The opinion of the court was delivered by: Frederick J. Scullin, Chief District Judge
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Roger G. Daigle commenced the lead case in this consolidated
action on January 31, 2000. See Dkt. No. 1 in Daigle v. West,
5:00-CV-0189 (FJS) (DEP) ("00-CV-0189"). That complaint asserted numerous
causes of action against multiple defendants, many of whom were employed
at one time, or are currently employees, at the Syracuse Veterans
Administration Hospital ("VA Hospital").
Plaintiff thereafter filed an amended complaint in that case pursuant
to this Court's Order filed March 23, 2000 (00-CV-0189 at Dkt. No. 3), to
which Defendants filed an answer. See id. at Dkt. No. 38.
On March 13, 2001, Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint
filed in 00-CV-0189 and the complaint filed in 00-CV-1055 as against all
Defendants with the exception of Secretary West. See Dkt. Nos. 53-55.
Plaintiff opposed the motion to dismiss, see Dkt. Nos. 59 and 60, and
filed a separate motion to amend his amended complaint in 00-CV-0189. See
Dkt. Nos. 57-58. In response to Plaintiff's motion to amend, Defendants
cross-moved to dismiss, in its entirety, Daigle's amended complaint in
00-CV-0189. See Dkt. Nos. 62-64. Plaintiff opposed Defendants'
cross-motion, see Dkt. Nos. 65-66; Defendants filed a reply to such
opposition. See Dkt. No. 67.
On June 15, 2001, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint filed
in 00-CV-1055. See Dkt. Nos. 68-69. Defendants opposed that motion, see
Dkt. No. 74; Plaintiff filed a reply to that opposition. See Dkt. No.
On March 28, 2002, this Court issued a Memorandum-Decision and Order
relating to such motions. See Dkt. No. 104 ("March, 2002 Order"). In that
Order, the Court granted in part Defendants' motions to dismiss.
Specifically, as to the amended complaint filed in 00-CV-0189, the Court
granted Defendants' motion to dismiss causes of action one through eight
as against all Defendants except Secretary West and dismissed all of the
remaining claims in the amended complaint filed in 00-CV-0189. See
March, 2002 Order at 7-10. Additionally, this Court granted Defendants'
motion to dismiss the complaint filed in 00-CV-1055 as against all
Defendants except Secretary West. See id. at 10-11.*fn3
Before this Court issued its March, 2002 Order, Defendants filed a
motion for summary judgment as to the complaint filed in 00-CV-1055. See
Dkt. No. 84. Subsequent to the March, 2002 Order, Plaintiff submitted
papers in opposition to the motion for summary judgment, see Dkt. Nos.
106-108, to which Defendant filed his reply. See Dkt. No. 110.*fn4
Plaintiff began working as a medical clerk for the VA Hospital in its
surgical intensive care unit ("SICU") in May, 1991.*fn5 At the time,
Plaintiff was fifty years old and held a Master's Degree in Business
Administration. In the summer of 1991, Plaintiff began working with Eva
Homeyer, a registered nurse in the SICU. Plaintiff alleges that from that
time until about October, 1992, Homeyer sexually harassed him. As a
result, on December 1, 1992, Plaintiff filed a written complaint of
employment discrimination, attributable to his sex, with the Veterans
Administration, which was designated as case no. 93-1620.*fn6
Equal Employment Opportunity Investigator Jesse Raymond began
investigating Plaintiff's claim of harassment in June 1993, and on August
9, 1993, he issued his report regarding Plaintiff's claims. See
Investigative Summary and Analysis of Investigator Raymond, dated August
9, 1993, Dkt. No. 88 at Exhibit "B-1a."*fn7 In that report, Investigator
Raymond found that although Plaintiff established a prima facie case of
sexual harassment/discrimination, his case was adequately rebutted by
other employees of the VA Hospital. See id. Investigator Raymond
[i]t appears that Eva Homeyer did harass the
complainant because of him being different and that he
was unable to perform and fit-in as she would have
preferred. But, it was not due to him being male.
However, the allegations failed to be proven with a
preponderance of evidence worthy of a positive
recommendation. Therefore, I recommend a finding of no
On September 11, 1993, Plaintiff requested a hearing with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") regarding his complaint.
Thereafter, Plaintiff and Mark Antinelli, the assistant personnel officer
for the VA Hospital, met to discuss the possibility of reaching a
settlement relating to Plaintiff's claims. These discussions culminated
in a Settlement Agreement between Plaintiff and the VA Hospital regarding
case no. 93-1620.*fn8 See Complaint at Exhibit "A" ("Settlement
Agreement"). Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, which was
executed on and effective as of December 10, 1993, the parties agreed to
settle EEO Complaint 93-1620 in exchange for the consideration set forth
in the Settlement Agreement.
On July 20, 1995, Plaintiff filed a written request to re-open EEO
Complaint 93-1620 ("July, 1995 request to re-open"). In that request,
Plaintiff claimed that the Settlement Agreement had been breached because
(1) he was wrongfully forced to undergo "medical and psychiatric exams"
by management at the VA Hospital;*fn9 (2) he had been subjected to acts
of intimidation; harassment and abuse; (3) he and patients of the VA
Hospital were subjected to offensive names, jokes and ridicule; (4) his
car had been vandalized; (5) co-workers had "gone through [his] personal
effects;" and (6) his new coat had been thrown in the trash. See
Complaint at Exhibit "G."*fn10
On July 9, 1996, Plaintiff appealed that decision to the EEOC. See
Complaint at Exhibit "E." On October 10, 1997, the EEOC issued a decision
in which it affirmed the DVA's finding that the Settlement Agreement had
not been breached. See id. at Exhibit "D." That decision also noted that
the allegations of discrimination that Plaintiff cited in support of his
request to re-open EEO Complaint 93-1620 all occurred subsequent to the
execution of the Settlement Agreement and were therefore properly
considered as separate complaints of discrimination under
29 C.F.R. § 1614.106. See Complaint at Exhibit "D." Plaintiff filed a
request for reconsideration of that decision, see id. at Exhibit "C;"
however, the EEOC denied that request on March 30, 2000. See id. at
Exhibit "B." In that decision, the EEOC notified Plaintiff of his right
to file a civil action in this District within ninety days of the date
Plaintiff received the EEOC's decision.
In his complaint filed in 00-CV-1055, Plaintiff argues, inter alia,
that the Settlement Agreement is unenforceable because he was pressured
and coerced into entering into such agreement and, alternatively, that
the Settlement Agreement should be enforced and this Court find that it
was breached by the VA Hospital. See Complaint at ¶¶ 3, 9, 14-15.
A. Exhaustion of Administrative ...