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.

Barnhart v. Town of Parma

September 22, 2010

BRUCE BARNHART, PAUL EICHAS, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
TOWN OF PARMA, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael A. Telesca United States District Judge

DECISION and ORDER

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs Bruce Barnhart ("Barnhart") and Paul Eichas ("Eichas"), bring this action pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), the New York State Human Rights Law, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming that they were discriminated against on the basis of their gender, and were retaliated against for making claims of discrimination. Defendant Town of Parma ("the Town") moves for summary judgment against the plaintiffs on grounds that they have failed to state a claim of discrimination or retaliation. In response to the defendant's motion, plaintiffs have withdrawn all claims relating to gender discrimination, but have reasserted their claims of retaliation. For the reasons set forth below, I grant defendant's motion for summary judgment, and dismiss plaintiffs' remaining claims of retaliation against the defendant.

BACKGROUND

The following facts are set forth in the Defendant's Statement of Material Facts submitted pursuant to Rule 56.1 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs have not controverted the facts set forth therein, and accordingly, those acts are deemed admitted pursuant to Local Rule 56.1(c).*fn1

Plaintiff Bruce Barnhart is a full-time employee of the Town of Parma working as a Mechanical Equipment Operator for the Town's Highway Department. Plaintiff Paul Eichas is a full-time employee of the Town of Parma working as a Heavy Mechanical Equipment Operator for the Town's Highway Department. Plaintiffs, in their complaint, complain that they were sexually harassed by their supervisor Al Leone ("Leone"). Barnhart claims that after he complained of the harassment and filed a charge of harassment with the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission, he was retaliated against by being assigned menial jobs, including "chipping brush," and by being denied vacation requests.

Eichas contends that Leone constantly threatened him, and verbally abused him by calling him, inter alia, "useless." According to Eichas, Leone treated all male employees in a "deplorable" manner, and did not subject female employees to such conduct.*fn2 Eichas claims that after he informed Leone that he had retained counsel to investigate Leone's conduct, Leone retaliated against him by assigning him to menial tasks, and denying him vacation time.

DISCUSSION

I. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment

Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that summary judgment "should be rendered if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." When considering a motion for summary judgment, all genuinely disputed facts must be resolved in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007). If, after considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, the court finds that no rational jury could find in favor of that party, a grant of summary judgment is appropriate. Scott, 550 U.S. at 380 (citing Matsushita Elec. Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-587 (1986).

II. Plaintiffs' Title VII and Section 1983 Claims

Plaintiffs allege in their Complaint that they were discriminated against on the basis their gender in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In their opposition to defendant's motion for summary judgment, the plaintiffs withdrew their discrimination claims, and as a result, those claims are dismissed with prejudice.

III. Retaliation Claims

Plaintiffs claim that they were retaliated against for complaining of harassment, retaining counsel to investigate claims of discrimination, and filing administrative ...


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.