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.

Bailey v. Pittsford

United States District Court, W.D. New York

September 3, 2013

EDWARD J. BAILEY, Plaintiff,
v.
VILLAGE OF PITTSFORD, Defendant

Page 179

For Edward J. Bailey, Plaintiff: James D. Hartt, LEAD ATTORNEY, Rochester, NY.

For Village of Pittsford, Defendant: Patrick B. Naylon, LEAD ATTORNEY, Goldberg Segalla, LLP, Rochester, NY.

OPINION

Page 180

DECISION AND ORDER

DAVID G. LARIMER, United States District Judge.

Plaintiff Edward Bailey brings this action against his former employer, the Village of Pittsford (the " Village" ), alleging age discrimination claims pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. (" ADEA" ). Plaintiff also asserts that the Village unlawfully deprived him of property pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution when it failed to provide him a hearing before discharging him from his former position. Discovery is now completed and the Village moves for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' claims (Dkt. #13). For the reasons that follow, the Village's motion for summary judgment is granted, and the Amended Complaint (Dkt. #6) is dismissed.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, an individual over the age of forty, was hired by the Village to a civil service position in October 1999. Plaintiff's position required him to perform the combined duties of Building Inspector and Code Enforcement Officer, as well as fire inspections.

Beginning in 2005, the year Steve Maddox was first elected to the Village's Board of Trustees, through 2009, plaintiff received annual employee performance evaluations, which ranged from " satisfactory" to " unsatisfactory."

In and around 2010, the Village trustees determined that the Village needed to reduce its annual expenses by $54,000 in order to maintain a balanced budget, and initiated budget cutbacks. On April 28, 2010, plaintiff was informed that his full-time position was being cut in order to save costs. He was offered, and accepted, a newly-created part-time Building Inspector position with a lower salary and no benefits. (The Fire Marshal duties formerly performed by the plaintiff were delegated to the Town of Pittsford, which performed those duties free of charge for the first year, and for $7,800 annually thereafter.) Around the same time, the Village reduced the hours for five other employees, and reduced its capital expenditures for infrastructure and other improvements.

Page 181

On May 26, 2010, plaintiff filed a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights (" NYSDHR" ) alleging that the change in his position from full-time to part-time was motivated by his age. The NYSDHR investigated and found that the change in plaintiff's position was motivated solely by economic ...


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.