HARRISBURG – Republican politicians in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives say they were justified in firing one of their former photographers for legitimate reasons and not for the unlawful reason he cites, which was his practice of the Islamic faith.
Kalim A. Bhatti of Harrisburg first filed suit in Harrisburg federal court on Nov. 9, 2018 versus The Republican Caucus of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, Jennifer L. Jones, John Dille, Stephen Miskin and John & Jane Does 1-10, all care of the Republican Caucus.
The suit stated Bhatti immigrated to the United States as a child with his parents and was raised in Harrisburg. After beginning a professional photography career, he came to work for the Caucus as a contractor in late 1997 before starting up with the group full-time in April 1998.
However, Bhatti claimed that Jones, his immediate supervisor, “continuously and repeatedly discriminated against [him]” by “saddling him with low pay, a low job title and as many as 100 Caucus members that he was required to cover.” Defendant Jones reports to defendant Dille, the Video Department Supervisor, who in turn reports to defendant Miskin, Caucus Communications Supervisor.
“Plaintiff’s excellent professional reputation was exemplified by the call he received on Sept. 11, 2001 from the Associated Press to cover an airplane down in Western Pennsylvania. Plaintiff covered the AP assignment for two days. Upon his return, he found that Ms. Jones had convinced herself and told others that plaintiff was a terrorist and should be reported to the authorities,” the suit stated.
According to Bhatti, the harassment continued when he abided by his religious obligation as a Muslim to pray several times during the day. He states he was interrupted during his prayers by Dille, prior to making it a practice to leave the Capitol building and pray at a nearby mosque. After he began observing his prayer routine, Bhatti said his requests for raises and performance evaluations were “postponed or entirely ignored” for a time.
But after receiving a positive evaluation in 2014, Dille allegedly promised him a raise – which never came. When asked about the raise never arriving, defendant Miskin is said to have profanely laid the blame for that at the doorstep of then-Gov. Tom Corbett. Furthermore, Bhatti said Miskin later supported Rep. Daryl Metcalfe after he made offensive remarks denigrating Jews and Muslims.
When Human Resources leveled complaints against Bhatti, he claimed to have prepared evidence refuting the accusations but was not permitted to submit them.
“Simply stated, consistent with her determination that plaintiff was a terrorist and that he angered a religiously-intolerant Mr. Miskin, write-ups were simply a pretext for Ms. Jones to harass, discriminate and eventually get plaintiff fired,” the suit said.
That firing took place on April 30, 2018.
“The Caucus and the other defendants are supporting cast members of a Pennsylvania state capitol culture that avoids hiring minorities in the first place. For the very few who are hired, it then denigrates and humiliates them. Plaintiff has witnessed the fact that of the roughly 600 people employed by the Caucus, only four have been people of color like plaintiff. In fact, plaintiff was the only Muslim.”
The Caucus allegedly committed post-employment retaliation against plaintiff, which includes opposing his obtaining unemployment compensation. Bhatti filed a report with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) as to these charges and received a right-to-sue letter on Aug. 13.
However, the Caucus claimed that Bhatti’s complaint contained “vague, bald assertions” which were both time-barred and failed to state a claim under the statutes he cited, for each count.
On Oct. 1, U.S. District Court Judge Sylvia H. Rambo dismissed any alleged discriminatory acts that occurred prior to Oct. 13, 2017 and all counts in the lawsuit with prejudice, except for the counts of 1st Amendment rights violations and false light, which were dismissed without prejudice.
This allowed Bhatti to re-file an amended version of his complaint, which he did so as directed by the Court’s previously-outlined stipulations on Oct. 14.
Two weeks later, the defendants re-filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, arguing that Bhatti did not cure the deficiencies from the original version of his lawsuit and instead filed a substantially-similar complaint.
After an eight month-long hiatus in proceedings, Rambo opted to dismiss with prejudice Bhatti’s false light and Section 1981 claims, and dismiss without prejudice Bhatti’s claims for hostile work environment and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
UPDATE
The defendants provided an answer on July 20, asserting they are immune from liability and Bhatti’s claims were barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel.
“Defendants were, at all relevant times to the First Amended Complaint, employees of an arm of the Pennsylvania General Assembly, a legislative body. All Defendants’ conduct reasonably related to their functions as employees of the General Assembly and as such, all Defendants are entitled to absolute immunity, legislative immunity and are immune from liability pursuant to the speech and debate clauses of the United States and Pennsylvania constitutions,” the answer stated.
“None of defendants’ conduct toward plaintiff violated any of plaintiff’s constitutional rights or any other right protected by state or federal law. Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel.”
The defendants added all their employment decisions made and actions taken with respect to plaintiff were made or taken for lawful, legitimate, and non-discriminatory reasons that were not pre-textual, and were made or taken in good faith.
“Assuming that defendants acted with an unlawful motive, though they did not, defendants would have taken or made the same actions or decisions with regard to plaintiff in the absence of said alleged unlawful motive. Plaintiff is barred from recovering punitive damages because defendants did not act with malice or reckless indifference to plaintiff’s protected rights and defendants engaged in good faith efforts to comply with the law.”
For counts of violating Title VII, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, conspiracy to violate civil rights, firing contrary to public policy, false light and negligent supervision of named defendants, the plaintiff is seeking a long list of reliefs.
These include: A declaratory judgment that his civil and constitutional rights were violated by the defendants, back and front pay, compensatory and punitive damages, attorney’s fees and costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, a permanent injunction preventing the covering-up of the events in question or further retaliation, anti-discrimination training programs for Caucus employees, the expunging of any negative information from his employment record, such other relief as is equitable and just in addition to a trial by jury.
The plaintiff is represented by Mark D. Schwartz in Bryn Mawr.
The defendants are represented by Adam Lawrence Santucci and Micah T. Saul of McNees Wallace & Nurick, in Harrisburg and Lancaster.
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania case 1:18-cv-02178
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com