PHILADELPHIA – A nonprofit legal services provider has not only denied that it committed examples of racial and disability discrimination against one of its employees, allegedly in retaliation for her reporting similar behavior in the workplace, but has additionally argued that it never terminated her in the first place.
Hillaria Goodgame first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on June 28, 2022 versus the Defenders Association of Philadelphia. All parties are of Philadelphia.
“In 2014, respondent hired plaintiff in the position of Permanent Legal Intern. Plaintiff was well qualified for her position and performed well. On Jan. 8, 2019, plaintiff suffered a concussion and was diagnosed with the disability of post-concussive syndrome. As a result of plaintiff’s post-concussive syndrome, plaintiff suffered the following symptoms, including, but not limited to, sensitivity to light, sensitivity to loud noises, impaired cognitive functioning and impaired speech,” the suit said.
“The major life activities affected by plaintiff’s disability, included, but is not limited to, hearing, seeing, learning, speaking, concentrating and communicating. Shortly after plaintiff’s diagnosis, plaintiff requested the reasonable accommodation to avoid loud, noisy spaces, take extra time on assignments, have a restricted workload, take 15-minute breaks every two hours in a quiet space, and to move and stretch as needed. Defendant initially granted plaintiff’s request for the aforementioned reasonable accommodations. On or around April 23, 2019, plaintiff complained to Randy Parrin, Human Resources Director, which she believed that she was being treated unfairly, and that she believed it was due to her race.”
Just afterwards, Parrin suspended plaintiff on or around April 23, 2019, for alleged performance deficiencies, including, but not limited to, locking files in her desk and for alleged failure to find and protect against a conflict of interest. Goodgame appealed her suspension, and it was overturned in or around May 2019.
“Following plaintiff’s complaint of race discrimination, defendant proceeded to retaliate against her by being overly critical of her work product, refusing to provide her with her accommodation request, denying her application for a Staff Attorney position in May 2019 and denying her appropriate training to advance her career. Plaintiff also noticed that Andrew Pappas, Assistant Head of Pre-Trial Unit, favored Caucasian employees over African-American employees. For example, one of plaintiff’s Caucasian co-workers failed to mail notice of a hearing to a client, which resulted in the client missing court and being arrested for a failure to appear bench warrant. However, defendant did not suspend or terminate this Caucasian employee for this significant error,” the suit stated.
“It is plaintiff’s belief that defendant would terminate her, had she made the same error. Due to defendant’s discriminatory and retaliatory conduct, plaintiff required medical leave and applied for it and was placed on a medical leave of absence on July 26, 2019. On or around Sept. 2, 2019, plaintiff applied for Family and Medical Leave Act leave, but as of the date of this filing, has not heard back from defendant regarding her application for FMLA leave, essentially leaving her in a questionable status. It is plaintiff’s position that she was discriminated against due to her race and disability, denied a reasonable accommodation and retaliated against for reporting race discrimination and requesting a reasonable accommodation in violation of Section 1981 and the PHRA.”
In a Nov. 7 answer to the complaint, the defendant largely denied the plaintiff’s assertions and provided 11 separate affirmative defenses.
“The complaint fails, in whole or in part, to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff’s claims are or may be barred, in whole or in part, by the applicable statute of limitations. Plaintiff’s claims are or may be barred, in whole or in part, by failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Plaintiff’s claims may be barred, in whole or in part, on the basis of waiver, laches, estoppel or other equitable doctrines. Defendant would have taken the same actions with respect to plaintiff without regard to any allegedly protected activity in which plaintiff claims to have engaged,” the defenses stated, in part.
“Defendant at all times acted in good faith based solely on legitimate business reasons wholly unrelated to any discriminatory, retaliatory or statutorily impermissible factors. Plaintiff’s claims are or may be barred in whole or in part because defendant had in effect, at all relevant times, a procedure for employees to address claims of discriminatory treatment, and exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct any allegedly discriminatory treatment. Defendant exercised reasonable care to prevent or promptly correct any improper workplace conduct, and plaintiff failed to take advantage of preventive or corrective opportunities provided by her employer, or to otherwise avoid harm. Plaintiff’s claims for damages may be barred or limited, in whole or in part, due to a failure to mitigate her damages. To the extent plaintiff seeks punitive damages, such damages are barred because the alleged acts or omissions of defendant fail to rise to the level required to sustain an award of punitive damages, do not evidence a malicious or reckless intent to deny plaintiff her protected rights, and are not so wanton or willful as to support an award of punitive damages. To the extent plaintiff seeks punitive damages, punitive damages are inappropriate under the facts of this case, and any award of punitive damages would violate the United States Constitution.”
UPDATE
Per a discovery plan submitted by the defendants on March 31, in its view, the plaintiff was never terminated from her position, but rather, voluntarily resigned.
“Plaintiff went out on a medical leave in late July 2019; she was not terminated from the Defender Association. On or around Aug. 8, 2019, plaintiff’s physician submitted a note stating that plaintiff could return to work on Feb. 1, 2020. Plaintiff was placed on approved FMLA leave; however, plaintiff did not return to work in February 2020. In July 2020, plaintiff applied for unemployment compensation benefits from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In August 2020, the Defender Association received a request for separation and wage information from the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry Unemployment Compensation Office and responded that plaintiff was ‘on leave (medical), FMLA’ and her last day performing work was July 25, 2019. On Feb. 11, 2021, the Defender Association sent plaintiff a letter noting that she had applied for unemployment benefits in July 2020, construing that as an indication that she voluntarily ended her employment, and accepted her resignation with an effective date of Feb. 10, 2021,” the defense’s Joint Rule 26(f) report stated, in part.
“The Defender Association is confident that the discovery process will demonstrate the legitimate, non-discriminatory, and non-retaliatory reasons for its decisions regarding plaintiff’s employment, and that plaintiff will be unable to demonstrate pretext. The Defender Association will need discovery over plaintiff’s disability status, her ability to perform the essential functions of her position with or without a reasonable accommodation, her mitigation efforts, communications with others about her condition or her job status and other information relating generally to her performance, communications, subsequent employment, and capability to perform the essential functions of her position. The Defender Association anticipates filing a motion for summary judgment at the conclusion of the discovery process.”
For counts of racial discrimination under 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, plus racial discrimination, disability discrimination and retaliation under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, the plaintiff is seeking the following reliefs:
• Compensatory damages, punitive damages, emotional pain and suffering, reasonable attorneys’ fees, recoverable costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, an allowance to compensate for negative tax consequences;
• A permanent injunction enjoining defendant, its directors, officers, employees, agents, successors, heirs and assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in, ratifying, or refusing to correct, employment practices which discriminate in violation of Section 1981 and the PHRA;
• An order for the defendant to institute and implement, and for its employees, to attend and/or otherwise participate in, training programs, policies, practices and programs which provide equal employment opportunities;
• An order for the defendant to remove and expunge, or to cause to be removed and expunged, all negative, discriminatory, and/or defamatory memoranda and documentation from Plaintiff’s record of employment, including, but not limited, the pre-textual reasons cited for its adverse actions, disciplines, and termination; and;
• Awarding extraordinary, equitable and/or injunctive relief as permitted by law, equity and the federal statutory provisions sued hereunder, pursuant to Rules 64 and 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The plaintiff is represented by David M. Koller of Koller Law, in Philadelphia.
The defendant is represented by Jeffrey I. Pasek and Jason A. Cabrera of Cozen O’Connor, also in Philadelphia.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania 2:22-cv-02529
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com