PHILADELPHIA – A Pennsylvania federal judge ruled that a former female conductor who filed suit against the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority for wrongful termination based on her gender, would have her case dismissed due to it being brought after the statute of limitations had elapsed.
On Feb. 24, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge John R. Padova dismissed with prejudice such litigation initiated by plaintiff April Reeves.
Reeves brought the lawsuit against her former employer pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000(e) et seq. while SEPTA, her former employer, moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
The complaint alleged Reeves was a railroad conductor in SEPTA’s Regional Rail Division and that SEPTA terminated her employment on Feb. 7, 2011 based on “a made-up policy.” According to Reeves, SEPTA terminated the employment of a total of three women and two men based on this same policy.
“Plaintiff was told that she could return to work once she was cleared by her doctor. One of the men who had been terminated was permitted to return to work shortly after his termination, but plaintiff was not permitted to return to work for nearly four years,” Padova said of Reeves’ suit.
“During the first two years, SEPTA hired new employees, all of whom were male. In 2013, plaintiff contacted her state representative regarding SEPTA’s failure to hire women during this time.”
Reeves said she returned to work in January 2015 as an Assistant Conductor, and was placed in an unpaid SEPTA’s Engineer Training Program to requalify as a conductor in May 2015.
However, Reeves did not pass her final exam and was not offered another job by SEPTA, thus leading Reeves to go on railroad unemployment. The complaint then alleged that SEPTA discriminated and retaliated against Reeves based on her sex/gender by terminating her employment on June 3, 2015, and the plaintiff alleged that she was not offered another job by SEPTA in retaliation for speaking out about SEPTA’s failure to hire women.
Reeves then brought her lawsuit against SEPTA in September 2019.
SEPTA moved to dismiss Reeves’ complaint on Dec. 9 for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, on the ground that plaintiff’s claims were time-barred, because she did not file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC within the time limit provided in Title VII.
Per that regulation, that time limit is “within 300 days of the alleged unlawful employment practice, or within 30 days after receiving notice that the analogous state agency has terminated proceedings, whichever is earlier.”
“Plaintiff states in the complaint that SEPTA discriminated and retaliated against her by terminating her employment on June 3, 2015. Plaintiff thus had 300 days from June 3, 2015 to file a charge with the EEOC. Plaintiff filed her charge of discrimination on Jan. 17, 2019, considerably more than 300 days after SEPTA terminated her employment,” Padova said.
“We conclude that plaintiff filed her charge of discrimination with the EEOC well beyond the 300-day time limit for doing so and the instant suit is, accordingly, time-barred. We conclude that amendment would be futile because this suit is clearly time-barred. Accordingly, we dismiss this action with prejudice.”
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:19-cv-04163
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com