and of "highlighting mistakes [for which] most [w]hite officers at worst received warnings." (Id. ¶ 44.) For example, in 2004, Plaintiff's annual evaluation did not mention that he had received a "commendation letter for community service" he performed at SUNY Rockland Community College, and even though Plaintiff worked 201 shifts, during which he wrote "numerous reports" and made "numerous arrests," he still received an unsatisfactory evaluation, and his termination was recommended. (Id. ¶¶ 44-46.) During this time, he was one of four African-American police officers at the Police Department, and the only one of Haitian descent. (Id. ¶ 47.)

In 2005, Plaintiff was written up by now-retired Lt. Leslie Lampert ("Lampert") for "entering a holding cell while armed," which, based on camera footage, was an inaccurate allegation. (Id. ¶ 48.) This write-up remained in Plaintiff's personnel file and was used by the Town in 2016 to justify Plaintiff's termination. (Id.) In 2006, Franklin, a white male officer, "berated" Plaintiff in front of other officers for a "routine" traffic ticket issued to one of Franklin's friends. (Id. ¶¶ 49, 61.) Although Plaintiff complained about this encounter, Franklin was not reprimanded and was promoted shortly after. (Id. ¶ 50.)

The following year, Plaintiff was assigned to cover Sector Two, an area that includes the Police Station and the Town Court. (Id. ¶ 51.) Plaintiff found that the workload for this sector was heavy, and "often complained . . . and advised" that Sector Two should be split between multiple officers. (Id.) In response, Plaintiff was "advised to manage his time better" and "reprimanded for not being able to keep up with his workflow." (Id.) However, when Plaintiff was ultimately transferred to a different section of the Town, a white police officer took over Sector Two, and it was deemed to be too large of a workload for one officer and split into twosectors. (Id. ¶ 52.) The reprimand letters Plaintiff received were not retracted, and they "resurfaced" during his ultimate termination. (Id.)

Also in 2007, Plaintiff had a two-year old child, and his wife was pregnant with another child. (Id. ¶ 53.) Plaintiff took a day of sick leave, and he was seen shoveling his driveway, which "led to accusations that [Plaintiff] was abusing his sick leave." (Id. ¶ 54.) Plaintiff was "served with disciplinary charges and penalized," and received "low marks" on his annual evaluation as a result. (Id.) Prior to this day, Plaintiff had "rarely used sick leave," and was "commended many times for going years" without taking a day off. (Id. ¶ 53.) This incident was also raised during Plaintiff's later termination. (Id. ¶ 54.)

In 2008, Plaintiff took a personal day that he "did not have available," and was written up for "[m]isuse of [a]ccumulated [t]ime." (Id. ¶ 55.) In September 2008, Plaintiff filed a grievance "in connection with securing a modified schedule for religious observance." (Id.) Three months earlier, a white female officer had done the same. (Id.) In 2009, Plaintiff filed an "EEOC Complaint (520-2009-00006)" against the Town, which "highlighted the disparities in the way that the religious observations were handled between [Plaintiff]...