PHILADELPHIA – A federal judge has ruled that a longtime employee of the U.S. Postal Service who sued after being subjected to derogatory comments and physical assault when he tried to inspect the facility in his capacity as a union officer, has properly pled claims for a hostile work environment and unequal treatment based on race.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Gerald A. McHugh issued his ruling on Jan. 26, retaining plaintiff Nicholas A. Casselli’s claims lodged against the Postmaster General, Louis DeJoy.
Casselli alleged that Joseph Hinton, a member of management, used derogatory comments towards and physically assaulted him when he attempted to inspect the Lindbergh Postal Facility in Philadelphia, in his capacity as a representative of Local 89 of the American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO. Casselli also claimed that the Postal Service engaged in discrimination when it deactivated his entry badge for several months.
Plaintiff, who is white, has been employed at the Lindbergh Facility since March 30, 1985. Hinton, an African-American manager, purportedly called plaintiff an ‘old man,’ a ‘cracker’ and a ‘gangster’ in 2013.
Hinton also allegedly told plaintiff that he was a ‘bad black man’ who was going ‘to kick Casselli’s white a–s’, and chest-bumped him on another occasion in October 2014.
Casselli alleged he was subjected to disparate treatment and a hostile work environment, in violation of both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and the Postal Service sought to dismiss the case outright for failure to state a claim.
McHugh offered that Casselli’s union ties would be a likely reason for the dispute with Hinton.
“Plaintiff’s union activity would appear to be the most plausible motivation for Hinton’s alleged attack. Hinton notably did not use racially derogatory language during the altercation but instead took issue with the fact that plaintiff, a union official on leave from his usual duties, was present within the facility,” McHugh said.
“Another highly probable motive would be Hinton’s ire stemming from the fact that plaintiff had recently signed a letter naming Hinton as a perpetrator of harassment against bargaining unit members. The allegation that Hinton has a pattern of targeting bargaining unit employees, not just white employees, further suggests that Hinton was motivated by anti-union sentiment, not racial animus.”
McHugh explained the defendant’s decision to temporarily limit plaintiff’s ability to access the facility may have been connected to a desire to inhibit union solicitation activities, despite the right of access conferred by the collective bargaining agreement between the defendant and Local 89.
However, McHugh found that enough evidence had been presented to narrowly posit that Casselli’s race may have been a factor behind the treatment he received.
“Although it is a close question, I also find that plaintiff’s claim narrowly raises an inference of disparate treatment based on race, despite the possibility that plaintiff’s union activity supplies a non-racial explanation for the events,” McHugh stated.
“Hinton’s threat to ‘kick [Casselli’s] white a–s,’ his subsequent physical assault of Casselli, and his potential involvement in the decision to terminate Casselli’s access to the premises following the assault could raise the inference that defendant’s adverse employment action was motivated by racial considerations.”
McHugh concluded by denying the motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s Title VII hostile work environment and disparate treatment counts based on his race, but granted the dismissal of the other counts in the suit.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:20-cv-02456
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com