Tenemille v. Town Of Ramapo

Background

Ernst Theodore Tenemille sued the Town of Ramapo and several current or former Town and Police Department officials. He alleged discrimination and retaliation based on race, color, national origin, and religion under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the New York State Human Rights Law. He also asserted a claim for negligent hiring, retention, and supervision. Tenemille alleged that he experienced discriminatory treatment during his employment and was terminated in 2016 after an investigation into his use of sick leave and his refusal to sign a narrowly tailored release for medical records.

The defendants who filed the motion were the Town, Bradley R. Weidel, Thomas Cokeley, Daniel Hyman, Salomon Matos, and Christopher Franklin. The motion was brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. Tenemille originally proceeded without a lawyer, although the procedural history states that he later obtained counsel; the opinion’s appearances list him as representing himself.

Earlier rulings and limitations issues

The court had previously dismissed with prejudice the Title VII claims against individual defendants, all claims against the Ramapo Police Department, and claims seeking punitive damages from the Town or individual defendants in their official capacities. In this opinion, the court again dismissed the Title VII claims against the individual defendants with prejudice because individuals cannot be held personally liable under Title VII. It applied the same reasoning to both the retaliation and discrimination causes of action under Title VII.

The court also adhered to its earlier ruling that discrete acts of retaliation and discrimination under § 1983 occurring before January 28, 2015, were time-barred. The court stated that those older allegations could still be considered as background for timely claims. It did not decide whether the state-law claims were time-barred because it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims after dismissing the federal claims.

Discrimination claims

The court held that Tenemille plausibly alleged that he belonged to a protected class, was qualified for his job, and suffered an adverse employment action when he was terminated. But it concluded that the demand for a medical-record release was not an adverse employment action because it did not materially change his job duties, title, or compensation.

The court then found that Tenemille had not pleaded facts supporting an inference that his termination was discriminatory. In particular, the court found no adequate comparison between Tenemille’s medical notes and the notes of other officers. It therefore granted the motion as to the discrimination claims under Title VII and § 1983 and dismissed those claims with prejudice.

Hostile-work-environment claims

The court recognized that Tenemille plausibly alleged that he personally experienced his workplace as degrading, isolating, and unwelcoming. But it found that the alleged incidents were either not connected to a protected characteristic or were too isolated, too far apart in time, or insufficiently severe to establish an objectively hostile work environment.

The court specifically concluded that many alleged incidents did not connect the conduct to race, national origin, religion, or political activity. It also found that the background investigation, the religious-scheduling incident, and the alleged political backlash were isolated events. The two incidents that most directly touched on race—an officer’s 2004 racial outburst and the different treatment of Tenemille’s and a white officer’s complaints about Sector Two—were too few and too separated in time.

The court granted the motion as to the hostile-work-environment claims under Title VII and § 1983, but dismissed those claims without prejudice because this was the first time the court had adjudicated them on the merits.

Retaliation claims

The remaining retaliation claims under Title VII and § 1983 were asserted against the Town of Ramapo. The court held that the Fourth Amended Complaint had not corrected the deficiencies identified in its earlier ruling, including the lack of a sufficient connection between protected activity and Tenemille’s termination and the failure to allege sufficiently adverse retaliatory actions.

Because Tenemille had already been informed of these deficiencies and had not cured them in the Fourth Amended Complaint, the court dismissed the retaliation claims with prejudice.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The hostile-work-environment claims were dismissed without prejudice, and the court gave Tenemille 30 days to file a fifth amended complaint addressing the deficiencies in those claims. The court stated that the remaining claims, having previously been adjudicated, were dismissed with prejudice. It also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims and did not rule on their merits. Judge Kenneth M. Karas directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion and mail Tenemille a copy of the opinion and order.