PHILADELPHIA – A federal judge has retained the majority of claims in a discrimination lawsuit brought by a longtime employee for Boeing, who alleges that her race and religion has unfairly prevented her from being chosen for promotions.
In a May 24 decision, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge J. Curtis Joyner partially granted a motion to dismiss a series of claims sounding in discrimination, from a lawsuit filed by plaintiff Vivian Martin against her employer, The Boeing Company.
“Martin avers that she has worked for Boeing since 1993, but because of her race (African-American) and/or religion (Muslim) she has not received a promotion since 2007 despite applying for at least five positions (Human Resource First-Line Manager (April 4, 2019), Global Diversity & Inclusion Manager (Sept. 22, 2019), First Line Fact Finding Manager (Dec. 10, 2019), Senior Corporate Investigator (February 4, 2020), and Ethics & Compliance Position (Feb. 18, 2020),” Joyner said.
“Plaintiff dual-filed a Charge of Discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission on March 24, 2020. On this administrative charge, Martin checked boxes indicating that she was experiencing discrimination based on race, sex, religion, age, retaliation, and that her claims were a ‘continuing action.”
As a result, she filed litigation against Boeing under three statutes, 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, for race discrimination, religious discrimination and retaliation – and for additional claims of hostile work environment and discriminatory failure to promote.
Boeing moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s failure to promote claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, Title VII and the PHRA; The plaintiff’s hostile work environment claims under Title VII and the PHRA, and the plaintiff’s retaliation claims under Title VII and the PHRA.
As to the claim of failure to promote, Joyner said Martin had put forth a plausible allegation and it would remain.
“Martin has alleged that she is a member of a protected class, stating that she is Black and Muslim, and that she applied and was qualified for the positions but that ‘despite her qualifications, Mrs. Martin did not receive so much as an interview for any of these jobs and was never promoted.’ She further states that ‘at least eight other people have been brought in’ at the higher level and that ‘none of them were Black,” Joyner said.
However, Joyner pointed out that the Title VII and the PHRA claims related to the HR First-Line Manager role violated the 300-day statute of limitations and would be dismissed.
“The Title VII and PHRA claims related to the ‘HR First-Line Manager’ position are time-barred. The claims related to the ‘HR FirstLine Manager’ position are, therefore, untimely under both Title VII and the PHRA. We dismiss the claims without prejudice to allow plaintiff the option of attempting to articulate a basis for tolling the time period in which she should have filed the charge,” Joyner said.
Joyner explained that Martin did not mention her application for “Global Diversity & Inclusion Manager” in her administrative charge and failed to exhaust her administrative remedies related to that position, so the claims connected to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act were dismissed without prejudice.
As to the hostile work environment claims, Joyner said they would remain and administrative remedies for those were not exhausted.
“Martin’s administrative charge did provide notice of a hostile work environment claim because such a claim was within the scope of the conduct described. Martin wrote in her charge that she lacked opportunities because she was ‘discriminated & retaliated against because of [her] religion, Muslim race, black and gender, female, as well as age,” Joyner stated.
“Martin’s charge alleged that she had been denied promotions and received unfair pay and she checked the box indicating that she was reporting a ‘continuing violation.’ Liberally construing her language and approaching it without the expectation of a legal description, the charge included sufficient information and detail of conduct reasonably amounting to a potential hostile work environment claim. We do not dismiss the claims.”
Joyner explained the retaliation claims would also stand.
“Plaintiff did not fail to exhaust her administrative remedies for her retaliation claims… plaintiff actually did mention retaliation twice in her short administrative charge, both checking the ‘retaliation’ box and saying that she was ‘discriminated & retaliated against,’ as well as listing the promotions she was denied. She also stated that had been ‘blackballed’ in her email to the EEOC,” Joyner said.
“By doing more than ‘merely checking off the box on the Charge form,’ Martin put defendant and the agency on notice of a retaliation claim. Martin explicitly said in her administrative charge that she had been retaliated against and so we do not dismiss the retaliation claims.”
Joyner ultimately ruled that the motion would only be partially granted.
“For the reasons we have discussed, defendant’s motion for partial dismissal of plaintiff’s claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is denied in part and granted in part.”
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:19-cv-01199
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com