Williams v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ.

PATRICIA WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, and PAUL ROTONDO, Defendants.

1:19-cv-01353 (MKV)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

March 29, 2021

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

MARY KAY VYSKOCIL, United States District Judge:

Plaintiff Patricia Williams initiated this action accusing Defendants the New York City Department of Education ("DOE") and Paul Rotondo, the DOE Superintendent of Transfer Schools, of discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. ("Title VII"), the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. L. §§ 290 et seq. ("NYSHRL"), and the New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y. City Admin. Code §§ 8-101 et seq. ("NYCHRL"), as well as 28 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Section 1983"). Before the Court is Defendants' motion for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of all of Plaintiff's claims. For the reasons that follow, Defendants' motion is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

A. Facts Giving Rise to the Dispute

The facts as stated here are drawn from the Parties' statements made pursuant to Local Rule 56.1 and are not disputed unless otherwise noted. See Defendant's Local Rule 56.1 Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, ECF No. 53 ("Def. 56.1"); Plaintiff's Response and Counterstatement of Undisputed Material Facts, ECF No. 64 ("Pl. 56.1").

Plaintiff Patricia Williams was employed by the DOE beginning in 2003 and rose from the role of a Teacher to an "Educational Administrator" by 2015. Pl. 56.1 ¶ 11. On August 31, 2015, Plaintiff was selected to be Interim Acting Principal of Crotona Academy High School ("Crotona Academy") by then-Superintendent of Transfer Schools Lashawn Robinson. Pl. 56.1 ¶ 13. Plaintiff ultimately was named Principal of Crotona Academy on June 2, 2016. Pl. 56.1 ¶ 25. Plaintiff's appointment to the Principal position was subject to her satisfactory completion of a probationary period ending August 31, 2019. Def. 56.1 ¶ 1; Pl. 56.1 ¶ 13. In between her selection as Interim Acting Principal and her appointment as Principal, Paul Rotondo was elevated to the role of Superintendent of Transfer Schools and became Plaintiff's direct supervisor. Pl. 56.1 ¶ 14.

Plaintiff's primary allegation in this case concerns Mr. Rotondo's actions while Plaintiff was still Interim Acting Principal. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that on February 12, 2016, Mr. Rotondo forcibly grabbed her and pulled her into his body, specifically holding Plaintiff around her waist and forcing their lower bodies to touch. Pl. 56.1 ¶ 10. Plaintiff claims that she struggled to get free of Mr. Rotondo's "hug" (which she characterizes as a sexual advance) and afterward felt victimized by the encounter. Pl. 56.1 ¶¶ 21-22.

As a Principal, Plaintiff received mixed reviews at best. As Plaintiff admits, she was evaluated by both Mr. Rotondo and the Deputy Superintendent for Transfer Schools, John Sullivan. Pl. 56.1 ¶ 32. Plaintiff's reviews from her superiors were consistently "low," "ineffective," or "developing."¹ Pl. 56.1 ¶¶ 34, 38. Plaintiff did however, receive an "effective" rating on state-level evaluations, which only considered student test performance and "state approved learning measures." Pl. 56.1 ¶ 32, 39. Crotona Academy as a whole also wasreviewed during Plaintiff's time as Principal. At the end of the 2016-2017 school year, the school was rated "Proficient" in seven areas and "Developing" in three areas. Pl. 56.1 ¶ 53. However, three months later, the ratings were changed, with four areas being rated "Proficient" and six rated "Developing." Pl. 56.1 ¶ 54. Plaintiff claims that during a meeting with Rotondo in July 2017, Rotondo admitted to changing the ratings. Pl. 56.1 ¶ 55.

Plaintiff was also the subject of a DOE misconduct investigation in 2017. Specifically, on February 13, 2017, the DOE Office of Special Investigations ("OSI") received a referral from the Special Commissioner of Investigations for the New York City School District explaining that Plaintiff had "improperly programmed students at Crotona Academy High School to sit for longer class periods" and "programmed teachers to work an additional 80 minutes a week" in violation of both DOE regulations, state education law, and the DOE Collective Bargaining Agreement with the teachers' union. Def. ¶ 2; Declaration of Brittany J. Finder in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 57 ("Finder Decl."), Ex. B.² Approximately one year after her appointment as Principal, the OSI investigation into these allegations was completed. See Pl. 56.1 ¶ 4. The investigation substantiated the allegations against Plaintiff and recommended that the report be forwarded to the Superintendent, Paul Rotondo, for "strong disciplinary action, including possible termination and assignment of a problem code" against Plaintiff. Def. 56.1 ¶ 5. The Parties point to no admissible evidence regarding whether any disciplinary action was taken at the time.

During the same school year, the DOE apparently began to consider closing Crotona Academy or changing its leadership. In an email to Mr. Rotondo on June 17, 2018, Plaintiff spoke of "potential plans for Crotona Academy to close or for change in the school leadership." Def. 56.1 ¶ 3; Finder Decl. Ex. C. Plaintiff apparently opposed such measures, writing that the school "ha[d] undergone many changes within the last two years from obtaining a new principal in 2015 to relocating to a new school location in 2016" and advocating for stability in leadership and intervention to help students. Finder Decl. Ex. C. However, DOE formalized a proposal to close Crotona Academy in early 2018 and notified parents of students at the school in February of that year. Def. 56.1 ¶ 7, Finder Decl. Ex. E. Among the stated reasons for the closure were that Crotona Academy "struggle[d] with academic performance and attendance issues," including a graduation rate in the 27th percentile of high schools city-wide and chronic absenteeism above 90 percent. See Finder Decl. Ex. E at 2. Plaintiff also states that the school was to be closed due to declining enrollment, and that it had not been permitted to actively conduct Open House recruitment before the 2017-2018 school year. Pl. 56.1 ¶¶ 7.5, 7.8.

Plaintiff received a "Notice of Discontinuance" on May 11, 2018, stating that Mr. Rotondo would evaluate Plaintiff's status "as a probationer . . . based on [her] performance in [the] position" on June 26, 2018. Def. 56.1 ¶ 9; Pl. 56.1 ¶ 78.³ Several months later, Plaintiff received a similar Notice, dated September 20, 2018, explaining that Mr. Rotondo again would review Plaintiff's status as a probationary Principal. Def. 56.1 ¶ 9; Finder Decl. Ex. G. Finally,Plaintiff received a letter confirming her discontinuance as Principal of Crotona Academy on October 1, 2018. Def. 56.1 ¶ 10, Finder Decl. Ex. H. Specifically, Plaintiff was informed that "in consultation with Department of Education senior officials, I [Paul Rotondo] reaffirm your Discontinuance of Probationary Service effective close of business Monday October 1, 2018." Finder Decl. Ex. H.

B. Procedural History

During her tenure as Principal, Plaintiff filed two charges with the U.S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") against the DOE and Mr. Rotondo, first on February 16, 2018 and again on September 14, 2018. Def. 56.1 ¶ 8; Pl. 56.1 ¶¶ 76, 83. In her charges, Plaintiff claimed that the DOE and Mr. Rotondo discriminated against her based on her sex, first to negatively affect the performance of Crotona Academy (leading to its closure) and then to terminate her as a Principal in the DOE system. Pl. 56.1 ¶¶ 76, 83 (citing the charges); Declaration of Laura D. Barbieri in Opposition, ECF No. 63 ("Barbieri Decl."), Ex. 1 at 34-36. Plaintiff received Right to Sue Notices for both EEOC charges on December 13, 2018. See Amended Complaint, ECF No. 18 ¶ 21.

Plaintiff filed this action on February 12, 2019, see Complaint, ECF No. 1, and filed an Amended Complaint two months later. See Amended Complaint, ECF No. 18. Defendants then moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint. See Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 21.

In an Opinion dated August 28, 2019, Chief Judge Colleen McMahon partially granted and partially denied Defendants' motion to dismiss. See Williams v. New York City Department of Education, No. 19-cv-01353, 2019 WL 4393546 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 28, 2019). In that opinion, Chief Judge McMahon determined that Plaintiff adequately had pleaded, for the purposes of that motion, claims under Title VII, the NYSHRL, the NYCHRL, and, in one limited circumstance 28 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Section 1983"). Id. at *5-21. However, the Court dismissed Counts Four,Five, Six and Ten in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, constituting most of Plaintiff's Section 1983 claims and her common law negligent supervision claim. Id. at *16-17, *21.

While discovery was ongoing, the case was transferred to me. Discovery is now closed, and Defendants move for summary judgment on all remaining claims.⁴

In support of their motion [ECF No. 56], Defendants filed a Memorandum of Law [ECF No. 58] ("Def. Br."), their Local Rule 56.1 Statement [ECF No. 53], and a Declaration of counsel Brittany Finder attaching eighteen exhibits [ECF No. 57] ("Finder Decl."). Plaintiff opposed the motion, belatedly filing her Local Rule 56.1 Statement [ECF No. 64], as well as a Memorandum in Opposition [ECF No. 61] ("Opp."), a Declaration from Plaintiff [ECF No. 62] ("Williams Decl."), and a Declaration of counsel Laura Barbieri attaching fourteen exhibits [ECF No. 63] ("Barbieri Decl.").⁵ Defendants also submitted a Reply Memorandum of Law in Further Support [ECF No. 67] ("Def. Reply").

LEGAL STANDARD

Under Rule 56(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment should be granted only "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A court can conclude that...