Williams v. Cnty. of Nassau

MARY WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF NASSAU, NASSAU COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT,NASSAU COUNTY CORRECTIONAL CENTER, MARY ELISABETH OSTERMANN,in her individual and official capacity,ANTONIO PATINO, in his individual and official capacity,SERGEANT STEVEN O'MALLEY, in his individual and official capacity,ACTING SHERIFF MICHAEL J. SPOSATO, in his individual and official capacity, and OFFICER PHIL LONIGRO,in his individual and official capacity, Defendants.

15-CV-7098 (DRH)(AYS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

May 28, 2019

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff

Law Offices of Frederick K. Brewington

556 Peninsula Boulevard

Hempstead, New York 11550

By: Cathryn Harris-Marchesi, Esq.

For Defendants:

Bee Ready Fishbein Hatter & Donovan, LLP

170 Old Country Road

Mineola, New York 11502

By: Deanna D. Panico, Esq.

HURLEY, Senior District Judge:

Plaintiff Mary Williams ("Plaintiff" or "Williams") commenced this action asserting claims pursuant to Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983, and New York Executive Law § 296 against defendants County of Nassau ( "Nassau"), Nassau County Sheriff's Department, Nassau County Correctional Center , Mary Elisabeth Ostermann ("Ostermann"), Antonio Patino ("Patino"), Sergeant Steven O'Malley ("O'Malley"), Acting Sheriff Michael J. Sposato ("Sposato'), and Officer Phil Lonigro ("Lonigro). By Memorandum & Order dated March 30, 2017, the claims against the Sheriff's Department and the Nassau County Sheriff's Department, as well as all of the NYSHRL and Section 1983 conspiracy claims, were dismissed. Presently before the Court is a motion for summary judgment by defendants Nassau, Ostermann, Patino, O'Malley, Sposato and Lonigro (collectively "Defendants") on Plaintiff's remaining claims, viz., hostile work environment and retaliation under Sections 1981 and 1983 and Title VII¹. For the reason set forth below, the motion is granted.

BACKGROUND

The following facts are taken primarily from the parties' 56.1 Statements and are undisputed unless otherwise noted.

A. Plaintiff's Assignment History as a Corrections Officer

Plaintiff, an African-American female, was hired as a Correction Officer by the County on or about March 16, 2001. At the time of her hire, she was informed that she would be working the following rotating schedule: work five days from 8:00am to 4:00 pm, followed by two days off, then work five days from 4:00 pm to 12:00 am, followed by three days off. (Pl.'s 56.1 Resp. at ¶¶ 1-3.)

After completing training, Plaintiff's first assignment was to Meal Platoon 4, with her hours being 11:00 am to 7:00 pm. On June 2, 2002, she was reassigned to Security Platoon 7. From that date until August 2007, she worked in either Security Platoon 7 or Security Platoon 1 with an 8 to 4, 4 to 12 rotating schedule. In August 2007, Plaintiff was reassigned to the Visiting/Medical Unit, which was a "split tour" and worked a rotating shift of 8:00 am to 4:00 pm and 11:00 am to 7:00 pm. (Pl.'s 56.1 Resp. at ¶¶ 4-10.)

Plaintiff was reassigned to the Medical Transportation Unit on July 6, 2009 where she worked the 12:00 pm to 8:00 pm shift for nearly four years. In late 2012, Plaintiff began working an 8:00 am to 4:00 pm shift within the Medical Unit.² At her request, on February 23, 2015 Plaintiff was reassigned from the Medical Unit to Security Platoon 5. In or about August 2015, after an absence due to knee surgery, Plaintiff was placed on restricted (light) duty, which is where she has remained. (Pl.'s 56.1 Resp. at ¶¶ 12-17.)

B. The Medical Unit and the September 16, 2014 Incident

The Medical Unit provides care and treatment to inmates who need medical attention. It is located within two building at the Nassau County Correctional Center: the D Building and the Satellite Building. Numerous individuals workwithin the Medical Unit who are not employed by the County as Armor Medical, an outside company, supplies medical service at the facility. As such, Armor Medical supplied doctors, nurses, dental assistants, custodial staff, physical therapists and individual to handle medical records. The Medical Unit is open twenty-four hours per day and both inmates and Armor employee have access to the unit at night. (Pl.'s 56.1 Resp. at ¶¶ 19-22.)

According to Defendants, inmates line-up along the walls, within the Medical Unit and wait to be called into a particular room for treatment. More specifically, they contend that as only one inmate at a time can fit into the dental office, inmates will line-up along the wall outside the dental off waiting to be seen. Plaintiff counters that inmates wait in a holding pen outside of the Medical Unit and with respect to the dental office "rarely is there a line of inmates waiting outside the pen and if there is an inmate, outside the pens, waiting to be seen, said inmate is made to stand against the wall across from the dental office." And, "there was never more than two inmates lined up waiting of treatment in the medical unit at the dental office and that this was a rare occasion, in which case the inmate would be supervised." It is undisputed that inmates regularly pass through the door to the dental office and it is possible (although unlikely, according to Williams) that an inmate could come across one of the sharp objects kept within the Medical Unit. Moreover, inmates are not searched or subject to a "pat-down" before entering the unit. (Pl.'s 56.1 Resp. at ¶¶ 23-28.)

On September 16, 2014, Plaintiff was assigned to the Medical Unit within the Satellite Building. Having volunteered to work overtime that morning, she arrived at 5:30 am. According to Plaintiff, there were five corrections officers working the morning shift that day and approximately twenty-five officers that worked in the medical unit. When she arrived, she greeted her co-worker, Craig Richardson, and, as she was doing so, observed two etchings on the doorframe that led to the dental office. On one side of the door frame were the letters "KKK," with each letter about two inches in height. On the other side of the door frame was a half finished swastika, about three inches in height. Plaintiff has no idea when the etchings were made; she does not know if they were made on September 16 or sometime earlier. (Pl.'s 56.1 Resp. at ¶¶ 29-34; Pl.'s Counter 56.1 at ¶¶ 3, 25.)

Plaintiff called her supervisor, defendant O'Malley, and notified him of the offensive etchings. O'Malley directed her to provide a written statement regarding the incident, which she did. After being called, O'Malley met Plaintiff in the Satellite Building. He also met the tour commander, Lt. Kerzner, who had already ordered photographs to be taken of the etchings. O'Malley went down to the Medical Unit with Lt. Kerzner to see the etchings. O'Malley covered the etchings with a piece of paper until they could be removed. O'Malley spoke to an Officer Jenkins from the Communications Unit and directed him to contact Capt. Rogers, who was O'Malley's supervisor. At approximately 9:10 am and 9:15 am O'Malley received telephone calls from Deputy Undersheriff Smith and Sheriff Sposato, respectively, and apprised each of them of the situation. An investigating officer from theInternal Affairs Unit, Officer Peirce, arrived at the Medical Unit and took photographs of the etchings. O'Malley conducted an inspection of the entire Medical Unit to see if there were any additional etchings. O'Malley remained with Plaintiff and stayed in the Satellite Building until the etching were removed, which occurred approximately two to three hours of Plaintiff's initial report.³ At no time during this two to three hour period did Plaintiff request to go home for the day. (Pl.'s 56.1 Resp. at ¶¶ 35-47.)

Upon returning to his office, O'Malley drafted two report regarding the etchings, one to Capt. Rogers and the other to the Affirmative Action Bias Unit. Plaintiff also reported the incident to defendant Patino, an affirmative action officer. Plaintiff was out sick for several days after she observed the etchings. (Pl.'s 56.1 Resp. at ¶¶ 48-49, 53.)

On September 22, 2014, defendant Sposato issued Order Number 24-14 which read as follow:

UNAUTHORIZED SIGNS, MARKINGS, PICTURES & OTHER MATERIALS

This Order serves as a reminder to all staff that the display, circulation or posting of unauthorized signs, markings, pictures and any other printed material that denigrates or shows hostility or aversion toward any individual or group is strictly prohibited and will not be toleratedunder any circumstances. Any staff member engaging in such conduct will be subject to immediate disciplinary action.

All supervisors are responsible to make certain that their respective areas of command are free from any such materials at all time and to take immediate corrective action in the event that nay such materials are discovered. The discovery of any such materials shall be properly documented and promptly reported via the appropriate Chain of Command.

[signed]

Michael J. Sposato

Sheriff

TO BE READ AT THE NEXT 12 LINEUPS & POSTED IN ALL OUTSIDE

UNITS

(Pl.'s 56.1 Resp. at ¶50; Ex. E to Harris-Marchesi Declar.)

On September 23, 2014, Plaintiff meet with Patino. He advised her of the step he had taken regarding her report. This included communicating with the Internal Affairs Division to request photographs of the etchings and inquiries to Plaintiff's supervisors as to who had access to the area and whether there were cameras in the area where the etchings were found. According to Patino he was told that there are inmate in the area, as well as Armor employees and that there are no cameras. Patino provided Plaintiff with a copy of the County's EEO Policy and EEO complaint form, which he asked Plaintiff to fill out. Plaintiff returned the completed form to Patino on September 29, 2014. She admits that there are no cameras in the area, that inmates and Armor Employees, in addition to corrections officers, can be found in the area and that there were no...