Quantcast

Philly airport clerk settles discrimination claims against American Airlines and her supervisors

PENNSYLVANIA RECORD

Sunday, December 22, 2024

Philly airport clerk settles discrimination claims against American Airlines and her supervisors

Federal Court
Garyfschafkopf

Schafkopf | Hopkins Schafkopf

PHILADELPHIA – A Philadelphia International Airport stock clerk who alleged American Airlines and some of its personnel helped to create a “discriminatory, hostile and bigoted environment” towards African-American employees has settled her claims with the defendants.

Debra Congo of Philadelphia first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on May 18, 2020 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, 2020.)

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.”

On Sept. 9, 2020, 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.”

Congo filed a motion to oppose the defendant’s partial motion to dismiss on Sept. 23, 2020.

First, counsel for Congo said she alleged specific counts against Morgan relating to a hostile work environment and events which led to her termination.

“Objectively, there was a pattern of antagonism against plaintiff by defendant Morgan, which created a hostile work environment that was severe and pervasive – and which caused plaintiff’s termination. Defendant Morgan now argues he is immune from liability because he is not plaintiff’s direct supervisor and because he did not make the decision to terminate plaintiff. Defendant Morgan ignores that his knowingly false statement about plaintiff was the direct cause of plaintiff’s termination,” the motion read, in part.

“Plaintiff further alleges that defendant Morgan has a supervisory level position and Mr. Morgan was personally involved in racist behavior about plaintiff and in plaintiff’s presence; Morgan is not a coworker – he is a supervisor. Defendant Morgan does not contest that he is a supervisor. It is axiomatic that no supervisor would condone racist behavior if they were aware of such behavior, which has no place in any workplace.”

Congo also opted to withdraw her retaliation claim.

UPDATE

After initial settlement negotiations did not resolve the matter, the case was referred for further negotiation before U.S. Magistrate Judge Henry S. Perkin in June. It was reported that the matter was resolved through settlement on July 13, with its terms not disclosed.

“It having been reported that the issues between the parties in the above action have been settled and upon order of the Court pursuant to the provisions of Rule 41.1(b) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure of this Court, it is ordered that the above action is dismissed with prejudice, pursuant to agreement of counsel without costs,” the settlement notice said.

“The Court intends to retain jurisdiction for 90 days from now, and any settlement agreement is approved and made a part of the record and this order for enforcement purposes only.”

The plaintiff was 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 were represented by Daniel E. Farrington and Christina Mae Michael of Fisher & Phillips, in Bethesda, Md. and 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