PHILADELPHIA – A judge has dismissed without prejudice a claim for alleged violation of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act in a case brought by an ex-constituent services worker for state Sen. Anthony Williams, who claimed she was fired before Christmas in 2018 after contracting breast cancer.
Plaintiff Rondabay Liggins-McCoy, whose LinkedIn page listed her as “Director of Constituent Services at Senate of PA,” filed her discrimination suit on April 16, 2019 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Williams and the Democratic Caucus of the Senate.
Liggins-McCoy, who sued Williams in his individual capacity only, is claiming violations of the Rehabilitation Act and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).
Liggins-McCoy started working as a constituent services representative for Williams in 2008, working in his main legislative district office in southwest Philadelphia, according to the background portion of her eight-page lawsuit. She was later transferred to the senator’s district office in Yeadon, serving there as constituent services director.
Liggins-McCoy was diagnosed with breast cancer in early 2017 and over the course of her treatments, began having problems at work and sometimes could not come in to work at all, court filings said.
“The medications caused significant side effects such as joint/leg/muscle cramps, pain and inflammation. There were also physical limitations caused by the surgery. These conditions required physical therapy sessions which (Liggins-McCoy) generally scheduled after work,” Liggins-McCoy said in her lawsuit.
Meanwhile, unless the senator’s management team was able to “dispatch assistance,” the Yeadon office would experience “short period of times during certain days when there was no coverage,” the lawsuit said.
The senator “took exception when this happened” and “made comments reflecting his displeasure” when Liggins-McCoy was out for treatment for her cancer, the lawsuit said.
When Liggins-McCoy was hospitalized in November, “Senator Williams asked if it was for the same issue,” the lawsuit said. “She told him it was.”
Early the following month, a few weeks before Christmas in 2018, Liggins-McCoy was informed during a meeting with Williams’ chief of staff and Democratic Caucus human resources that “her job was being eliminated, and that they were reorganizing the office,” the lawsuit said.
Her most recent FMLA request had been approved by “a different legislative management office” the day before she was fired, the lawsuit said.
“The same chief of staff – who had assumed his role just weeks earlier – had made a comment regarding the age of the senator’s staff, and about getting younger,” the lawsuit said. “He himself had replaced an employee who was approximately 64 years of age.”
At the time of filing, Williams was 62 years of age while Liggins-McCoy was 60, court filings said.
The lawsuit said Liggins-McCoy’s job duties were not eliminated but were instead “absorbed” by another employee “approximately one-half” her age.
Williams, who has represented the 8th District in the state Senate since 1998 and had a past unsuccessful run for Philadelphia mayor, said in a past email statement to the Pennsylvania Record, “I have a long history of fairness, transparency and inclusion in my workplace.”
In an amended version of her complaint filed March 6, 2020, Liggins-McCoy attached an additional age discrimination claim for violation of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act against Williams – while counsel for Williams responded that it failed to pass muster in a motion to dismiss filed March 20, 2020.
“First, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Count Three (1) because plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies before the PHRC, and, alternatively, (2) because Senator Williams is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity [from state law claims],” the dismissal motion read.
“Second, Count Three fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted (1) because plaintiff merely alleges that Senator Williams is liable for aiding and abetting age discrimination without alleging a cognizable predicate offense, and, alternatively, (2) because the amended complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to plausibly establish that Senator Williams aided and abetted discrimination on the basis of plaintiff’s age.”
On April 3, 2020, counsel for Liggins-McCoy countered that her age discrimination claim was properly pled and pursued.
UPDATE
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Petrese B. Tucker ordered the PHRA case dismissed without prejudice on July 1 – ruling that while the age discrimination claim was made after the appropriate exhaustion of administrative remedies, it needs to be pled with more specificity as to defendant Williams.
“Plaintiff has alleged facts that satisfy an underlying prima facie age discrimination claim. Plaintiff in her complaint pled that she was (1) over 40 (59) at the time the adverse employment was taken; (2) that an adverse employment action was taken (she was fired); (3) that she was qualified for her position (her performance and qualifications had not been called into question); and (4) that she was replaced with someone young enough to support an inference of discriminatory animus (she was replaced with an employee half her age),” Tucker said.
“However, the problem is that plaintiff has not done enough to allege that Senator Williams, specifically was involved with or aware of the acts of age discrimination. Plaintiff only states that, ‘As plaintiff’s ultimate supervisor, Senator Williams aided and abetted the decision to discharge from her employment on account of her age.’ This does not meet the standard of 955(e) liability.”
Under that standard, a plaintiff needs to allege that a supervisor “knew or should have known that the plaintiff was being subjected to harassment but repeatedly refused to take action to end the harassment.”
“However, plaintiff does have the opportunity to amend her complaint to address this shortcoming. A District Court is obligated to permit a curative amendment ‘unless an amendment would be inequitable or futile.’ Plaintiff in her response to this motion to dismiss has stated that a subsequent amended complaint would detail Williams’ authority over his staff, the exercise of that authority over plaintiff, and include emails detailing awareness and approval of the ‘job elimination’ plan. These new elements, if appropriately pled, would satisfy an age discrimination claim with regards to Senator Williams,” Tucker stated.
But, Tucker further found that Liggins-McCoy had both not failed to exhaust administrative remedies, and that no Eleventh Amendment immunity existed for claims against individuals.
“Plaintiff has exhausted her administrative remedies on the PHRA claim, starting with the proper filing of a charge with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (PHRC). While defendant contends that problems with the handling of the claim by the PHRC mean administrative remedies went unexhausted and this court lacks jurisdiction, these arguments ignore both plaintiff’s own actions to preserve her rights and well-established doctrines in the Third Circuit that allow for the curing of the issues defendant identifies,” Tucker ruled.
“Plaintiff’s age discrimination claim against Senator Williams is also not barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Defendant argues that the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution acts as a bar against liability for Senator Williams, as the PHRA only waives the Commonwealth’s immunity from suit in state, not federal court. However, Eleventh Amendment immunity does not apply under the PHRA to claims made against individual persons in their individual capacities, as opposed to Commonwealth agencies. As plaintiff has made a claim against an individual in their personal capacity under the PHRA, Eleventh Amendment immunity does not enter the picture.”
In her suit, Liggins-McCoy is seeking wages and compensation and other damages.
The plaintiff is represented by Marc E. Weinstein of the Weinstein Law Firm, in Fort Washington.
The defendants are represented by Joseph Wendell Fluehr and Michael J. Torchia of Semanoff Ormsby Greenberg & Torchia in Huntingdon Valley, and Elizabeth A. Malloy and Steven Daniel Millman of Cozen O’Connor, in Philadelphia.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:19-cv-01639
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com