Source: https://www.leagle.com/decision/2001440140fsupp2d3001409
Timestamp: 2017-08-18 22:07:55
Document Index: 502938230

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 207', '§ 190', '§ 1367', '§ 215', '§ 13']

CROSLAND v. CITY OF NEW Y | 140 F.Supp.2d 300 (2001) | Leagle.com
Willis CROSLAND, Plaintiff, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, New York City Police Department, the Board of Trustees of Police Pension Fund, Defendants.
11/83:        Plaintiff received a negative evaluation. Am. Compl. ¶ 22.
12/83:        Plaintiff's new supervisor told him, "Don't unpack your bags". Id. ¶ 24.
Affairs. See id. ¶ 25
Crosland, instead of to the Internal Affairs Unit. See id. ¶ 26
4/84:         Plaintiff was denied promotion to detective. See id. ¶ 28.
9/84:         Plaintiff was denied off-duty employment. See id. ¶ 29
officer. See id. ¶ 31.
performed. See id. ¶ 32.
8/85-1986:    Plaintiff was placed on involuntary sick leave. See id. ¶ 33.
8/85-12/85:   Plaintiff was denied assignment to permanent command. See id. ¶ 34.
gun. The offending officer was never disciplined. See id. ¶¶ 37-40. Plaintiff
record room. See id. ¶ 42.
mailman. See id. ¶¶ 43-44.
8/88:         Plaintiff was assigned civilian employment investigations. See id. ¶ 45.
1988:         Plaintiff was falsely accused of grand larceny auto. See id. ¶ 46.
refused to remedy this. See id. ¶¶ 48-49.
¶¶ 52-55.
also removed as a domestic violence investigator. See id. ¶¶ 60, 63.
7/95:         Plaintiff was falsely accused of losing a department radio. See id. ¶ 64.
denied a computer access code and a homicide position. See id. ¶¶ 66-68.
pay. See id. ¶¶ 70-71.
5/96:         Plaintiff was involuntarily transferred back to the 81st Precinct. See id. ¶ 72.
Division. See id. ¶¶ 82, 85.
See id. ¶¶ 90-91.
where he was ordered to return to work. See id. ¶ 94
retirement. See id. ¶ 100.
paid. See id. ¶ 101.
1. Claim I: Retaliation in violation of plaintiff's free speech rights under the First Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("section 1983"); 2. Claim II: Violations of due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and section 1983; 3. Claims III-VII: Discrimination on the basis of race2; 4. Claims VIII and IX: Defendants' failure to accommodate plaintiff's disability, in violation of section 290 of the NYSHRL and section 8-101 of the NYCHRL; and 5. Claims X and XI: Violations of federal and state labor laws, 29 U.S.C. §§ 207, 215, and N.Y. Lab. Law §§ 190 et seq. and 215 (McKinney 1986).
1. The Due Process claim (claim II) is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Furthermore, the Article 78 proceeding provided petitioner with all the process that was due. See Gudema v. Nassau County, 163 F.3d 717, 725 (2d Cir.1998); 2. The race discrimination claims (claims III-VII) are both time-barred and barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. In addition, plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination because he has not demonstrated that the NYPD took adverse employment actions against him under circumstances that could lead to a reasonable inference of intentional discrimination; 3. The disability discrimination claims (claims VIII and IX) are brought only under state law and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Martinez v. Simonetti, 202 F.3d 625, 636 (2d Cir. 2000) (directing dismissal of supplemental state law claims where no federal claims remained);5 4. The claims that defendants violated federal and state labor laws (claims X and XI) are defective because they are time-barred and plaintiff has rested on conclusory allegations devoid of any specificity. Furthermore, plaintiff has failed to give the New York State Attorney General notice of the state-law claim, as required by N.Y. Lab. Law § 215(2) (McKinney Supp.2000).
1. Accident disability pays ¾ of an officer's salary, while ordinary disability pays 1/3 of an officer's salary. See Title 2 N.Y. Admin. Code § 13-252.