PITTSBURGH – The former deputy superintendent of the Pittsburgh school system has filed suit against the district, charging it with retaliation for firing him, allegedly for supporting a colleague’s separate discrimination suit.
Anthony Anderson filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Aug. 28 versus Pittsburgh Public Schools, of Pittsburgh.
Anderson, who is African-American, was employed by the district from October 2016 to October 2019, last holding the position of deputy superintendent. Over the course of his three-year employment, Anderson fulfilled additional duties such as chief academic officer and chief of school performance, the suit says.
“From in or about February of 2017 until the plaintiff’s unlawful termination, plaintiff was the direct supervisor of chief executive secretary, Kristen Frankovich. In or about March of 2019, Frankovich filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against the defendant alleging discrimination based on her race, Caucasian. This charge was cross-filed with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission,” the suit states.
“Plaintiff fully supported Frankovich in the filing of her charge of discrimination, as described hereinbefore above, and encouraged her to engage in this protected activity. Furthermore, plaintiff informed various members of the defendant’s leadership of his encouragement of and/or support for Frankovich.”
Anderson adds he was informed by the district’s communication director, Mercedes Williams, that he should “be careful” because the defendant was “looking into” Frankovich.
“On or about June 19, 2019, defendant determined, through its Board, that the plaintiff’s employment contract would not be renewed after its completion in October of 2019,” per the suit.
“Plaintiff believes, and therefore avers, that his employment contract was not renewed in retaliation for his encouragement of and/or support for Frankovich’s protected activity of filing a charge of discrimination with the EEOC and PHRC. Sometime thereafter, plaintiff requested to be compensated for the additional job duties that he performed during the course of his employment with the defendant.”
Anderson requested to be compensated $59,500 for his services as chief academic officer and chief of school performance, from June 2017 to July 2018 and from March 201 to July 2019, respectively.
“Defendant refused to compensate the plaintiff for the additional work that he had completed, despite having compensated other administrators for performing supplementary job duties,” according to the suit.
“Plaintiff believes, and therefore avers, that the defendant refused to compensate the plaintiff for work he had completed in retaliation for his encouragement of and/or support for Frankovich’s protected activity of filing a charge of discrimination with the EEOC and PHRC. As a direct and proximate result of the defendant’s actions, plaintiff has been adversely affected, both financially and professionally.”
For counts of retaliation and violating the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law, the plaintiff is seeking a long list of reliefs, including:
• That the Court enter a judgment declaring the actions of the defendant to be unlawful and violative of Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1991;
• That, in addition to the damages described hereinbefore above, the Court award the plaintiff compensatory and punitive damages as a result of the defendant’s violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1991;
• That the Court order the defendant to reinstate the plaintiff to the position that he held prior to his unlawful termination and increase the plaintiff’s salary to the level to which he would be entitled but for the retaliation described above, together with the accumulated seniority, fringe benefits, position and all other rights associated with that position; or, in the alternative, that the Court order the defendant to pay the plaintiff front pay equivalent to his lost salary, salary raises, fringe benefits and all other rights to which he would have been entitled but for the defendant’s retaliatory conduct;
• That the Court award the plaintiff compensation for any and all lost salary, wages and benefits, pre- and post-judgment interest on any award given to the plaintiff, that the Court award the plaintiff reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of this action, that the Court grant the plaintiff such additional relief as may be just and proper, plus a trial by jury.
The plaintiff is represented by Joel S. Sansone of the Law Offices of Joel S. Sansone, in Pittsburgh.
The defendant has not yet secured legal counsel.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:20-cv-01278
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com