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

400 F.Supp.3d 25

Peggy ZOULAS, Plaintiff,

v.NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Carmen Asselta, and Marie Lore, Defendants.

1:18-cv-2718-GHW

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

Signed August 29, 2019

Peggy Zoulas, Brooklyn, NY, pro se.

Amanda Blair, New York City Law Depart. Office of the Corporation Counsel, New York, NY, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

GREGORY H. WOODS, United States District Judge:

I. INTRODUCTION

When pro se plaintiff Peggy Zoulas, an elementary school teacher, turned 55, things changed for the worse in her career. After 19 years of receiving exemplary teaching reviews, her principal began giving her poor observation reports and criticizing her abilities as an educator. Zoulas' principal, assistant principal, and some of her colleagues began harassing her, belittling her, and denying her professional development opportunities. Zoulas filed a complaint with the State Division of Human Rights, which only added more fuel to the fire.

With this suit, Zoulas asserts claims against her principal, Carmen Asselta, her assistant principal, Marie Lore, as well as the New York City Department of Education (collectively, the "Defendants"). Zoulas alleges that Asselta and Lore discriminated against her, retaliated against her, and subjected her to a hostile work environment in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. She further claims that Lore discriminated against her on the basis of religion and disability in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Because she failed to exhaust her administrative remedies, Zoulas' religion and disability discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 fail. Zoulas, however, plausibly pleads her discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment claims under the ADEA. Therefore, for the reasons set forth below, the Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

II. BACKGROUND

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendants

Pro se Plaintiff Peggy Zoulas ("Zoulas" or "Plaintiff") is a 57-year-old fourth grade teacher employed by the New York City Department of Education (the "Department of Education"). Dkt. No. 31, First Amended Complaint ("FAC") at ¶ 1. Zoulas teaches at Oliver H. Perry School (the "School") in Greenpoint, Brooklyn. Plaintiff has nineteen years of teaching experience and has extensive experience teaching elementary school. Id. at ¶¶ 1, 10. Specifically, Zoulas has taught 5^th grade for 10 years and 6^th grade for 3 years. Id. at ¶ 40. Zoulas alleges that she received exemplary teaching evaluations every academic year from 1997 to 2016. Id. at ¶ 51.

Carmen Asselta is the principal of the School. See Dkt. No. 44-4 at 3. Maria Lore was the School's assistant principal until her retirement on July 1, 2018. FAC at ¶ 3. Both Asselta and Lore (collectively the "Administrators") are over 50 years old. Id. at ¶ 8; see also Dkt. No. 44-5 at 3. The Administrators are employees of the Department of Education.

B. Factual Background

Zoulas contends that the Administrators began discriminating against her when she turned 55 years old and began walking with a noticeable limp. FAC at ¶ 7. Beginning in the 2016-2017 academic year, and continuing through the next academic year, Zoulas alleges that the Administrators began discriminating and retaliating against her in myriad ways. Zoulas catalogues the allegedly discriminatory actions in detail in her complaint. Below, the Court first summarizes the teaching evaluation system that the Administrators used to evaluate Zoulas. It then describes the specific incidents that Zoulas alleges constitute unlawful discrimination and retaliation.

i. Teaching Review System Used to Evaluate Performance

New York State Education Law 3012-c establishes the annual professional performance review of classroom teachers and building principals. Department of Education schools use a teacher evaluation system known as "Advance." See Dkt. Nos. 44-2, 44-3, and 44-4 (collectively "Advance Guides"). Under the Advance system, teachers receive an annual rating composed of two parts: the Measures of Teacher Practice ("MOTP") and the Measures of Student Learning ("MOSL"). Id. at 4-5. The MOTP is evaluated on a four-point rating scale with the following possible ratings: highly effective, effective, developing, and ineffective. See id. at 6-7. In contrast, the MOSL rating is composed of three components, which include the performance of a teacher's students on an assessment of student learning, target population (which refers to the students included in the assessment), and growth measurement (which refers to the method by which student growth is measured on a particular assessment). Id. at 12-13. The combination of the MOTP and the MOSL ratings result in a teacher's overall rating for a given academic year. There are four ratings that a teacher can receive as her overall rating: highly effective, effective, developing, or ineffective. Id. at 17. Any teacher who receives an overall rating of developing or ineffective must work with her evaluator to develop and implement a Teacher Improvement Plan ("TIP"). See id. at 10-11, 56-57. Zoulas was placed on a TIP for the 2016-2017 academic year, the 2017-2018 academic year, and the 2018-2019 academic year. FAC at ¶¶ 54, 79, 341.

ii. Unfair Performance Reviews

During the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 academic years, Zoulas contends that Asselta deliberately falsified and manipulated her classroom observation reports to harass her and in hopes of creating a justification to dismiss her from her position. Id. at ¶ 53.

1. 2016-2017 Academic Year

Asselta observed Zoulas' classroom on four occasions during the 2016-2017 academic year: (i) March 17, 2017; (ii) April 28, 2017; (iii) May 17, 2017; and (iv) June 1, 2017. Id. at ¶¶ 61-64, 67-69, 71, 73-75. Of these four observations, two occurred during the last period on a Friday afternoon, shortly after Zoulas' students had just returned from physical education and, as a result, would have difficulty focusing. Id. at 59. Zoulas contends that her observation report for the April 28, 2017 lesson contained "false and baseless statements about the lesson ... for which no evidence was provided." Id. at ¶ 68. During the 2016-2017 academic year, Zoulas received a MOTP rating of Developing/Ineffective instead of a rating of Effective or Satisfactory, which she had received in each of her prior years of teaching. Id. at ¶¶ 54-58. Furthermore, during a span of five weeks during that academic year, Zoulas received four disciplinary letters. Id. at ¶ 9.

2. 2017-2018 Academic Year

During the 2017-2018 academic year, Asselta again observed Zoulas' classroom on four occasions: (i) January 31, 2018; (ii) March 28, 2018; (iii) May 18, 2018; and (iv) June 1, 2018. See id. at ¶¶ 80-82, 85-87, 90-98. Zoulas contends that Asselta was equally unfair in her classroom observations and performance evaluations for the 2017-2018 academic year. See id. at ¶¶ 62-63. Zoulas and Asselta met to debrief regarding the January 31, 2018 observation on February 15, 2018. Id. at ¶ 97. During the meeting, Zoulas claims, Asselta gave feedback for portions of the lesson that she did not observe and provided no comments on the part that she did observe. Id. at ¶¶ 97-98. When Zoulas attempted to defend herself, Asselta became argumentative, defensive, and accused her of being unreceptive to feedback. Id. at ¶ 100. Asselta also pulled out her journal and began cataloguing Zoulas' comments in an intimidating fashion. Id. Later that day, Zoulas e-mailed Asselta and informed her that she believed that she was being harassed and retaliated against. Id. at ¶ 101.

Zoulas received her observation report for the January 31, 2018 observation on March 19, 2018. Id. at ¶ 102. The report stated that she "resists feedback on teaching performance from either supervisors or more experienced colleagues." Id. Zoulas contends that Asselta's reference to Zoulas' colleagues in the observation report was an allusion to Ms. Peluso, a 23-year-old teacher who had "no teaching experience." Id. Zoulas filed a grievance with her union three days after receiving the observation report. Id. at ¶ 103. She complained that Asselta had not provided feedback on her lesson "because the feedback is supposed to be specific to the lesson that was actually observed." Id. at ¶ 103.

Zoulas alleges that Asselta also falsified criticism in her observation report reviewing the March 28, 2018 observation. Id. at ¶¶ 85-87. Again, Zoulas argues that the observation report evaluating this observation "contained numerous negative statements about [the] lesson for which ... Asselta provided no evidence." Id. at ¶ 85. As before, Asselta directed Zoulas to observe Ms. Peluso and Ms. Lodola, two 23-year old teachers, each of whom had less than one year of teaching experience. Id. at ¶ 110. In June of 2018, Zoulas filed a grievance with her union. Id. at ¶ 106.

Asselta next observed Zoulas' classroom on May 18, 2018. Id. at ¶ 90. Asselta offered verbal feedback on this observation in a meeting on May 21, 2018. Id. at ¶¶ 92-93. During the meeting, Zoulas contends, Asselta "proceeded to berate Ms. Zoulas' lesson for 45 minutes and claimed that virtually everything Ms. Zoulas did was wrong." Id. at ¶ 90. What's more, Zoulas contends that "Asselta was searching to find fault with the lesson by distorting and manipulating what actually occurred." Id. at ¶ 91. Again, when Zoulas attempted to rebut what she felt to have been unfair criticism, Asselta took out her journal and documented her comments in her presence. Id. at ¶ 92. In the observation report for Zoulas' May 18, 2018 lesson, Asselta stated that she "dismisses supervisor feedback on the grounds that she believes [that] she is an excellent teacher." Id. at ¶ 93.

Zoulas' final classroom observation of the 2017-2018 academic year occurred...