Melendez v. County Of Westchester

Background

Michelle Melendez, a former correctional-officer trainee at the Westchester County Department of Corrections Superior Office, sued the County of Westchester, the Department, and Kevin Cheverko. Her remaining claims alleged retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and denial of equal protection under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

On June 16, 2016, an inmate touched Melendez’s buttocks while she was working in a control room. Melendez pushed the inmate away, assisted other officers in restraining him, and later admitted responding with profanity and throwing latex gloves toward his face. The Department verbally counseled her, referred matters concerning her conduct for investigation, and later opened a Special Investigations Unit investigation.

Melendez was on light-duty status because of an off-duty car accident. Her salary increment, which would otherwise have been due on October 1, 2016, was denied because of the pending investigation. Her probationary period was scheduled to end on September 12, 2016. Commissioner Cheverko terminated her employment effective September 8, 2016, citing her failure to progress to full-duty status; the County later allowed her to resign instead. For purposes of the motion, defendants treated the separation as a termination.

Title VII Retaliation Claim

Title VII prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee for opposing an unlawful employment practice or participating in a related investigation or proceeding. The court held that Melendez’s retaliation claim was limited to her allegation that defendants acted against her after she reported the inmate’s sexual assault.

The court held that Melendez’s complaints about the inmate’s conduct were not protected activity because she did not complain about an employment practice. The inmate was not an employee, and Melendez did not present evidence that the defendants could be held responsible for the inmate’s conduct. The court noted that the inmate was placed on restrictive confinement, disciplined, and reported to the New York State Commission on Correction, and that information about Melendez’s complaint was provided to the District Attorney’s Office.

The court also held that the retaliation claim failed even if Melendez’s complaints were protected activity. Defendants identified the pending investigation as the reason for denying the salary increment and Melendez’s failure to progress to full-duty status as the reason for terminating her. The court found that Melendez offered no evidence, beyond timing, from which a reasonable jury could find those explanations were a pretext, meaning a cover for unlawful retaliation. The court also rejected her arguments concerning her injuries, the availability of light-duty assignments, the timing of a negative evaluation, an internal email, and a later employment reference.

Equal Protection Claim

Melendez also alleged under Section 1983 that defendants denied her equal protection because of her gender. The court explained that she had to show that she was treated less favorably than a similarly situated employee and that gender was the reason for the adverse employment actions.

Regarding the salary increment, the record showed that four male and two female correctional officers had also been denied increments while under investigation. Melendez did not identify a similarly situated male officer who received an increment or provide evidence that gender influenced the decision.

Regarding the termination, the record included at least one male officer who failed probation because he did not progress to full-duty status. The court found that Melendez was not similarly situated to the other officers involved in the inmate incident because she alone was accused of violating her light-duty restriction, using profanity toward the inmate, and throwing latex gloves. The court also found insufficient evidence that a later use-of-force incident involving the inmate was handled differently because of gender.

Disposition

Judge Nelson S. Roman granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Melendez’s remaining Title VII retaliation and Section 1983 equal-protection claims. The court directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment in defendants’ favor and terminate the action. The opinion does not state that the judgment was entered with or without prejudice.