MEDIA – Two Black female instructors at a school for children with autism spectrum disorders who have alleged that they were the targets of racially-discriminatory behavior from their co-workers, deny any credibility to the defendants’ objections.
Sade Brown of Chester and Tanea Green of Philadelphia first filed suit in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas on Aug. 10 versus Milagre Kids School, Inc. and Tricia Cuce of Hatboro and Crystal Wenzel of Folsom.
Milagre is a school offering educational services to children and young adults with autistic spectrum disorders and operates two campuses, one in Lansdale and the other in Swarthmore.
The suit said that defendants Cuce and Wenzel are Caucasian women, while the plaintiffs are Black women.
Milagre hired plaintiff Brown as an instructor on or about June 24, 2019, at its Swarthmore campus. Brown was said to be qualified for her position and performed all of her job duties to defendants’ satisfaction and without any complaint or issue.
The plaintiffs said they were the target of various demeaning incidents, including:
• Zoe Stinger and Katie O’Brien, co-employees of plaintiff and who are Caucasian, having a conversation about the Confederate Flag and how it does not represent discrimination against any races;
• Defendant Cuce and staff using "you people" to refer to those of African descent; and
• Stinger saying to plaintiff that there was no need to acknowledge Black history because slavery was a choice and no one was forced to be a part of it, that she does not understand why it was Black History Month and why people celebrate it, and while a student was eating chicken, Stinger referred to the chicken as ‘bony African feet.”
Brown resigned on Jan. 29, 2020, citing the alleged discriminatory environment.
Green lodged similar charges in the lawsuit.
“Defendant Milagre hired plaintiff Green as a One to One Instructor on or about June 25, 2018 at its Swarthmore campus. Plaintiff Green was qualified for her position and performed all of her job duties to defendants’ satisfaction and without any complaint or issue. Jennifer Gindel, Caucasian, was a co-employee of plaintiff Green,” the suit said.
“Because of plaintiff Green’s race, Gindel belittled and embarrassed plaintiff Green in front of staff, approached her aggressively, and touched her personal items. On or about Sept. 7, 2018, plaintiff Green emailed defendant Wenzel about Gindel’s behavior towards her. Gindel’s continued to bully and harass plaintiff Green despite her complaints, and no actions were taken to remedy or prevent Gindel’s conduct.”
On Dec. 9, 2019, plaintiff Green and Gindel were working with a student, and Gindel became impatient and rough with the student causing plaintiff Green to feel uncomfortable.
“On Dec. 10, 2019, plaintiff Green complained to defendant Wenzel about Gindel’s conduct with the student and that she left children unattended in a room, purposely messed up the schedule, and tried to provoke another one of plaintiff Green’s students. She further explained that she felt as though Gindel was never addressed regarding any of her complaints. Defendant Wenzel responded, ‘I’m going to look out for my own kind and have Jennifer’s back, because Jennifer has mine,’ or words to that effect,” the suit stated.
“Plaintiff Green told defendant Wenzel, ‘That was very racist of you to say!’ Defendant Wenzel then slammed her hand on her desk and yelled to plaintiff, ‘Ms. Green, you’re fired – get your things and get out!’ or words to that effect. Defendants knew or should have known of the discriminatory environment and took no measures to remedy or prevent it.”
The defendants filed preliminary objections to the lawsuit on Sept. 3, seeking the dismissal of all claims raised by plaintiff Brown and all hostile work environment claims raised by plaintiff Green.
“Count I of plaintiff’s complaint alleges a claim for hostile work environment under the PHRA on behalf of plaintiff Brown. However, as plaintiff Brown has failed to plead facts sufficient to suggest that defendants engaged in any severe or pervasive conduct and because plaintiff Brown has not pled facts sufficient to show respondeat superior liability, this claim fails as a matter of law,” the objections stated.
“In this case, the allegations asserted by plaintiff Brown fall into two categories, those that allegedly made by Ms. Cuce and those allegedly made by other, non-supervisory employees. To the extent that plaintiff Brown complains about comments allegedly made by Ms. Stinger and Ms. O’Brien, she cannot establish the requisite respondeat superior to sustain a claim under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.”
Per the defendants, in evaluating claims for a hostile work environment, the U.S. Supreme Court requires that an employee show both a subjective and objective harm in order to state a claim. The comments attributed to Ms. Cuce, which include at least one statement that could be seen as complimentary, the defendants said, are “innocuous in their nature and cannot possibly sustain a claim for an objectively hostile work environment based on race.”
The objections further argued:
• That Brown’s claim for constructive termination be dismissed due to Brown admitting that she never told Milagre Kids School about the alleged harassment by co-workers, and thus, cannot show that defendants knowingly permitted any intolerable conditions to persist;
• That Brown’s claim for aiding and abetting against Ms. Cuce be dismissed, because it fails to allege that she engaged in severe or pervasive race-based harassment of plaintiff Brown and because the complaint falls to set forth a claim that Ms. Cuce was aware of any such harassment by others; and
• That plaintiff Green’s claim for hostile work environment be dismissed because the alleged complaint made by plaintiff Green did not include any claim that the harassment was motivated by her race, in addition to other objections.
UPDATE
On Sept. 23, the plaintiff responded to the defendants’ preliminary objections, denying them as nothing more than conclusions of law to which no official response is required.
“Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Honorable Court deny defendants’ preliminary objections and order defendants to answer plaintiffs’ complaint. In the alternative, plaintiffs respectfully request that this Honorable Court grant plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint,” the reply brief stated.
For multiple counts of unlawful harassment/hostile work environment based on race, constructive discharge, aiding and abetting unlawful harassment/hostile work environment based on race and unlawful retaliation in violation of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, the plaintiffs are seeking compensatory damages for restitution, expectation damages, consequential damages, back pay and lost benefits, lost future wages, lost earning capacity, economic loss, pain and suffering, emotional distress, interest on the amount of the claims from the date the claim was made by plaintiffs in an amount equal to the prime rate of interest plus three percent, attorney’s fees, costs of suit and any other further relief this Court deems just proper and equitable.
The plaintiffs are represented by Yvette C. Cave of the Law Offices of Eric A. Shore, in Media.
The defendants are represented by Rufus A. Jennings of Deasey Mahoney & Valentini, in Philadelphia.
Delaware County Court of Common Pleas case CV-2021-006850
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com