PHILADELPHIA – A Delaware County school district denies claims brought by a former public safety officer and hall monitor that it discriminated against him based upon his race and religion, saying instead he resigned from his duties.
George Smith of Middleton, Del. initially filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on July 19, 2019, versus the Southeast Delco School District, of Folcroft.
“Plaintiff is an African-American and practicing Christian. He commenced work for defendant in January 2012 and, for most of his tenure, served as a Public Safety Officer. Plaintiff alleges that he was qualified for the job. At all times relevant, Plaintiff had a second job, which defendant had knowledge of and approved,” U.S. Magistrate Judge Carol Sandra Moore Wells stated.
“On May 17, 2018, plaintiff was praying at work; employees of other religions who were not African-American were allowed to pray at work. On this day, plaintiff was confronted by a supervisor, who told him not to pray at work. Plaintiff believed his supervisor’s order constituted harassment based on his religion and race.”
Smith filed a written complaint with the district about racial and religious discrimination on May 18, 2018 and on June 4, 2018, he requested that the defendant accommodate his request to pray at work because of his sincere belief that his religion required him to pray at work, which he shared with the defendant. Following this request plaintiff followed up with defendant several times, but received no response.
On June 22, 2018, Smith said he was demoted to the position of hall monitor; this demotion changed plaintiff’s job title and job duties. Four days later, the defendant disciplined plaintiff based upon events that had occurred before his May 18, 2018 complaint of racial and religious discrimination; plaintiff had never previously been disciplined by defendant.
“After June 26, 2018, plaintiff’s supervisors began to harass plaintiff by disparaging his work and aggressively monitoring him. Plaintiff still was not allowed to pray at work, which impeded his exercise of his religion; employees of other religions and other races were allowed to pray at work during this time,” Wells said.
“Smith alleged that the defendant had no business-related reason to shift his schedule, but rather, did so to retaliate against him and Smith informed defendant that he thought the schedule change was retaliatory, yet defendant continued to harass him, per the motion.”
Smith believed that the defendant’s management-level employees knew directly or had constructive knowledge of the harassment he suffered. Finally, on Sept. 20, 2018, Smith was constructively discharged from employment.
Though the school district filed a motion to dismiss Smith’s case on Oct. 21, 2019, Wells ruled last month that Smith pled sufficient facts for his complaint to proceed.
UPDATE
On July 8, Southeast Delco School District filed an answer to Smith’s lawsuit, denying its claims and asserting that Smith resigned, and was not constructively discharged.
“It is admitted only that plaintiff was employed at school locations by the school district starting in January 2012. It is specifically denied that plaintiff was constructively terminated; to the contrary, plaintiff resigned from the school district in September of 2018,” the answer read, in part.
“Further answering, the allegation that plaintiff was constructively terminated constitutes a conclusions of law as to which no response is necessary, and therefore, it is denied.”
The school district also introduced 20 affirmative defenses in response to the suit. Among the other affirmative defenses put forth by the school district were:
• The defendant did not discriminate or retaliate against plaintiff on the basis of his race or religion, or on the basis of any other protected characteristic or activity;
• The defendant had legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its actions regarding the plaintiff;
• The plaintiff’s race or religion, or claims of discrimination or opposition to discrimination, were not a factor in defendant’s actions, regarding plaintiff;
• None of the disciplinary warnings issued to plaintiff constituted adverse employment action, altered the terms of his employment or affected his compensation;
• Plaintiff was not demoted, harassed, subjected to any hostile work environment, or constructively discharged.
A member of Smith’s counsel team offered that it will proceed with pursuing legal recourse for their plaintiff in this matter.
“We strongly disagree with the District’s characterization of this case. We will continue to vigorously pursue justice for George Smith,” said Eva Zelson.
The plaintiff is represented by Zelson and Gregg L. Zeff of Zeff Law Firm, in Mount Laurel, N.J.
The defendant is represented by Michael I. Levin and James J. Musial of Levin Law Group, in Huntingdon Valley.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:19-cv-03150
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com