Valenti v. Massapequa Union Free Sch. Dist.

VINCENT VALENTI, Plaintiff,

v.MASSAPEQUA UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL., Defendants.

No.09-CV-977 (JFB) (ARL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

DATED: March 28, 2012

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JOSEPH F. BIANCO, District Judge:

Plaintiff Vincent Valenti ("Valenti" or "plaintiff") brought this civil rights action against his employer, the Massapequa Union Free School District (the "School District") and Barbara Williams ("Williams"), a Principal employed by the School District, in her individual and official capacity (collectively, the "defendants"), alleging the following: (1) employment discrimination on the basis of gender in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., as amended ("Title VII") and Article 15 of the Executive Law of the State of New York §§ 290 and 296 (the "Human Rights Law"); (2) unlawful retaliation for engaging in activities protected by the aforementioned statutes; and (3) failure to take reasonable measures to protect plaintiff from student harassment, as well as unlawful retaliation for protected activity, in violation of constitutional rights secured by 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Section 1983"). Specifically, plaintiff claims that he was the subject of gender discrimination and retaliation arising from, inter alia, the School District's resolution of an allegation against him by a student regarding inappropriate touching of a student's shoulder, which was investigated by the School District and resolved in plaintiff's favor. Plaintiff seeks actual, compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other costs, and equitable relief. Defendants previously moved to dismiss the complaint, and this Court dismissed the Title VII claim against Williams and the Section 1983 claim against Williams in her official capacity, but denied the motion as to the other claims. Defendants now move for summaryjudgment as to the remaining causes of action.

For the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted in its entirety. In particular, the Court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint because plaintiff had alleged (1) that, when a student accused him of improper behavior, the School District did not discipline the student for a false accusation, and (2) students of female teachers were properly disciplined for similar false allegations. The Court concluded that, under the liberal pleading standard, plaintiff had articulated a plausible claim for gender discrimination and retaliation. However, discovery has clearly revealed that no rational jury could find gender discrimination and/or retaliation even if all the evidence in the record is construed most favorably to plaintiff. Specifically, although plaintiff attempts to create a factual dispute about every minute detail of the case, it is uncontroverted that (1) plaintiff attended a meeting on September 27, 2007, where Williams advised plaintiff that a parent of one of plaintiff's students had stated that her daughter had felt uncomfortable when plaintiff touched her on the shoulder because the daughter sometimes had difficulty interpreting social cues; (2) the parent was explicit in noting that she did not want this to be construed as an allegation of any kind, and did not believe plaintiff had done anything wrong or improper, but wanted plaintiff to be aware of the situation; (3) Williams emphasized this point (as plaintiff concedes) by telling plaintiff, "Don't worry about it. It's all handled. The parent loves you."; and (4) Williams did not accuse plaintiff of any wrongdoing, and plaintiff concedes that he never asked that an investigation be conducted or that the student be disciplined or removed from his class. Given these uncontroverted facts, no rational jury could conclude that the handling of this situation by defendants constitutes an adverse action for purposes of gender discrimination or even under the broader definition for retaliation, nor could such a jury conclude that defendants were motivated in their actions by gender and/or an effort to retaliate. Notwithstanding his contentions to the contrary, plaintiff has cited no policy or practice that suggests that the student should have been disciplined in this situation. Moreover, there is no evidence of any similarly situated female teacher who was treated differently. In essence, plaintiff has attempted to take a workplace event resolved in his favor and transform it into a gender discrimination or retaliation claim where there is no factual basis for doing so. Similarly, plaintiff has attempted to take other mundane, workplace events and convert them to claims of discrimination. For example, plaintiff claims that being asked to submit a document by email, as opposed to paper, was discriminatory. In short, the Court has fully analyzed all of plaintiff's allegations and, even if they were all credited, no rational jury could conclude that they (either individually or collectively) constitute gender discrimination or retaliation. Plaintiff's equal protection claim under Section 1983, as well as his state law discrimination claims, cannot survive summary judgment for the same reasons. Finally, although the Court is concerned that plaintiff appears to perceive gender discrimination and/or retaliation even where there is insufficient factual or legal basis for doing so, the Court does not believe defendants are entitled to attorneys' fees under the circumstances of this case. In particular, the Court concludes that there is an insufficient basis to find that plaintiff brought and continued the lawsuit in bad faith, or that it was factually and/or legallyfrivolous, or that there are any other grounds for such an award.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

The court has taken the facts set forth below from the parties' depositions, affidavits, and exhibits, and from the parties' respective Rule 56.1 statements of facts. upon consideration of a motion for summary judgment, the Court shall construe the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See Capobianco v. City of New York, 422 F.3d 47, 50 (2d Cir. 2005). unless otherwise noted, where a party's 56.1 statement is cited, that fact is undisputed or the opposing party has pointed to no evidence in the record to contradict it.¹

Valenti has been employed as a special education teacher in the School District since September 1984. (Defs.' 56.1 Statement ¶ 14.) The School District divides the high school into two campuses. (Id. ¶¶ 6-8.) The Ames Campus houses the 9th grade class (the "Ames Campus"), while the Main Campus houses 10th grade through 12th grade. (Id.) Williams was the Principal of Massapequa High School, Ames Campus, from 2005 to 2010, and became the Principal of Massapequa High School, Main Campus, in July 2010. (Id. ¶¶ 12, 13.)

1. Valenti's Prior Actions

Plaintiff filed two complaints against the School District in 2003 and 2004, both alleging gender discrimination and unlawful retaliation. (Id. ¶¶ 15, 16.) Both complaints were dismissed in their entirety on September 5, 2006, when this Court granted the School District's motion for summary judgment. (Id. ¶ 17.) Williams was not named as a defendant in the prior actions. (Id. ¶¶ 18, 19, Pl.'s 56.1 Counter Statement ¶ 18, 19.)

2. The Meeting Regarding Student's Allegation of Inappropriate Touching

Kimberly Hession ("Hession") is a social worker at Ames Campus. (Defs.' 56.1 Statement ¶ 20.) According to the defendants, on September 26, 2007, Hession had a conversation with the parent of a child she counsels. (Id. ¶ 21.) The parent told Hession that her daughter felt uncomfortable when plaintiff touched her shoulder. (Id. ¶ 23.) The defendants contend that the parent did not want her statement to be construed as an allegation, because the parent understood that her child was hypersensitive and did not believe that there was any inappropriate touching. (Id. ¶¶ 22, 24, 25.) According to the defendants, Hession reported the discussion to Williams, who subsequently spoke to the parent. (Id. ¶¶ 26, 27.) Williams confirmed that the parent was not accusing plaintiff of any impropriety. (Id. ¶ 27).

The plaintiff contends that he was told that the parent approached Williams at "Back to School Night" to relay this information, and that he did not know until Hession's deposition on November 30, 2010 that the parent initially approached Hession. (Pl.'s 56.1 Counter Statement ¶¶ 21, 22.)Furthermore, plaintiff asserts that he did not know any information about the student, including but not limited to, the hypersensitivity of the student. (Id. ¶ 24.)

On September 27, 2007, Williams met with plaintiff and Alex Norden, plaintiff's union representative, in William's office. (Defs.' 56.1 Statement ¶¶ 30, 31.) According to the defendants, Williams explained that the meeting was informal and that no disciplinary action would be taken. (Id. ¶ 34.) She relayed the information she received from the parent and did not suggest that plaintiff inappropriately touched the student. (Id. ¶¶ 32, 33, 34.) Defendants contend that no one at the meeting indicated that there was disciplinary action being taken, that plaintiff had done anything wrong, or that the parent was making an accusation against him. (Id. ¶¶ 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40.) Additionally, according to the defendants, no formal or informal allegation was made by the parent. (Id. ¶ 28.) The defendants further state that Williams did not take any disciplinary action against Valenti. (Id. ¶ 41.) In fact, the defendants and plaintiff agree that Williams told plaintiff, "Don't worry about it. It's all handled. The parent loves you." (Id. ¶ 42, Pl.'s 56.1 Counter Statement ¶ 42.)

However, plaintiff avers that the manner in which the meeting transpired, and the presence of Norden, indicated that the meeting was disciplinary and that a formal or informal allegation was made against him. (Pl.'s 56.1 Counter Statement ¶¶ 28, 29, 33, 34.) Moreover, plaintiff denies that Williams relayed...