DECISION and ORDER Motion #3 By Notice of Motion dated March 4, 2022, Defendant Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation d/b/a National Grid (“Defendant” or “National Grid”) moves for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR §3212 (see Notice of Motion, Doc. No. 64). On April 9, 2019, Plaintiff Vaughan J. Martin (“Martin”) filed a summons and complaint seeking certain relief, including but not limited to, reinstatement to employment, compensation for lost wages, an audit of certain electric meter installations, an order that licensed electrical inspectors inspect certain premises, and other relief the Court deems just and proper (see Complaint, Doc. No. 14). Plaintiff opposes the instant motion. Defendant submitted a statement of undisputed material facts in support of its motion (Doc. No. 94). Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from 2010 until his termination on April 13, 2018 (ibid, 2). Plaintiff at the time of his termination worked in the demand billing group and his duties included to review and identify exceptions to customer bills (ibid). Plaintiff described his job as to find errors and determine how to best address those errors (ibid, 3). Plaintiff was a member of a bargaining unit and was represented by Local 97 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (the “Union”, ibid, 4). Defendant asserts that Plaintiff repeatedly engaged in inappropriate and disrespectful conduct over the course of several years, despite Defendant’s attempt to correct such behavior (ibid, 5). In September 2014, Plaintiff was investigated and reprimanded for being disrespectful to his supervisors (ibid, 6). In November 2016, Plaintiff was counseled after he disturbed other employees with loud and inappropriate behavior (ibid, 7). Again in November 2016, Plaintiff was counseled for loud and inappropriate behavior (ibid, 8). In July 2017, Plaintiff made several inappropriate comments to female coworkers (ibid, 9). Defendant asserts that Plaintiff queried a female co-worker: “How is your pussy, (long pause) cat? Back in the day that is what we called it, a pussy” (ibid, 10). On July 11, 2017, Plaintiff’s supervisor brought Plaintiff into a conference room and verbally reprimanded him (ibid, 12). Plaintiffs coworkers again brought concerns about Plaintiffs behavior in January 2018 (ibid, 13). Plaintiff was confronted about these ongoing issues on January 26, 2018 (ibid, 15). One of Plaintiff’s supervisors, Karen Billy, contacted Labor Relations Manager Robert Maloney regarding an investigation into Plaintiffs inappropriate conduct (ibid, 16). On March 19, 2018, Maloney agreed the issues needed to be investigated (ibid, 17). By e-mail at 8:24 am on March 22, 2018, Plaintiff sent an e-mail to his direct supervisor, Darla Halstead and Ms. Halstead’s supervisor, Karen Billy, alleging that a specific electric meter that showed an outstanding inspection obligation on the Defendant’s database (ibid, 19). It was Plaintiffs understanding that this meter was energized (ibid). Ms. Halstead responded to the Plaintiff, thanked him for sharing his concerns, and informed Plaintiff that Halstead and Billy raised his concerns with the appropriate people (ibid, 20). Plaintiff in turn responded and demanded that he be informed that Defendant would stop energizing electric meters without the required inspection by the end of the day (ibid, 21). Defendant addressed Plaintiffs concerns and arrange a meeting with Plaintiff, Director of Account Maintenance and Operations Pam Ingersoll, Vice President of Revenue Cycle Management Jody Allison, and Ms. Billy at 3:05 pm that day (ibid, 22). Ms. Allison opened the meeting by thanking Plaintiff for bringing the issue to their attention and they wanted to obtain more information (ibid, 23). Plaintiff then cut her off and said “cut to the chase” (ibid, 24). Plaintiff Questioned Ms. Allison’s knowledge of the electric business and meters (ibid, 25). Plaintiff used the word “ass” and when Ms. Allison asked him not to swear, Plaintiff became confrontational about whether “ass” was a swear word (ibid, 26). Ms. Allison attempted to end the meeting by thanking Plaintiff for bringing his concerns forward and inviting Plaintiff to bring his concerns directly to her (ibid, 27). Plaintiff responded that he was not interested (ibid). Ms. Allison then tried to address Plaintiffs inappropriate conduct (ibid, 29). Plaintiff disputed that he displayed any inappropriate conduct (ibid). Maloney and Maloney’s supervisor, Michael Rubino, Defendant’s Director of Labor and Employee Relations, were notified of Plaintiff’s inappropriate conduct at the meeting and at other instances (ibid,
30-32). On March 22, 2018, Rubino and Maloney decided to suspend Plaintiff pending an investigation (ibid, 34). Plaintiff was to be notified on March 23, 2018, however Plaintiff failed to appear at work (ibid, 35). On Monday, March 26, 2018, at approximately 9:30 am, Rubino and Maloney notified Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s Union representative that Plaintiff was suspended with pay pending an investigation into his unprofessional and disruptive conduct (ibid, 36). Maloney interviewed twenty-three of Plaintiff’s coworkers, as well as Plaintiff himself, between March 29, 2018 and April 13, 2018 (ibid,
