United States District Court, Northern District of New York
GERALD T. GERRARD, Plaintiff,
JOHN BURNS; JEFFERSON COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT; and JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK, Defendants.
GERALD T. GERRARD Plaintiff, pro se.
JEFFERSON COUNTY ATTORNEY DAVID J. PAULSEN, ESQ., Attorney for Defendants Jefferson County.
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
DAVID N. HURD, United States District Judge.
Plaintiff Gerald T. Gerrard ("plaintiff" or "Gerrard") brings a complaint against defendants John Burns ("Sheriff Burns"), Jefferson County Sheriff Department ("the Sheriff's Department"), and Jefferson County, New York asserting claims for defamation, respondeat superior, and breach of the right to privacy under New York Civil Rights Law section 50-a. Plaintiff seeks $25 million in compensatory damages.
Defendants move to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule__ ") 12(b)(1). No opposition was filed by plaintiff despite requesting and being granted an extension of time in which to respond.
The motion was taken on its submissions and without oral argument.
The following facts, taken from the complaint, are assumed true for purposes of the motions to dismiss. See Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir. 2002).
Gerrard was employed by the Sheriff's Department from 1977 through 1992. Throughout his tenure, he was never subject to any disciplinary action. In February 1991, derogatory comments were made regarding plaintiff's sexuality. When he demanded that a written apology be placed in his personnel file, the offending party refused to comply, but verbally stated he or she was sorry. Following this incident, Gerrard became the subject of ridicule and the target of the Sheriff's Department and its employees.
In September 1991, plaintiff injured his knee while working. He underwent surgery and took over a year off from work. The Sheriff's Department's policy at the time guaranteed an employment position for injured workers for up to one year after the date of an injury. Based on the policy, Gerrard was not allowed to return to work after he was cleared by his physicians. Despite the policy, other injured workers in the preceding and following years who were forced to miss over a year of work were allowed to return to employment at the Sheriff's Department.
In the twenty-one years following his departure from the Sheriff's Department, plaintiff repeatedly tried to return to a position in the law enforcement field. When Gerrard applied for a position as a driver for a tree-cutting service, an Under Sheriff at the Sheriff's Department advised the potential employer that plaintiff "was skizoid, had [his] gun taken away, could deal with the public, and refused to return to work." Compl. ¶ 20. Despite his efforts, Gerrard was unable to find work and suffered severe financial loss. He eventually began looking for lower paying positions outside of the field of law enforcement and returned to school to pursue a paralegal degree. He continued having problems finding employment.
In October 2013, plaintiff considered applying for a security job at a National Aeronautics and Space Administration site. He suspected that someone at the Sheriff's Department was sabotaging his efforts to obtain employment, so he hired an individual to investigate how he was being portrayed by the defendants to potential employers. As a result of this investigation, Gerrard ...