PITTSBURGH – The former deputy superintendent of the Pittsburgh school system has settled his lawsuit against the district, which charged it with retaliation for firing him, allegedly for supporting a colleague’s separate discrimination suit.
Anthony Anderson first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Aug. 28, 2020 versus Pittsburgh Public Schools, of Pittsburgh.
Anderson, who is African-American, was employed by the district from October 2016 to October 2019, last holding the position of deputy superintendent. Over the course of his three-year employment, Anderson fulfilled additional duties such as chief academic officer and chief of school performance, the suit said.
“From in or about February of 2017 until the plaintiff’s unlawful termination, plaintiff was the direct supervisor of chief executive secretary, Kristen Frankovich. In or about March of 2019, Frankovich filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against the defendant alleging discrimination based on her race, Caucasian. This charge was cross-filed with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission,” the suit stated.
“Plaintiff fully supported Frankovich in the filing of her charge of discrimination, as described hereinbefore above, and encouraged her to engage in this protected activity. Furthermore, plaintiff informed various members of the defendant’s leadership of his encouragement of and/or support for Frankovich.”
Anderson added he was informed by the district’s communication director, Mercedes Williams, that he should “be careful” because the defendant was “looking into” Frankovich.
“On or about June 19, 2019, defendant determined, through its Board, that the plaintiff’s employment contract would not be renewed after its completion in October of 2019,” per the suit.
“Plaintiff believes, and therefore avers, that his employment contract was not renewed in retaliation for his encouragement of and/or support for Frankovich’s protected activity of filing a charge of discrimination with the EEOC and PHRC. Sometime thereafter, plaintiff requested to be compensated for the additional job duties that he performed during the course of his employment with the defendant.”
Anderson said he did not receive $59,500 in compensation for his services as chief academic officer and chief of school performance, from June 2017 to July 2018 and from March 2019 to July 2019, respectively.
Pittsburgh Public School filed an answer to Anderson’s complaint on Nov. 16, broadly denying his claims, alleging that he failed to state a case upon which relief could be granted and putting forward six affirmative defenses.
“Plaintiff has failed to set forth and is unable to establish a prima facie case of retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act as he was not subjected to any materially adverse employment action(s) because of protected activity. Defendant’s decisions and actions were based upon legitimate and non-retaliatory reasons, and cannot be shown to be pre-textual or caused by protected activity,” the answer stated.
“Plaintiff is not entitled to, and may not recover, any of the relief sought in the amended complaint. Plaintiff has failed to mitigate or reasonably attempt to mitigate his damages, if any, as required by law. Plaintiff’s claims are governed, limited and/or barred by the applicable provisions of Pennsylvania’s Public School Code. Plaintiff’s claims are limited and/or barred by the applicable statute of limitations period.”
The Pittsburgh School District filed a motion for summary judgment and accompanying brief on July 16, supporting its previous argument that Anderson failed to make a prima facie case.
“Anderson fails to produce evidence that the School Board knew of his protected activity when it voted on June 19, 2019…Anderson can offer only speculation and conjecture but not evidence from which a jury could reasonably infer that the Board members had knowledge of his protected activity when they decided not to renew his contract. Accordingly, Anderson is unable to establish the third element [of retaliation under Title VII], as there is no evidence to substantiate a causal connection,” the motion stated.
“And while different types of evidence may ordinarily be used to establish the causal connection, ‘evidence’ is not probative of retaliation where the Board lacked knowledge of Anderson’s protected activity. For instance, Anderson expressed a belief that his issues with the Board worsened after Frankovich’s complaint was filed. His speculation about (or perception of) antagonistic or retaliatory actions, however, are unavailing without evidence that they even knew he had engaged in protected activity.”
The District further argued that Anderson had “needed five Board members to support the renewal of his contract, but only one member voted against the Resolution to seek other candidates.”
“As such, there must be evidence from which it may be inferred that five Board members voted against his renewal for retaliatory reasons to establish the causal link between protected activity and the Board’s decision. The record precludes a viable causation argument because there is no evidence of knowledge on the part of the Board, let alone facts to reasonably suggest that Board members voted as they did for retaliatory reasons,” the motion said.
“In this case, multiple Board members have provided reasons for their vote. These reasons included Anderson’s disrespectful approach with the Board, complaints about his treatment of personnel, the lack of a meaningful justification from the Superintendent for Anderson’s retention, and his handling of the U Prep plan that they also rejected on June 19, 2019. There is no evidence to undermine the legitimacy of these considerations.”
UPDATE
Plaintiff counsel filed a stipulation dismissal on Aug. 27, indicating that the case had likely been settled. Terms of any potential settlement, if applicable, were not revealed.
“The parties to this action by and through their undersigned counsel of record hereby stipulate to the dismissal of this action with prejudice with each party to bear its own costs,” the stipulation read.
The same day, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania Judge William S. Stickman IV ordered the case dismissed with prejudice.
Prior to settlement and for counts of retaliation and violating the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law, the plaintiff was seeking various reliefs, including:
• That the Court enter a judgment declaring the actions of the defendant to be unlawful and violative of Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1991;
• That, in addition to the damages described hereinbefore above, the Court award the plaintiff compensatory and punitive damages as a result of the defendant’s violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1991;
• Reinstatement to his position, plus reinstatement of salary, lost benefits, and other benefits.
The plaintiff was represented by Joel S. Sansone, Elizabeth Tuttle and Massimo A. Terzigni of the Law Offices of Joel S. Sansone, in Pittsburgh.
The defendant was represented by Brian P. Gabriel of Campbell Durrant and Ira Weiss of Weiss Burkardt Kramer, both also in Pittsburgh.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:20-cv-01278
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com