Mikhlyn et al v. Bove et al

Filing 113

ORDER of REFERRAL TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE: Plaintiff's anticipated motion pursuant to Rule 37 is respectfully referred to Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr. to issue a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). SO ORDERED. (Ordered by Judge Allyne R. Ross, on 6/4/2010) C/mailed by Chambers. (Latka-Mucha, Wieslawa)

Mikhlyn et al v. Bove et al

Doc. 113

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------------X MALRY TARDD, and OTTO WHITE Plaintiffs, -against-

Docket No.: CV-04-3262 (ADS) (ARL)

ELECTRONICALLY FILED BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY, a.k.a and/or d/b/a BROOKHAVEN SCIENCE ASSOCIATES, CONRAD FORSTER, in his individual and official capacity; MICHAEL GOLDMAN, in his individual and official capacity; WILLIAM HEMPFLING, in his official and individual capacity; SUE FOSTER, in her official and individual capacity; WALTER DEBOER, in his official and individual capacity; STEVE DIERKER, in his official and individual capacity; ED HAAS in his official and individual capacity; MICHAEL CARUSO, in his official and individual capacity; MICHAEL BEBON in his official and individual capacity; DEREK LOWENSTEIN, in his official and individual capacity; WILLIAM GUNTER in his official and individual capacity; THOMAS SHERIDAN in his official and individual capacity; PETER PAUL, in his official and individual capacity; KENNETH BROG in his official and individual capacity Defendants. ---------------------------------------------------------------------X PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS "CERTAIN NEW CLAIMS IN PLAINTIFFS' FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT" DATED OCTOBER 5, 2007.

By :

LAW OFFICES OF FREDERICK K. BREWINGTON Frederick K. Brewington (FB5925) Gregory Calliste, Jr. (GC8140) Attorneys for the Plaintiff 50 Clinton Street, Suite 501 Hempstead, NY 11550 [phone] phone

Dockets.Justia.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii PRELIMINARY STATEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 FACTS RELEVANT TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 STANDARD OF REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 POINT I. DEFENDANTS' ATTACHMENTS AND REFERENCES TO EXHIBITS, WHICH ARE NOT PART OF THE PLEADINGS AND ARE NOT SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL NOTICE SHOULD `BE DISREGARDED BY THE COURT WHEN DECIDING DEFENDANTS' 12(b)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 A. As A Preliminary Matter, Exhibits E, F, and G, Attached To Defendants' 12(b)(6) Motion Must Be Disregarded As A Matter of Law: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 The Documents, Which Defendants Attached to their Motion, are Clearly Not Subject to Judicial Notice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

B.

POINT II. PLAINTIFF TARDD TIMELY FILED HIS COMPLAINT WITH THE EEOC ALLEGING WRONGFUL TERMINATION AND DISCRIMINATION WITH RESPECT TO DISABILITY BENEFITS EXACTLY 300 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF HIS WRONGFUL TERMINATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

A.

As per Mr. Tardd's statement that is attached to the EEOC Charge, clearly, Mr. Tardd filed his complaint with the EEOC on February 7, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Even if the EEOC elected to file the Charge weeks after Mr. Tardd actually filed his Complaint, the Charge is still timely due to equitable tolling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
Mr. Tardd's claim against Defendants alleging denial

B.

C.

i

of disability benefits survives Defendants under Title VII . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 POINT III DEFENDANTS' POINTS III AND IV SHOULD BE DISREGARDED BECAUSE DEFENDANTS ARE THE PROPER PARTIES AND ARE WHOLLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE WCB'S DECISION TO DENY MR. TARDD'S DISABILITY BENEFITS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 POINT IV PLAINTIFFS WITHDRAW THEIR CLAIMS AND REFERENCES TO TITLE VI, BREACH OF CONTRACT, 42 USC §§1985, 1986, AND MICHAEL CARUSO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) C a s e s: Alvary v. United States, 302 F.2d 790, 794 (2d Cir. 1962) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Atlantic Mutual Ins. Co. v. Balfor MacLaine Int'l, Ltd., 968 F.2d 196, 198 (2nd Cir. 1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Brown v. Parkchester S. Condos., 287 F.3d 58, 60 (2d Cir.2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12, 15

Clay v. Towson University, 2005 US Dist. Lexis 21344 (D. Md 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-6 (1957) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,7 Cotton v. Wachovia Securities, 2006 WL 120055 (N.D.Ill. 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14, 15 Edelman v. Lynchberg College, 535 U.S. 106, 122 S.Ct. 1145 (2002). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 Ferran v. Town of Nassau, 11 F.3d 21, 22 (2nd Cir. 1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 GE Capital Corp. v. Lease Resolution Corp., 128 F.3d 1074 (2nd Cir.1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 Goldman v. Belden, 754 F.2d 1059, 1065-66 (2d Cir. 1985) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Ghosh v. New York City Department of Health, 413 F.Supp2d 322 (SDNY 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Grosset v. Waste Mgmt, Inc. 2001 US Dist LEXIS 406 (E.D. Pa 2001). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Haekal v. Refco, 198 F.3d 37, 43-44 (2d Cir.1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 Hayden v. County of Nassau, 180 F.3d 42, 54 (2d Cir. 1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7, 8

Hill v. Citibank Corp., 312 F.Supp.2d 464, 472 (S.D.N.Y.2004)...10
International Star Class Yacht Racing Ass'n v. Tommy Hilfiger U.S.A., 146 F.3d 66 (2nd cir. 1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8, 9 Kaluczky v. City of White Plains, 57 F3d. 202,206 (2nd Cir 1995). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Kramer v. Time Warner Inc., 937 F.2d 767, 773 (2d Cir. 1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7, 8

iii

Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit, 113 S.Ct. 1160, 1163 (1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Rotches Pork Packers, Inc., 969 F.2d 1384, 969 F.2d 1384 (2nd Cir 1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,9

National R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 109-10, 122 S.Ct. 2061, 2070 (2002)...10
Roniger v. McCall, 22 F.Supp2d 156, 160 (SDNY 1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Ryder Energy Distribution Corp. v. Merrill Lynch Commodities Inc., 748 F.2d 774, 779 (2d Cir. 1984) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Tewksbury v. Ottaway Newspapers, 192 F.3d 322, 325 (2d Cir.1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Van Zant v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, 80 F.3d 708, 712 (2d Cir.1996). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
Varon v. Sawyer, 2007 WL 2217085 (D.Conn.,2007). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12, 13 Warwick Administrative Group v. Avon Products, Inc., 820 F. supp. 116, 120 (S.D.N.Y., 1983) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 Weinstein v. Albright, 261 F.3d 127, 131 (2d Cir. 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 Zerilli-Edelglass v. New York City Transit Authority, 333 F.3d 74, 80 (2nd Cir 2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Statutes: 29 CFR § 1601.12(b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-15

42 U .S.C. § 2000e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim
Federal Rules: FRCP Rule 12(b)6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim FRCP Rule 56 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .passim Fed. R. Evid. 201.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim

iv

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Plaintiffs respectfully submit this memorandum in opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss "certain new claims in plaintiffs' fourth amended complaint" dated October 5, 2007. In short, Defendant's instant motion to dismiss must be denied in its entirety because the fourth amended complaint sufficiently alleges more than enough facts to sustain Mr. Tardd's newest claims for wrongful termination and discrimination/retaliation with respect to Defendants' actions, which led to the denial of disability and workers compensation benefits to Mr. Tardd. In addition, Mr. Tardd properly and timely filed his newest complaint with the EEOC. Finally, despite Defendants' attempts to place blame on non-parties for the denial of the aforementioned benefits to Mr. Tardd, Plaintiffs assert (and can prove) that it was Defendants' retaliatory actions against Mr. Tardd, which led to the denial of benefits - as alleged in the Fourth Amended Complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request that Defendants' motion be disregarded and that the Court allow the Parties to proceed with discovery on all of Mr. Tardd's newest claims. FACTS RELEVANT TO THIS MOTION The following facts were taken directly from Plaintiffs' Forth Amended Complaint (hereinafter "Complaint") at paragraphs 95 through 137. Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court refer to said paragraphs for a more detailed description of the relevant facts in this current matter. As mentioned in the previous complaints, due to the

1