Ellis v. County of Monroe et al

Filing 42

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 30 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Signed by Hon. Frank P. Geraci, Jr. on 7/25/18. (KAJ)

Case 6:16-cv-06788-FPG-MWP Document 42 Filed 07/25/18 Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
RONICCA ELLIS,
Plaintiff,
Case # 16-CV-6788-FPG
v.
DECISION AND ORDER
WILLIE C. WASHINGTON, ET AL.,
Defendants.

INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Ronicca Ellis brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant
Willie C. Washington, a Monroe County employee. Additionally, she raises negligence and state
law sexual harassment claims against Monroe County, the Monroe County Work Experience
Program (“WEP”), Rochesterworks, Inc., 691 St. Paul Street LLC, and the Monroe County
Department of Human Services. Plaintiff originally filed this suit in the Monroe County Supreme
Court. Defendants Monroe County, the Monroe County Department of Human Services, and
Monroe County Work Experience Program removed the action to federal court on December 6,
2016. ECF No. 1. On October 18, 2017, all Defendants except for Washington moved for partial
judgment on the pleadings. ECF No. 30. Plaintiff responded on November 20, and Defendants did
not reply. For the reasons stated below, Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED
in part.
BACKGROUND 1
Plaintiff participated in Monroe County’s WEP, an initiative providing work experience to
individuals receiving public assistance from the County. Her participation in WEP required her to

1

The following facts are taken from Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1-2).

1

Case 6:16-cv-06788-FPG-MWP Document 42 Filed 07/25/18 Page 2 of 6

work as a janitorial trainee and was a mandatory condition of receiving public assistance. On July
18, 2016, Plaintiff attended a group orientation at her assigned WEP site, the Monroe County
Department of Social Services Building, located at 691 St. Paul Street in Rochester, New York.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Washington, her supervisor, made sexually offensive
gestures to her in front of other Monroe County supervisors during the orientation. Plaintiff also
alleges that Monroe County was aware of previous sexual assault and harassment incidents
involving Washington. Nonetheless, County employees at the orientation advised Plaintiff and
her fellow WEP participants to report any instances of sexual harassment to Washington.
On August 3, 2016, Plaintiff was working a morning shift at the Social Services Building
when Defendant Washington asked Plaintiff to accompany him to the supply room so that she
could help him gather janitorial supplies. Once Washington and Plaintiff were inside the supply
room, Washington blocked the doorway and raped her. At the time of the rape, Washington told
Plaintiff that no one would believe her if she reported him and that she’d lose her public benefits
if she did so. She nonetheless reported the incident to the police and obtained medical treatment
afterwards.
DISCUSSION
I.

Legal Standard
Defendants have moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) for judgment on the

pleadings. Rule 12(b)(6) standards 2 apply in deciding a Rule 12(c) motion. Burnette v. Carothers,
192 F.3d 52, 56 (2d. Cir 1999). Accordingly, the Court “must accept as true all of the factual
allegations contained in the complaint,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 572 (2007), and

2

Interestingly, Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ Motion should be treated as one for summary judgment because it
includes material outside the pleadings, but then contradicts that argument later in her brief. Defendants did not attach
any outside material to their Motion, so the Court disregards Plaintiff’s argument and analyzes Defendants’ Motion
under Rule 12(b)(6).

2

Case 6:16-cv-06788-FPG-MWP Document 42 Filed 07/25/18 Page 3 of 6

“draw all reasonable inferences in Plaintiff’s favor,” Faber v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 648 F.3d 98,
104 (2d Cir. 2011). The Complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to “state
a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. These factual allegations
“must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level,” id. at 545, and “allow[] the
court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged,”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
II.

Standing
Plaintiff makes a standing argument that the Court must decide before it can address the

other claims. See Warth v. Seldin, 442 U.S. 490, 498 (1975); Cty. of Clinton v. Warehouse at Van
Buren St., Inc., 496 B.R. 278, 280 (N.D.N.Y. 2013). Plaintiff argues—erroneously and without
citing any caselaw—that Monroe County lacks standing to dismiss an official capacity § 1983 suit
against Washington, who did not join the other Defendants’ Motion for Judgement on the
Pleadings. Plaintiff’s argument disregards the axiom that claims against a government actor in his
official capacity equate to claims against the government entity itself and do not subject the
individual actor to liability. See Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 156 (1978). Accordingly, it
is proper for Monroe County—the government entity behind Washington—to move to dismiss the
official capacity claim against him. See, e.g., Blount v. Miss. Dep’t of Human Servs., No. 3:14-cv336-DPJ-FKB, 2016 WL 4385059, at *4 (S.D. Miss. Aug. 16, 2016); Ford v. Willson, No. 93 C
20342, 1995 WL 360458, at *1 n.2 (N.D. Ill. June 6, 1995) (“The City has standing to bring such
a motion because it has been named as a defendant via the naming of [the City’s employee] in his
official capacity.”). Monroe County therefore has standing to move to dismiss the claims against
Washington in his official capacity.

3

Case 6:16-cv-06788-FPG-MWP Document 42 Filed 07/25/18 Page 4 of 6

III.

Unopposed Dismissals
Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against the Monroe County Department of

Human Services, which is merely an administrative arm of the County and therefore cannot be
sued under New York Law. See Hall v. City of White Plains, 185 F. Supp. 2d 293, 303 (S.D.N.Y.
2002). Plaintiff does not oppose this argument. See ECF No. 35 at 2. Plaintiff also concedes that
the WEP is not a separate legal entity subject to suit and that RochesterWorks, Inc. does not employ
Washington or Plaintiff and that there is therefore no theory of recovery against it. Consequently,
the claims against the Monroe County Department of Human Services, the WEP, and
RochesterWorks, Inc. are DISMISSED.
IV.

Official Capacity Suit Against Washington
The Complaint does not specifically allege whether Washington is liable in his individual

or official capacity, so the Court must assume that Plaintiff intended to sue him in both capacities.
See Oliver Sch., Inc. v. Foley, 930 F.2d 248, 252 (2d Cir. 1991). The individual claims against
Washington are not relevant to this Motion, so the Court will discuss only the official capacity
claims against him.
The official capacity claim against Washington is functionally a claim against Monroe
County. See Graham, 473 U.S. at 156. Monroe County in turn can be “held liable under Section
1983 if the deprivation of the plaintiff’s rights under federal law is caused by a governmental
custom,” policy, or practice. Jones v. Town of East Haven, 691 F.3d 72, 80 (2d Cir. 2012) (citing
Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690-91 (1978)). Plaintiff bases her Monell claim on
a “deliberate indifference” theory of recovery, which equates a municipality’s “policy of inaction
in light of notice that its program will cause constitutional violations” with “a decision by the city
itself to violate the Constitution.” Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51, 61 (2011).

4

Case 6:16-cv-06788-FPG-MWP Document 42 Filed 07/25/18 Page 5 of 6

Plaintiff’s Complaint plausibly alleges a Monell violation. It alleges that the County was
aware of sexual assault and harassment incidents involving Washington and that he harassed
Plaintiff before the alleged rape. Despite the County’s knowledge of Washington’s conduct,
County officials blatantly disregarded this knowledge and specifically told WEP participants to
report incidents of sexual misconduct to Washington, effectively placing the fox in charge of the
hen house. These allegations establish at the pleading stage that Monroe County exhibited a policy
of inaction in light of notice that its program would cause constitutional violations.
Because municipalities are not liable for their employees’ purely private acts, Plaintiff must
also show that Washington acted under “color of law.” See Claudio v. Sawyer, 675 F. Supp. 2d
403, 410 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (“Without a state actor, there can be no independent constitutional
violation” and a “claim against [a municipality] will necessarily fail.”) Defendants argue that,
even if Plaintiff established a custom, policy, or practice, the Ҥ1983 claim [must] still fail because
Defendant Washington was not acting under color of law when he allegedly sexually assaulted
Plaintiff.” ECF No. 30-2 at 8.
An official acts under color of state law when his actions are “made possible only because
the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law.” U.S. v. Walsh, 194 F.3d 37, 51 (2d
Cir.1999). Washington allegedly used his apparent authority as a County supervisor when he lured
Plaintiff to the janitor’s closet, raped her, and threatened to terminate her benefits if she reported
his actions or refused to acquiesce in his demands. His supervisory position with the County thus
aided his wrongful conduct and, accordingly, Plaintiff has plausibly alleged that Washington acted
under color of law.

5

Case 6:16-cv-06788-FPG-MWP Document 42 Filed 07/25/18 Page 6 of 6

V.

Claims Against 691 St. Paul Street, Inc.
Plaintiff raises a negligence claim against 691 St. Paul Street LLC, which leased the

Monroe County Department of Social Services Building to the County. Defendants argue that 691
St. Paul was not Plaintiff or Washington’s employer, so “it is impossible to determine under what
theory Plaintiff claims” it was liable. ECF No. 30-2 at 6. The Complaint, however, alleges that
691 St. Paul Street was “responsible for maintaining, overseeing, and otherwise securing the
building while the Monroe County Work Experience Program personnel, including defendant
Washington, were engaged in Monroe County business at said building.” ECF No. at 5.
Accordingly, it is evident from the Complaint that Plaintiff’s negligence theory as to Defendant
691 St. Paul Street, LLC is that its security practices were inadequate. Discovery may indicate
otherwise, but Plaintiff has stated a claim at the initial pleading stage.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 30)
is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. The claims against RochesterWorks, the WEP and the
Monroe County Department of Human Services are dismissed, and the claims against Willie
Washington in his official capacity and 691 St. Paul Street LLC survive.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 25, 2018
Rochester, New York
______________________________________
HON. FRANK P. GERACI, JR.
Chief Judge
United States District Court

6