Quantcast

PENNSYLVANIA RECORD

Friday, May 3, 2024

American Airlines update: Company wants to dismiss several counts from clerk's race discrimination lawsuit

Federal Court
Americanairlines

American Airlines

PHILADELPHIA – American Airlines is seeking to dismiss claims from a lawsuit brought by a Philadelphia International Airport stock clerk, who alleged the company and some of its personnel helped to create a “discriminatory, hostile and bigoted environment” towards African-American employees.

Debra Congo of Philadelphia first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on May 18, versus American Airlines Group, Inc. of Fort Worth, Texas, AAG, Inc. supervisors Richard Morgan, Brandon Buchanan and Robert Nagy, all of Philadelphia, plus John Does 1-10.

(Nagy was later dismissed from the action on Aug. 26.)

Congo said she worked as a stock clerk on a probationary basis for US Airways in 2010 and for the defendant American Airlines in 2014 and 2017. Each time, she was laid off just prior to the end of her 90-day probationary period.

In July 2017, Congo claimed she heard manager defendants Morgan and Buchanan make racist and discriminatory comments, including but not limited to, “n——s are dummies.” Furthermore, the plaintiff alleges she overheard Buchanan tell Morgan, in reference to her, “I do not want this black monkey moving past her 90 days.”

Traditionally, probationary stock clerks are instructed in all duties of the job and moved to different positions in order to allow for that training. However, Congo said she was intentionally set up to fail by not being provided that same instruction and was also suspended without pay for two days, for failure to provide a medical form that she had not been told was required by the Human Resources department.

“On or around Sept. 9, 2017, plaintiff was again let go by defendants prior to the end of her probationary period. Upon information and belief, plaintiff was replaced by Wayne Lee, a younger Caucasian male and a cousin of Mr. Buchanan. Each of the three times the plaintiff returned to work for the defendant, she had to quit the job she was working at the time and each time, her salary was allegedly decreased by the defendant,” the suit stated.

“After plaintiff was let go in 2017, she placed a bid for a utility and stock clerk position in the Charlotte, North Carolina office of defendant but did not receive the position due to seniority. Upon information and belief, plaintiff has not been hired for any open positions with defendant American Airlines due to Mr. Buchanan’s influence.”

Congo added she has constantly bid on open positions with defendant since she was let go in September 2017, but has not been hired for any of them to date. She believes the actual reason she was not hired for the open positions is due to the defendants’ pattern and intent to “discriminate against, discipline, discourage and terminate plaintiff due to her age and race.”

UPDATE

On Sept. 9, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s retaliation counts in their entirety for failure to state a claim – and that Congo’s disparate treatment and hostile work environment claims against Morgan should be dismissed, because the complaint does not allege that he personally discriminated against Congo.

“Congo’s complaint is ambiguous about the nature of her retaliation claim and it is not clear if she purports to allege that her termination was retaliatory or that American Airlines’ failure to hire her into positions she sought after her 2017 termination was retaliatory, or both,” per the dismissal motion.

“Indeed, the lone allegation in her complaint concerning retaliation can be found in the body of Count I, where she alleges, in total, ‘Defendants evidenced a settled intent to discriminate against and wrongfully target plaintiff on the basis of race, including by retaliating against plaintiff for making complaints about racist conduct.’ Regardless of the intended scope of Congo’s retaliation claim, this single, conclusory sentence fails to state a claim.”

Moreover, the motion looks to dismiss claims of disparate treatment and hostile work environment against Morgan, specifically.

“Congo’s complaint does not allege that Morgan was personally involved in any allegedly discriminatory conduct toward Congo. At most, Congo alleges that she overhead Morgan make a racist comment that was not directed to or about her. Congo’s allegation about Morgan’s comment is insufficient to state a Section 1981 hostile work environment claim against him. Thus, Congo has not stated a Section 1981 hostile work environment claim against Morgan,” the motion read.

“Congo has not stated a disparate treatment claim against Morgan either. Although Congo alleges that Morgan falsely accused her of losing an aircraft part, she does not make any allegations that Morgan individually participated in the decision to terminate her employment. To the contrary, she alleges that Buchanan, not Morgan, was her ‘attending supervisor’ and set Congo up to fail by not training her properly.”

The defendants said Congo does not allege that Morgan supervised her employment, was involved in her training or the decision to terminate her employment.

“These allegations do not state a Section 1981 disparate treatment claim against Morgan. Accordingly, Congo’s hostile work environment and disparate treatment claims against Morgan should be dismissed,” according to the motion.

For counts of race-based discrimination and hostile work environment, civil rights conspiracy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, the plaintiff is seeking damages, individually, jointly and/or severally, in an amount in excess of $75,000, statutory, punitive, and compensatory damages, injunctive relief, front, back and lost pay, compensatory damages for future pecuniary loss, together with interests and costs and other such and further relief as this Honorable Court deems necessary and just, including attorney’s fees and costs. A trial by jury is also requested.

The plaintiff is represented by Brian R. Mildenberg of Mildenberg Law Firm in Philadelphia, Matthew B. Weisberg and David A. Berlin of Weisberg Law in Morton, plus Gary Schafkopf of Hopkins Schafkopf, in Bala Cynwyd.

The defendants are represented by Christina Mae Michael of Fisher & Phillips, in Philadelphia.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:20-cv-02322

From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com

More News