Opinion ID: 614653
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Rojas's Conflicting Statements Regarding Enyan-Boadu's Supervisory Status

Text: In her original complaint, Rojas alleged that Enyan-Boadu was her co-worker and referred to Grizard as her supervisor. The District Court subsequently granted in part a defense motion to dismiss with leave to replead. Rojas v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Rochester ( Rojas I ), 557 F.Supp.2d 387, 400 (W.D.N.Y. 2008). In its opinion, the District Court noted that, at oral argument on the motion to dismiss, the Court sua sponte raised the issue of whether [the Diocese] could be held vicariously liable for the alleged hostile environment created by Enyan-Boadu, where, according to the Complaint, Enyan-Boadu was Plaintiff's co-worker. Id. at 394 n. 4. Despite the District Court's identification of the issue, in her amended complaint, Rojas again alleged that Enyan-Boadu was her co-worker and that Grizard was her supervisor, and she persisted in characterizing Enyan-Boadu and Grizard in this manner in her sworn responses to defendants' interrogatories. This characterization of Enyan-Boadu's and Grizard's respective roles was consistent with Rojas's earlier testimony at Enyan-Boadu's criminal trial. In her papers opposing defendants' motion for summary judgment, however, Rojas contended that Enyan-Boadu was, in fact, her supervisor, or at least one of her supervisors. To support this assertion, Rojas relied on her own affidavit and certain portions of her deposition testimony. In her affidavit, Rojas stated that I was never clear on who her [sic] boss was, as no one ever clarified it to me, and that I asked who my boss is and Grizard said, `Grizard, Jesus [Flores, another priest in the Diocese], and Father Peter [Enyan-Boadu].' Similarly, during her April 10, 2009, deposition, Rojas stated that she had asked Grizard to clarify who is my boss and [h]e said that my boss is Bernard [Grizard], Jesus [Flores,] and Father Peter [Enyan-Boadu]. Rojas did not dispute that Enyan-Boadu's parish was a separate corporate entity from the Diocese and that she was employed by the Diocese, not the parish.