Opinion
5:00-CV-189 (FJS/DEP), 5:00-CV-1055 (FJS/DEP)
November 6, 2002
Roger G. Daigle, Syracuse, New York, Plaintiff, pro se.
Paula Ryan Conan, Ausa, Office Of The United States Attorney, Syracuse, New York, for Defendant.
ORDER
It has come to the Court's attention that there is a need to clarify one of the statements in its Memorandum-Decision and Order dated September 30, 2002. On page 9 of that Order, the Court inadvertently cited to Plaintiff's July, 1995 request to reopen, rather than his administrative complaint of discrimination, in discussing the issue of whether this Court had jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims regarding Dr. Ispahani's conduct. Therefore, the Court amends the second full paragraph on page 9 of its September 30, 2002 Order to make clear upon which allegations this Court relied in finding that it has jurisdiction to consider this aspect of Plaintiff's complaint. Accordingly, the Court hereby amends that paragraph to read as follows:
Plaintiff claims that Dr. Ispahani wrongfully diagnosed him as having a condition of "intense paranoia." See Complaint at ¶ 49. That incident occurred subsequent to Plaintiff's EEO Complaint and could reasonably be expected to grow out of the charge of discrimination, which alleged, in part, that although Plaintiff was "generally an accommodating person who generally puts up with a lot rather than offend," see Dkt. No. 88 at Exhibit "A-2a-2," Homeyer had been "unrelenting" in her sexual harassment of Plaintiff, and had "attempt[ed] to incite others against [Plaintiff]." See id. at Exhibit "A-2a-2, 3." Thus, this claim may be considered despite Plaintiff's failure to exhaust it. See Dortz v. City of New York, 904 F. Supp. 127, 140-41 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (plaintiff's claim of retaliation was "reasonably related" to that which was previously alleged in plaintiff's EEOC charges, thereby allowing for judicial redress of such claims).
IT IS SO ORDERED.