PHILADELPHIA – A local YMCA facility has denied allegations of racial discrimination lodged by a Black lifeguard, who claimed he was unjustly fired despite leading an emergency rescue situation, while the posted lifeguard, a Caucasian woman, was absent.
De’Marco Taylor of Philadelphia first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Nov. 6 versus the Greater Philadelphia YMCA, of Conshohocken.
“Plaintiff is an African-American male. On Feb. 14, 2022, defendant hired plaintiff in the position of Head Lifeguard. Plaintiff was well qualified for his position and performed well. By way of background, the majority of defendant’s aquatics team were Caucasian,” the suit said.
“Despite plaintiff’s superb work performance and disciplinary record, on or around June 30, 2022, defendant abruptly terminated plaintiff’s employment. In connection therewith, defendant claimed that plaintiff had a delayed response to an emergency situation in the pool the prior day.”
However, the suit added that the plaintiff “was not on the lifeguard stand and accordingly was not expected to be the first to respond to an emergency, as per the defendant’s policy.”
“Importantly, once plaintiff observed that the lifeguard on the stand was not responding, he immediately began the rescue and performed CPR. Notably, defendant did not terminate the employment of the other on-duty lifeguard who was likewise not on the stand, a Caucasian female, even though she failed to take any part in the rescue. It is plaintiff’s position that defendant subjected him to disparate treatment based on his race in violation of Title VII and the PHRA,” the suit stated.
UPDATE
On Jan. 26, the YMCA defendant answered the complaint and denied Taylor’s discrimination allegations. It is also countered that Taylor eventually initiated a rescue and CPR, but denied the remainder of his version of events – and added that the female lifeguard in question was nowhere near the location of the drowning as compared to Taylor, the head lifeguard, who was mere feet from the drowning and failed to initiate a rescue for two minutes.
“Plaintiff fails to state a cause of action to which relief can be granted. Plaintiff cannot establish a causal connection between his exercise of statutory rights and any adverse employment action. Plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie claim necessary to recover under the Title VII or PHRA. Even if plaintiff could establish a prima facie claim, he cannot establish that defendant’s legitimate, non-discriminatory and non-retaliatory reasons for its actions were a pretext for discrimination or retaliation. Any discriminatory acts alleged to have been committed by employees of defendant were contrary to defendant’s good faith efforts to comply with Title VII and other statutes of law. At all times, defendant’s actions were justified, lawful and made in good faith. Plaintiff has failed to mitigate his alleged damages, the entitlement to which is expressly denied,” the answer’s additional affirmative defenses stated.
“Some or all of plaintiff’s claims, including his claim for punitive damages, are barred because defendant’s actions were not malicious, egregious, in bad faith, or in willful or reckless indifference or disregard of plaintiff’s legal rights. At all times, defendant’s actions were justified, lawful and made in good faith. Plaintiff was an at-will employee whose employment could have been terminated at any time, for any reason, with or without notice. Defendant hereby reserves the right to supplement their affirmative defenses and interpose such other defenses as discovery may disclose. The claims raised in the complaint are barred to the extent they exceed the scope of a timely filed charge of discrimination. Plaintiff’s claim is barred by the statute of limitations and/or laches.”
For counts of violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act through racial discrimination, the plaintiff is seeking the following relief:
• Compensatory damages;
• Punitive damages;
• Liquidated 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 defendants, 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 the Title VII and the PHRA;
• An order for defendants 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 defendants 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 to, the pre-textual reasons cited for its adverse actions, disciplines and termination; and;
• 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 Patricia Fecile-Moreland of Marks O’Neill O’Brien Doherty & Kelly, also in Philadelphia.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:23-cv-04333
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com