Butrym v. Burnt Hills-Ballston Lake Cent. Sch. Dist.

MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER I. INTRODUCTION On March 13, 2020, pro se plaintiff Jessica Butrym (“Butrym” or “plaintiff”), a former employee of the Burnt Hills-Ballston Lake Central School District (the “School District”), filed this action against defendants Christine Sarsick (“Sarsick”), Christine Mazure (“Mazure”), Joseph Czub (“Czub”), and Michael Nickson (“Nickson”) alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Dkt. No. 1. On December 14, 2020, defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(6) to dismiss the complaint. Dkt. No. 14. According to them, Butrym had improperly sued her former supervisors rather than the School District itself and, in any event, had failed to plausibly allege any qualifying disability within the meaning of the ADA. Id. On January 4, 2021, Butrym opposed defendants’ motion to dismiss and cross-moved for leave to amend her complaint. Dkt. No. 15. Because plaintiff was still entitled to amend her complaint as of right, the Clerk was directed to (1) accept plaintiff’s proposed amended pleading for filing; (2) docket the amended pleading as the operative complaint; and (3) terminate defendants’ then-pending motion to dismiss as moot. See Dkt. No. 20. The Clerk acted accordingly. Dkt. No. 22. Butrym’s amended complaint alleged that Sarsick, Mazure, Czub, and Nickson as well as defendants Don Marshall (“Marshall”), David Versucki (“Versucki”), John Blowers (“Blowers”), Jennifer Longtin (“Longtin”), Lisa Morse (“Morse”), Lakshmi Nagarajan (“Nagarajan”), Patrick Ziegler (“Ziegler”), Patrick McGrath (“McGrath”), Christopher Abdoo (“Abdoo”), the School District, and the Board of Education violated her rights under the ADA when they failed to accommodate her disabilities and terminated her employment as a school bus monitor.¹ Id. On March 22, 2021, Sarsick, Mazure, Czub, Nickson, Marshall, Versucki, Blowers, Longtin, Morse, Nagarajan, Ziegler, McGrath, and Abdoo (the “individual defendants”) as well as the School District and the Board of Education moved under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss Butrym’s amended complaint. Dkt. No. 29. According to the renewed motion to dismiss, plaintiff had once again failed to allege any plausible ADA claims. Id. On May 13, 2021, defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. Butrym v. Sarsick, 2021 WL 1927073 (N.D.N.Y. May 13, 2021). After broadly construing the amended complaint in light of Butrym’s status as a pro se litigant, it was determined that plaintiff had alleged four disability-related claims: (1) a failure to accommodate; (2) a hostile work environment; (3) disability discrimination; and (4) retaliation. Id. at *3. Those claims were dismissed against the individual defendants, all of whom were alleged to be Butrym’s supervisors and/or co-workers. As explained, “the ADA does not provide for individual liability in the employment context.” Butrym, 2021 WL 1927073, at *3. The hostile work environment claim was also dismissed because plaintiff had failed to “plausibly allege misconduct or behavior that amounts to an objectively hostile or abusive working environment.” Id. at *6. However, it was concluded that Butrym had plausibly alleged ADA claims for disability discrimination, a failure to accommodate, and retaliation against the School District and the Board of Education. Butrym, 2021 WL 1927073, at *4, *7. As her pleading was understood, plaintiff alleged that defendants “repeatedly failed to accommodate her request to avoid interacting with [a certain co-worker] because it greatly exacerbated the physical symptoms of her anxiety” and “that when she complained about this issue to [the relevant supervisor], [a decision-maker] terminated her employment” as a school bus monitor. Id. at *4. It was alternatively concluded that Butrym’s complaints to supervisors about this particular co-worker could be construed as a request for an accommodation under the ADA that resulted in the retaliatory termination of her employment. Butrym, 2021 WL 1927073, at *6. Thereafter, the parties completed discovery into plaintiff’s three remaining claims. See generally Dkt. Nos. 35-56.² On February 2, 2022, the remaining named defendants; i.e., the School District and the Board of Education (collectively the “School District” or “defendants”), moved under Rule 56 for summary judgment. Dkt. No. 57. The motion has been fully briefed and will be considered on the basis of the submissions without oral argument. II. BACKGROUND On September 9, 2018, the School District hired Butrym as a substitute school bus monitor. Defs.’ Local Rule 56.1(a) Statement (“Defs.’ Facts”), Dkt. No. 57-1 1. As part of the employment process, plaintiff completed and passed a written exam and a physical fitness test. Id. 3. On a School District hiring form entitled “application for examination or employment,” Butrym did not identify herself as laboring under any specific “disability.” Defs.’ Facts 2. As plaintiff explained at her deposition, she did not need to request any disability accommodation when she was hired because at that time she did not require one to perform her work as a school bus monitor. Pl.’s Tr., Dkt. No. 57-3, 22:3-11.³ Notably, however, plaintiff contends that defendants were on notice of her various disabilities, which included anxiety, OCD, and autism. See, e.g., “Correct” Nickson Aff., Dkt. No. 58-2 at 1-2; “Correct” Mazur Aff., Dkt. No. 58-3 at 1. On January 25, 2019, Butrym first complained to defendants about the behavior of non-party Megan Quinn (“Quinn”), a substitute school bus driver also employed by the School District. Defs.’ Facts 10. Among other things, plaintiff complained that Quinn had stared at her, parked next to her, given her dirty looks, and even crashed a bus. Id. 11. According to plaintiff’s responsive filings, she has “photos and video of the harassment.” “Correct” Mazur Aff. at 1.⁴ Butrym claims that she advised “Mazure and others” that “riding the bus with [] Quinn was aggravating [her] anxiety or making [her] feel physically sick.” “Correct” Mazur Aff. at 4. Plaintiff sought from defendants a workplace accommodation that would allow her to avoid Quinn. See, e.g., “Correct” Sarsick Aff. at 3 (explaining “WE WOULD NOT BE IN THIS MESS!” if defendants had “honor[ed] [her] request to not work with [] Quinn”). In response to this complaint, Mazure and Sarsick examined payroll records and determined that Butrym had been assigned to ride a school bus driven by Quinn on December 20 and 21, 2018. Defs.’ Facts 12. However, after examining the security camera footage from the school bus for both of those days, Mazure and Sarsick concluded that plaintiff’s complaints about Quinn were without merit. Id.

12-13. According to defendants, this investigation also revealed that plaintiff was not properly performing her duties as a school bus monitor. Id. 13. On March 7, 2019, Butrym rode on the School District’s so-called “transportation bus,” a designated bus used to shuttle employees between various locations.⁵ See Defs.’ Facts 15. Quinn drove the bus that day. Id. Plaintiff complained to her supervisors about Quinn’s behavior during that trip. Id. A renewed investigation into plaintiff’s latest complaint led supervisors to review the bus security footage, which in their view once again “showed Plaintiff not doing her job and that her complaints about [] Quinn were unfounded.” Id. On March 25, 2019, Butrym was called to a meeting with Czub and Sarsick to discuss her job performance. Defs.’ Facts 17. Plaintiff denies that she was called into this meeting; instead, plaintiff claims that she went to Mazur and Sarsick herself to lodge another complaint about Quinn. “Correct” Mazur Aff. at 2. According to plaintiff, Quinn’s harassment extended beyond work — “it’s EVERYWHERE she sees me.” Id. In any event, both parties agree that a meeting occurred. During the meeting, Butrym’s supervisors discussed with her “a number of concerns regarding her employment,” including that “she refused to work on certain busses [sic] including busses [sic] driven by drivers other than [] Quinn, that some bus drivers complained that she was not always on task, that she failed to show up for work without calling the [School District] on several occasions, she would supervise a limited number of children on a bus rather than the entire bus, she gave gifts to children, and she was unprofessional and disrespectful toward bus monitor Mary LeClair.” Defs.’ Facts 17.⁶ Defendants assert that Butrym “became upset,” walked out of the meeting, and then continued walking until she was off the School District’s property entirely. Defs.’ Facts