7 F. Supp. 3d 304
E.D.N.Y2014Background
- Plaintiff Dominick J. Siani, pro se, sues SUNY, SUNY(F), and fifteen individuals alleging ADEA, §1983, NYHRL, and state-law claims in a consolidated action.
- The court previously decided a related 2009 age-discrimination case with some claims resolved at summary judgment.
- The matter involves five motions: defendants’ partial summary judgment and four of plaintiff’s motions (sanctions, compelled production, and strike), all largely denied.
- A 2007 Stipulation of Settlement provided a three-year term (2007–2010) and a two-year extension (2010–2012) for plaintiff’s appointment, with reappointment governed by SUNY/SUNY(F) policies and a Keen-designated recommender.
- In 2011, after portfolio reviews by the department, CCTA, Dean Greenwald, and Provost Cepriano, Keen terminated plaintiff and implemented a buy-out per the collective bargaining agreement.
- SUNY/F engaged an independent reviewer, Havlovic, who recommended against reappointment; Gilbertson (campus counsel) and SUNY officials were involved in the process, with certain communications at issue in the litigation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eleventh Amendment immunity bars state entities from claims. | Plaintiff argues Ex parte Young allows prospective relief against state officers. | Defendants contend Eleventh Amendment immunity bars state-entity claims and Abrogation does not apply. | State entities SUNY and SUNY(F) are dismissed. |
| Whether ADEA claims extend to individuals. | Plaintiff asserts retaliation/age-based claims against individuals. | ADEA does not provide individual liability. | ADEA claims against defendants in their individual capacities are dismissed. |
| Whether NYHRL retaliation and related claims survive against certain defendants. | Plaintiff asserts retaliation under NYHRL against multiple defendants. | Most NYHRL claims fail as a matter of law; only Keen, Cepriano, Vogel may have viable retaliation claims. | Retaliation claims survive against Keen (official-capacity) and Cepriano and Vogel (individual capacity) to the extent supported by evidence; other NYHRL claims are dismissed. |
| Whether defamation and breach of contract claims survive. | Plaintiff maintains state-law defamation and contract claims. | Defamation involves protected opinion; contract claim fails for lack of contractual party. | Defamation and most breach-of-contract claims are dismissed; Keen’s breach claim survives only in Keen’s individual capacity to the extent stated. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Gorzynski v. JetBlue Airways Corp., 596 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2010) (McDonnell Douglas applicable to ADEA §1983 NYHRL claims)
- Hicks v. Baines, 593 F.3d 159 (2d Cir. 2010) (retaliation claims under equal protection theory viability discussed)
- Back v. Hastings On Hudson Union Free School District, 365 F.3d 107 (2d Cir. 2004) (discrimination proximate-cause and supervisor liability guidance)
- Lieberman v. Gant, 630 F.2d 60 (2d Cir. 1980) (pretext analysis guidance in tenure decisions; independent evidence required)