PHILADELPHIA – A cleaning technician at Drexel University who alleged he was discriminated against for his Islamic faith on multiple occasions and later fired from his role in violation of federal law, has settled his case.
Brandon Hamilton first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Dec. 5 versus Drexel University and Clean-Tech Services, Inc. All parties are of Philadelphia.
“On or about Thursday, March 23, 2023, plaintiff requested to take time-off during Ramadan, which was scheduled to start Friday, March 24, 2023. On March 23, 2023, plaintiff’s supervisor, Ms. Jacqueline Brown, a management employee of defendant Clean-Tech Services, Inc., denied plaintiff’s request to take time-off from work for Ramadan for Friday, March 24, 2023. Since he could not take off from work during Ramadan, plaintiff requested the ability instead to take breaks during Ramadan, during the day, to pray,” the suit said.
“Ms. Brown, supervisor/manager, commented that plaintiff would only be permitted 15 minutes to pray, or words to that effect. In or around March and April 2023, when plaintiff entered the break room to pray during Ramadan, he was discriminated against by his co-employees. A co-employee stated, ‘What does he have in that bag?’, or words to that effect, on one occasion when plaintiff entered the break room in order to pray.”
The suit added that another co-employee stated, on another occasion, “Check on him to make sure he’s praying,’ or words to that effect, when plaintiff entered the break room in order to pray.”
“Plaintiff also recollects that at the beginning of his employment, Ms. Brown, supervisor/manager, asked plaintiff what was on his forehead. Plaintiff commented that it was a prostration mark from praying. On another occasion, Ms. Brown commented to plaintiff, ‘You grew up Christian,’ and ‘You ate Christmas dinners,’ or words to that effect. Plaintiff filed an EEOC Charge against defendants on April 17, 2023, alleging discrimination and failure-to-accommodate his religion. On April 18, 2023, Ms. Brown, the supervisor, discriminated against and retaliated against plaintiff by disciplining plaintiff based on a pretext. Ms. Brown disciplined
plaintiff for allegedly not sweeping the floor. Plaintiff was washing the windows first, while waiting for visitors to clear the museum area before he started sweeping the floor,” the suit stated.
“On April 26, 2023, plaintiff was wrongfully terminated from his employment by defendants. On April 26, 2023, at the time plaintiff’s termination was communicated to him, plaintiff was informed that Drexel no longer wanted him in the building anymore, or words to that effect. It is believed and averred that Drexel constitutes a decision-maker with respect to plaintiff’s termination. It is believed and therefore averred that plaintiff was replaced by an employee who is not Muslim. Defendants wrongfully terminated plaintiff from his employment based on his religion in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”
On March 4, the defendants answered the complaint and denied all of the plaintiff’s substantive allegations, before providing 10 separate affirmative defenses on its own behalf.
“Defendants exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct discriminatory or retaliatory behavior, and plaintiff unreasonably failed to take advantage of the preventative and corrective opportunity or to avoid harm otherwise. Plaintiff is not entitled to punitive damages, because defendants made a good faith attempt to comply with the law by adopting policies and procedures designed to prevent unlawful discrimination and retaliation such as that alleged by plaintiff. Plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages, if any, and defendants are entitled to an offset to the extent of any mitigation. To the extent plaintiff requested a religious accommodation, the requested accommodation would have imposed an undue hardship on the operation of defendants’ business. Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,” the defenses stated.
“Defendants maintain strictly enforced policies that prohibit unlawful discrimination and provide a mechanism by which employees may seek to redress instances of unlawful discrimination or retaliation. All of defendants’ actions with respect to plaintiff were at all times taken for legitimate, non-discriminatory and non-retaliatory reasons. Defendants would have made the same decision absent any alleged discriminatory or retaliatory motive. Plaintiff fails to establish any basis for an award of compensatory damages, punitive damages or attorneys’ fees. Defendants reserve the right to raise any and all other defenses that may become evidence during any other proceeding in this action.”
UPDATE
On April 15, the parties agreed through mutual stipulation that Drexel University would be removed as a defendant from the case and dismissed with prejudice from the proceedings – a move approved by U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge John R. Padova the following day.
Finally, on April 17, Padova announced that a settlement had been reached in the case and it would be closed as a result. Terms of the settlement were not disclosed.
“It having been reported that the issues between the parties in the above action have been settled, and upon Order of the Court pursuant to the provisions of Rule 41.1(b) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure of this Court, it is ordered that the above action is dismissed with prejudice, pursuant to agreement of counsel, without costs,” Padova said.
The plaintiff was represented by Justin F. Robinette in Philadelphia.
The defendants were represented by Andrea M. Kirshenbaum and Tanner McCarron of Littler Mendelson, also in Philadelphia.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:23-cv-04791
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com