Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

YOUNG v. TOWN OF FALLSBURG POLICE DEPT.

October 1, 1991

WILLIAM D. YOUNG, PLAINTIFF,
v.
TOWN OF FALLSBURG POLICE DEPARTMENT, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Goettel, District Judge.

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Plaintiff, William D. Young, has commenced this suit against the Town of Fallsburg Police Department ("Police Department") based upon a series of incidents occurring while he was a part-time officer serving on the Fallsburg police force. His complaint alleges that the Police Department was responsible for acts of racial discrimination against Young by its Police Chief and officers that violated Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5.

In June 1987, plaintiff William D. Young was hired as a part-time police officer for the Fallsburg Police Department. Young alleges that beginning in late 1988 he suffered continuing incidents of racial discrimination by the Police Department and its head, Police Chief Robinson. Young was the only Afro-American employee of the Police Department at the time of the incidents.

According to the plaintiff, in late 1988 Lieutenant Brent scheduled Young to work shifts that conflicted with his full-time job. The Police Department contends that Police Chief Robinson corrected the conflict. By Young's account, it was only when the employees' union interceded did Chief Robinson honor the Police Department's commitment to ensure that Young's shifts did not interfere with his regular job. Young stated that no such conflicts have ever arisen with respect to the other part-time police officer who was Caucasian.

Some mouths later, in March and April 1989, Police Chief Robinson twice denied Young the opportunity to attend police training classes normally available to police officers. At oral argument, Young's counsel stated that the white part-time police officer was allowed to attend such classes. Around the same time period, Young complained directly to Chief Robinson about racial remarks made by Sergeant Green, a fellow police officer. According to Young, Chief Robinson ignored his complaint. One week later, Sergeant Green physically assaulted Young. Only then did Chief Robinson punish Green for his actions by suspending him. Young alleges that other racial incidents occurred through 1989 including a personal reprimand by Chief Robinson for handing out tickets to certain members of the community.

In December 1989, Young was fired by Chief Robinson. The stated reason for his termination given to Young by Chief Robinson was that the Police Department was eliminating its part-time officers and moving to a full-time force. Young alleges that the other white part-time officer was never fired and in fact the Police Department has hired new part-time police officers.

In February 1990, Young filed an administrative complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") claiming violations of Title VII by the Fallsburg Police Department. Young's EEOC complaint named only the Town of Fallsburg Police Department as a defendant. On July 17, 1991, Young filed a complaint in federal court alleging violations of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5 and New York State Executive Law, § 296, subd. 1(a), commonly referred to as the New York Human Rights Law. Young named only the Police Department as a defendant in his complaint.*fn1

DISCUSSION

Defendant has moved under Rule 12(b)(7) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss the complaint against the Town of Fallsburg Police Department for failure to join the proper employer as a necessary party and under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to meet Title VII's mandatory filing deadline. Defendant also seeks dismissal of plaintiff's request for compensatory damages and transportation expenses and denial of pendent jurisdiction over Young's state law claims. In deciding the motion to dismiss, the court must deny the motion "unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957). For the purposes of this motion, the court must accept the material factual allegations as true without weighing the potential evidence that might be offered. See Ryder Energy Distribution Corp. v. Merrill Lynch Commodities, Inc., 748 F.2d 774 (2nd Cir. 1984).

Defendant first argues that the Town of Fallsburg Police Department is not plaintiff's employer under Title VII and that, since the proper employer-defendant

has not been joined, the complaint must be dismissed under Rule 12 (b)(7). Specifically, defendant argues that the plaintiff in his complaint identified the Town of Fallsburg as his employer, not the Police Department. Since its police department is not a "political subdivision" of the state under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5, it is not a proper "employer" under Title VII and may not be sued for any discriminatory incidents which may have occurred. Defendant, however, misinterprets the definition of "employer" under Title VII. Section 2000e(b) defines "employer" for the purposes of determining parties amenable to Title VII suits. That section defines "employer" as "a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who employs fifteen or more . . . and any agent of such a person." Section 2000e(a) defines "person" to include "one or more individuals, governments, governmental agencies, political subdivisions, labor union . . ." (emphasis added). There is no dispute that the Fallsburg Police Department, as a governmental agency of the Town of Fallsburg, qualifies as a "person" under Title VII. In addition, the Police Department admits that it has twenty-five employees including police officers and dispatchers. Furthermore, defendant did not question whether the Police Department affects commerce. Consequently, it clearly qualifies as an "employer" under Title VII and is thus a proper defendant in a Title VII action. Thus, defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(7) is denied.

The court notes that Title VII discrimination suits have been filed in this district against police departments without joining the town or municipality as co-defendant. See, e.g., Watts v. New York City Police Department, 724 F. Supp. 99 (S.D.N.Y. 1989); Mays v. New York City Police Department, 701 F. Supp. 80 (S.D.N.Y. 1988), aff'd, 888 F.2d 1376 (2nd Cir. 1989). Whether any damages, if awarded, can be recovered from the Police

Department directly without the Town also named as a co-defendant is a separate issue.*fn2

Second, defendant asks the court to dismiss as untimely all allegations of racial discrimination stemming from incidents that occurred outside the 180-day time period set by Title VII and tolled when plaintiff filed his complaint with the EEOC. Section 2000e-5(e) requires that a charge with the EEOC must be filed within 180 days after the alleged unlawful employment practice took place. Courts have interpreted this provision to allow Title VII claimants to maintain suits otherwise barred by the 180-day limit if the acts constituted a "continuing violation" of Title VII and at least one act occurred within the 180-day period. See, e.g., Ass'n Against Discrimination v. City of Bridgeport, 647 F.2d 256, 274-75 (2nd Cir. 1981); Alveari v. American Intern. Group, Inc., 590 F. Supp. 228, 231 (S.D.N.Y. 1984). The defendant contends that the incidents suffered by Young while employed at the Police Department were isolated, unrelated acts and as such they do ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.