ALLENTOWN – The Easton Area School District is seeking to dismiss various counts from a lawsuit filed by an ex-varsity high school wrestling coach who alleged he faced discriminatory and racist conduct, including being fired, because he is Black.
Jamarr Billman of Allentown first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on June 10 versus Easton Area School District, of Easton.
Billman worked as a wrestling coach for EASD’s junior varsity wrestling team for the 2006-2007, 2007-2008, and 2008-2009 school years. In June 2016, Billman was hired by defendant EASD as its head wrestling coach to coach its varsity wrestling team.
“Soon after Coach Billman was hired and repeatedly throughout Coach Billman’s employment, defendant EASD’s Athletic Director, James Pokrivsak, Jr., proudly identified himself as racist, and made a mockery of it. Also, defendant EASD’s Assistant Football Coach, Joe McIntyre, who is white and the parent of an EASD wrestler, cornered Billman and told him that he has no respect for him,” the suit stated.
Though Billman reported his concerns of Coach McIntyre’s harassment towards him to members of defendant EASD’s Administration, it failed to investigate his reports, the lawsuit claimed.
Billman said he was also provided much less money for his athletic program budget than other coaches who are white, was paid less than his fellow coaches who are white, and was also threatened with bodily harm and labeled the n-word by the irate grandfather of a white wrestler who was disqualified from participating in a wrestling tournament.
“On March 16, 2018, two days after Billman received a notice of termination, one of defendant EASD’s Assistant Superintendents, Alyssa Emili, who is now also serving as the Director of Human Resources, attended a ‘Fire Billman Party,’ together with the wrestler who did not make weight, the wrestler’s grandfather who had choked Coach Billman and called him a ‘n—r’, and his father,” the suit alleged.
However, Billman was not terminated at that time. But, he alleged that he continued to have parents of certain white wrestlers complain and threaten him, and because of his being black, received no protection or assistance from the district in the process.
He also accused the district of pressuring his supervisor Elaine Arnts, the Assistant Athletic Director, to change her original positive assessment and evaluation of Billman into a negative one to satisfy district officials.
After receiving a highly unfavorable performance review in May, counsel for Billman reached out to counsel for the district to see if they would resolve the plaintiff’s claims before going to court.
Subsequently, the district fired Billman, which he claimed is retaliation for notifying it of his intention to file a lawsuit.
UPDATE
The district filed a motion to dismiss certain counts from Billman’s suit on Aug. 10. First, the district said individuals cannot bring a Section 1981 cause of action against their government employers.
“Section 1983 is the exclusive remedy for rights created under Section 1981. The Third Circuit has held that ‘Congress, in promulgating Section 1983 over a century ago, established that section as the exclusive remedy for violations of Section 1981 by state actors. Nothing in its subsequent history, including amendments to the 1991 Act, changed that remedial scheme,” according to counsel for the district.
“Eight circuits (the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Tenth and Eleventh) agree that, under the existing statutory framework and Supreme Court jurisprudence, individuals cannot bring Section 1981 suits against their government employers.”
The district also seeks to dismiss Billman’s demand for punitive damages.
“Billman’s claims for punitive damages under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, and 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 must be dismissed or stricken. Punitive damages are unavailable against municipalities under Title VII and Section 1981. They are also unavailable under the PHRA. Public school districts are considered municipal entities within the rule that punitive damages are not recoverable against municipalities or municipal subdivisions under federal law,” the motion states.
Finally, the district claimed that Billman’s allegations relating to alleged discriminatory acts under the PHRA and Title VII are time-barred, since they occurred more than 300 days before Billman dual-filed a charge of discrimination.
“The PHRA requires that any administrative complaint be filed within 180 days of the alleged act of discrimination. Under Title VII, the relevant term is 300 days. Therefore, any events occurring prior to Nov. 1, 2018, are barred from consideration under the Title VII claim, and any events occurring prior to Feb. 28, 2019, may not be considered under the PHRA claim. Any acts that occurred prior to those respective dates are barred from consideration,” according to the motion.
“The complaint states that ‘Billman dual-filed a Charge of Discrimination, No. 530-2019-05703, with the United States Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (EEOC) and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission. Yet, Billman makes numerous assertions relating to alleged conduct engaged in by EASD and its personnel that occurred more than 180 days and more than 300 days before Aug. 28, 2019.”
The district said that Billman’s references to alleged discriminatory conduct were alleged to have taken place between March 2018 and October 2018.
“In calculating whether judicial remedies for these acts are precluded, 180 days before Aug. 28, 2019, is March 1, 2019. And 300 days before Aug. 28, 2019 is Nov. 1, 2018. Therefore, said alleged conduct cannot support either a PHRA claim or Title VII claim, as the challenged conduct is barred by Title VII’s and the PHRA’s limitation periods,” per the motion.
For counts of race-based discrimination, harassment and retaliation under Title VII and the PHRA, plus another federal civil rights violation, the plaintiff is seeking back pay, front pay, punitive damages, compensatory damages, attorney fees and any other relief the Court deems proper, plus a trial by jury.
The plaintiff is represented by John S. Harrison and Erika A. Farkas of Broughal & DeVito, in Bethlehem.
The defendant is represented by John E. Freund III of King Spry Herman Freund & Faul, also in Bethlehem, and Sharon M. O’Donnell of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, in Camp Hill.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 5:20-cv-02730
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com