Widomski v. State Univ. of N.Y. (Suny) at Orange

933 F.Supp.2d 534

Chester WIDOMSKI, Plaintiff,

v.STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK (SUNY) AT ORANGE a/k/a Orange County Community College, Defendant.

Case No. 09–CV–7517 (KMK).

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

March 20, 2013.

Michael Howard Sussman, Esq., Mary Jo Whateley, Esq., Sussman & Watkins, Goshen, NY, for Plaintiff.

Hyun Chin Kim, Esq., Orange County Attorney, Goshen, NY, for Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER

KENNETH M. KARAS, District Judge.

Plaintiff Chester Widomski brings this action against Defendant State University of New York (SUNY) at Orange, also known as Orange County Community College (“OCCC”), alleging violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12132 et seq., and the New York Human Rights Law, 15 N.Y. Exec. L. § 296(2)(a). (Second Amend. Compl. at Ex. A (“SAC”) ¶ 33.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant discriminated against him by preventing his participation in a phlebotomy clinical program based on his hands shaking, a perceived disability, and brought a disciplinary action against him in retaliation for complaining about the discrimination. ( Id.) Defendant now moves for summary judgment on all claims. For the reasons stated herein, Defendant's motion is granted.

I. Background

A. Factual Background

The following facts are drawn from the Parties' submissions and are undisputed except as otherwise indicated. In 2008, Plaintiff was a student at OCCC concentrating in the Medical Laboratory Technology Program (the “Lab Tech Program”). (Def.'s Rule 56.1(a) Statement (“Def. 56.1”) ¶ 1; Rosamaria Contarino Aff. at Ex. G (“Contarino Aff.”) ¶ 3.) During the 2008 fall semester, Plaintiff enrolled in the Clinical Training I class, a required course for the Lab Tech Program that included “routine tasks” in hematology, clinical chemistry, urinalysis, and phlebotomy. (Def. 56.1 ¶¶ 1–2; Contarino Aff. ¶ 3, ex. B.) Plaintiff was assigned to Catskill Regional Medical Center (“CRMC”) in Sullivan County, (Pl. Decl. in Opp. to Def.'s Mot. for Summary Judgment (“Pl. Decl.”) ¶ 4; Contarino Aff. ¶ 3), and Rebecca Sander (“Sander”), an employee of CRMC (and not OCCC), was assigned as his proctor. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 16; Rebecca Sander Dep. at Ex. 3 (“Sander Dep.”) at 20–22, 117–18.) Among other course requirements, the Clinical Training I course required that each student submit weekly clinical summary reports signed by his or her proctor and accompanied by a narrative. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 3; Pl.'s Rule 56.1(a) Statement (“Pl.56.1”) ¶ 5; Pl.'s Counter Rule 56.1(a) Statement (“Pl.'s Counter 56.1”) ¶ 1; Contarino Aff. ¶ 3, ex. B.) ¹ The weekly clinical summary reports consist of standardized forms with blanks for date and time; a list of procedures with blank boxes to indicate number observed, number performed, and whether competency was achieved; an area for comments; and signature blanks for the proctor and student. (Contarino Aff. ¶ 3, ex. B.)

At some point prior to October 7, 2008, Sander conveyed to Plaintiff that he was not permitted to participate in the phlebotomy portion of the clinical, a decision she states was based on her personal observations of Plaintiff's hands shaking, (Def. 56.1 ¶ 16; Rosamaria Contarino Dep. at Ex. D (“Contarino Dep.”) at 81; Sander Dep. at 60–61; Pl. Decl. ¶¶ 2, 6), a characterization disputed by Plaintiff, (Pl. 56.1 ¶ 13).

On October 7, 2008, Plaintiff met with Rosamaria Contarino, the Department Chair of the Lab Tech Program, and discussed the fact that the required weekly summary reports and narratives had not been submitted. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 4; Pl. 56.1 ¶¶ 3–5; Contarino Aff. ¶ 4.) Specifically, as of October 7, 2008, the seventh week of the semester, Plaintiff had not submitted any clinical training summary sheets and had submitted only a small number of narratives. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 4; Pl. 56.1 ¶¶ 4–5; Contarino Aff. ¶ 4.) The Parties dispute whether Plaintiff or Sander was at fault for the failure to provide the reports.² During the meeting, Contarino and Plaintiff signed a written agreement that Plaintiff would submit the required documentation by no later than October 9, 2008 at 2:00 p.m. to avoid receiving an F in the course. (Contarino Aff. ¶ 5, ex. C.)

Plaintiff and Contarino also discussed the decision to prohibit Plaintiff from participating in the phlebotomy portion of the clinical due to his shaking hands. (Pl. Decl. ¶ 7; SAC ¶ 13; Chester Widomski Dep. at Ex. B (“Widomski Dep.”) at 41, 45; Contarino Dep. at 81–83.) Contarino conveyed to Plaintiff that as a result of not participating in the phlebotomy clinical portion, he would be permitted to graduate from the Lab Tech Program, but he would not be permitted to receive a medical technician license. (Pl. Decl. ¶ 2; Widomski Dep. at 41, 45; Contarino Dep. at 81–83.)

The following day, October 8, 2008, Contarino received faxed clinical training and narratives from Plaintiff, including a urinalysis summary report dated October 1, 2008 and a hematology summary report dated October 8, 2008. (Def. 56.1 ¶¶ 11–12; Pl. 56.1 ¶¶ 8–9; Contarino Aff. ¶ 6, exs. D, E.)

Two key events occurred on October 27, 2008. First, Contarino again notified Plaintiff that he had not submitted the proper clinical documentation. (Def. 56.1 ¶¶ 13–14; Pl. 56.1 ¶¶ 10–11; Contarino Aff. ¶ 7.) Second, Plaintiff's counsel drafted a letter to Contarino requesting that Plaintiff be permitted to complete the entire Lab Tech Program, including the phlebotomy clinical. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 15; Ltr. from Michael Sussman at Ex. 1.) It is not clear in which order these events occurred.

On November 4, 2008, Contarino received faxed clinical training summary sheets, specifically a urinalysis summary report and a hematology summary report, both dated October 29, 2008. (Def. 56.1 ¶¶ 17–18; Pl. 56.1 ¶¶ 14–15; Contarino Aff. ¶ 8, exs. D, E.) Upon receiving the reports, Contarino observed that they appeared to be identical to the October 1 and October 8, 2008 reports with the exception of the new dates and the addition of the letter “Y” in the competency column of the urinalysis report and the word “Yes” in the competency column of the hematology report. (Def. 56.1 ¶¶ 20–21; Contarino Aff. ¶ 8, exs. D, E.) Sander testified that she signed the urinalysis and hematology reports, dated October 1, 2008 and October 8, 2008 respectively, but that she did not sign the reports dated October 29, 2008, nor did she write the “Y” and “Yes” that appear in the competency columns of those reports. (Def. 56.1 ¶¶ 21–22; Pl. 56.1 ¶¶ 18–19; Sander Dep. at 123.)

The next day, November 5, 2008, after observing the suspicious similarities in the forms, Contarino forwarded the matter to Paul Broadie, Vice President of Student Services, for disciplinary action. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 23; Pl. 56.1 ¶ 21; Contarino Aff. ¶¶ 8–9, 11; Paul Broadie Aff. at Ex. H (“Broadie Aff.”) ¶ 2.) A few days later, on November 8, 2008, Broadie met with Plaintiff and discussed the alleged violation of the Student Code of Conduct; Plaintiff also conveyed his version of events to Broadie. (Def. 56.1 ¶¶ 25–28; Pl. 56.1 ¶¶ 21–26; Contarino Aff. ¶ 11; Broadie Aff. ¶ 3.) At the time of this meeting, Broadie was unaware of the October 27, 2008 letter from Plaintiff's counsel to Contarino, except to the extent that Plaintiff's wife suggested that she thought the purpose of the meeting was to address a letter from Plaintiff's attorney. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 30; Pl. 56.1 ¶ 27; Paul Broadie Dep. at Ex. E (“Broadie Dep.”) at 55–57; Widomski Dep. at 69.)

On November 11, 2008, Broadie offered Plaintiff an informal sanction to resolve the matter: Plaintiff would receive an F and be required to withdraw from the Lab Tech Program. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 29; Pl. 56.1 ¶ 26; Broadie Aff. ¶ 4.) Broadie also indicated that Plaintiff was not required to accept the informal sanction and instead could elect a formal hearing. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 31; Pl. 56.1 ¶ 31; Broadie Aff. ¶ 4.) Plaintiff declined the informal sanction and requested the formal hearing. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 32; Pl. 56.1 ¶ 32; Broadie Aff. ¶ 4.)

On December 9, 2008, a Board of Inquiry, composed of three faculty members and four members of the student body with no connection to Plaintiff, met to consider the matter. (Def. 56.1 ¶¶ 32–33; Pl. 56.1 ¶¶ 32–33; Widomski Dep. at 71; Broadie Aff. ¶ 6.) Plaintiff, Plaintiff's counsel, and Contarino attended the hearing; Broadie was not involved in the proceeding, and Sander did not attend. (Def. 56.1 ¶¶ 34–35; Pl. 56.1 ¶ 34–35; Pl. Counter 56.1 ¶ 17; Def. Reply Rule 56.1(a) Statement ¶ 17; Widomski Dep. at 71–72; Sander Dep. at 7–8.) The Parties dispute whether Plaintiff and his attorney were permitted meaningful participation in the meeting, but there is no dispute that Plaintiff did provide statements to the Board. (Pl. 56.1 ¶ 34; Pl. Counter 56.1 ¶ 18; SAC ¶ 25; Widomski Dep. at 72–73; Further Dep. of Chester Widomski at Ex. C at 19–20.)

On December 12, 2008, the Board of Inquiry found Plaintiff guilty of violating the Student Code of Conduct and recommended that he be expelled from the Lab Tech Program, be prohibited from enrollingin any other Allied Health program, and be suspended from OCCC until fall 2009. (Def. 56.1 ¶¶ 35–36; Pl. 56.1 ¶¶ 35–36; Broadie Aff. ¶ 8.) Broadie adopted this recommendation. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 37; Pl. 56.1 ¶ 37; Broadie Aff. ¶ 8; Broadie Dep. at 80–81.) Plaintiff appealed the decision to Dr. William Richards, President of OCCC, and after examining documentation and meeting with Plaintiff, Plaintiff's wife, Broadie, Contarino, and Sander (via speaker phone), Richards upheld the decision on January 14, 2009. (Def. 56.1 ¶¶ 38–41; Pl. 56.1 ¶¶ 38–41; Broadie Aff. ¶ 10; Ltr. from William Richards at Ex. 4 at 79–80.)

B. Procedural History

On August 27, 2009 Plaintiff filed suit against OCCC in this Court. (Dkt. No. 1.) Following a pre-motion conference, the Court granted Plaintiff's request to file an amended complaint, which was submitted on January 7, 2010. (Dkt. No. 8.) After additional correspondence, Plaintiff...