Murphy v. Suffolk County Community College et al

Filing 29

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; By Order endorsed on April 29, 2011, the Court granted in part and denied in part defts' motion to dismiss and reserved decision on defts' motion to dismiss pltff's constructive discharge claim. The parties have submitted additional briefing on the constructive discharge claim. For the reasons set forth herein, defts' motion to dismiss the constructive discharge claim is denied. ( Ordered by Senior Judge Leonard D. Wexler on 8/8/2011.) (Fagan, Linda)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------X
MICHAEL MURPHY,
Plaintiff,
-against-

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
CV 10-0251 (LDW)(AKT)

SUFFOLK COUNTY COMMUNITY
COLLEGE and JOHN WILLIAMS,
Defendants.
---------------------------------------------------X
WEXLER, District Judge
By Order endorsed on April 29, 2011, the Court granted in part and denied in part
defendants’ motion to dismiss and reserved decision on defendants' motion to dismiss
plaintiff's constructive discharge claim. The parties have submitted additional briefing on
the constructive discharge claim.
Upon consideration, defendants’ motion to dismiss the constructive discharge
claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies is denied. In his complaint in this
action, plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that he retired on May 27, 2008, out of fear that he
would lose his job and due to intolerable conditions resulting from discrimination and
retaliation. While it appears that plaintiff did not expressly assert to the EEOC or
NYSDHR that he was no longer employed at Suffolk County Community College and
was pursuing a constructive discharge claim, his pro se allegations sufficiently asserted a
hostile work environment, as evidenced by the Administrative Law Judge’s
Recommended Findings of Fact, Opinion and Decision, and Order, dated Nov. 20, 2009,

2
at 8. See Declaration of John Petrowski, dated October 7, 2010, Exh. E, at 8 (“To the
extent that Complainant alleged that Respondent created a hostile work environment at
his place of employment and that it existed because of his age ....”). Given plaintiff’s pro
se status in the administrative proceedings, and the apparent assertion of a hostile work
environment, the Court concludes that the purported constructive discharge claim is
reasonably related to the claims made in the administrative proceedings. See Fitzgerald v.
Henderson, 251 F.3d 345, 359-60 (2d Cir. 2001). Accordingly, defendants’ motion to
dismiss the constructive discharge claim is denied.
SO ORDERED.
_____________/s/_________________
LEONARD D. WEXLER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: Central Islip, New York
August 8, 2011