Quantcast

PENNSYLVANIA RECORD

Friday, April 19, 2024

SEPTA wins discrimination lawsuit brought by one-handed driver involved in derailment

Federal Court
Septa

Wikipedia

PHILADELPHIA – A federal magistrate judge has granted defendant Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority's motion for summary judgment in a discrimination case filed by a former bus operator.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Timothy R. Rice of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted the motion Dec. 6. 

The opinion states plaintiff Donald D. Taylor had agreed to withdraw a number of his claims, leaving only his claim of discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA). 

"SEPTA’s motion for summary judgment is granted because Taylor has failed to present sufficient evidence to enable a jury to reasonably find that SEPTA discriminated against him based on his disability," Rice wrote.

Taylor alleged he was subjected to discriminatory treatment, a hostile work environment and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1963, as well as the ADA and the PHRA. 

The plaintiff was a member of the union for the defendant’s bus and trolley operators and was born without his left hand and a portion of his arm below his left elbow, the opinion states. He was hired as a bus operator in November 2005 and was discharged in September 2016 because of a trolley derailment a month prior. 

The motion states Taylor had been disciplined 11 times during his employment with the defendant.

The plaintiff alleged that he was discharged due to his disability but Rice ruled he failed to show that he was subjected to negative treatment due to his disability.

"Even if Taylor could challenge his suspensions and placement on the one-year probationary period, Taylor has admitted that he was not aware of any facts or circumstances suggesting that his supervisors were motivated by his disability in the disciplinary process that led to his probationary period," Rice wrote. 

"He also has not identified any similarly situated non-disabled employees who were engaged in substantially similar conduct but treated more favorably than him."

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case number 2:17-cv-04035

More News