PHILADELPHIA – A local firefighter who alleged his wearing cuffed pants above the ankle and facial hair to observe his Islamic faith led to religious discrimination from his superiors and his unjust firing in 2019, has settled his claims with the City of Philadelphia.
Malcolm Lindsay of Philadelphia first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Jan. 27 versus The City.
“Plaintiff Lindsay, a Muslim male, was employed by the defendant from on or about Feb. 19, 2019 until on or about April 3, 2019, the date of his unlawful termination. During the course of his employment with the defendant, plaintiff Lindsay held the position of Firefighter Cadet and at all times maintained a satisfactory job performance rating in said capacity,” the suit stated.
“On or about Feb. 19, 2019, plaintiff Lindsay reported to the defendant’s workplace for his first day of work wearing cuffed pants above the ankle and had facial hair, in observance of his religion (Islam). On the same day, Hector Sierra, Fire Captain, informed plaintiff Lindsay that his pants and facial hair were in violation of the defendant’s dress code and grooming policy. Plaintiff Lindsay informed Sierra that he required a religious accommodation and was told to speak with Michael Roelinghoff, Fire Lieutenant and Robert Jeter, Fire Captain.”
Despite informing Jeter and Roelinghoff of his religious observances and that wearing pants below the ankle and shaving his face would be in direct conflict with his religious beliefs, Lindsay said that Jeter denied his request for a religious accommodation and demanded he remove his facial hair and comply with the fire academy’s dress code, or face the termination of his employment.
Despite Lindsay passing the OSHA Fit Test, which certified that his face mask was able to create an appropriate seal even with his facial hair, Lindsay said he was subjected to several instances of superiors questioning the legitimacy of his need to maintain his facial hair for religious reasons.
“On the same date, in retaliation for plaintiff Lindsay’s numerous requests for a religious accommodation, the defendant terminated plaintiff Lindsay’s employment, falsely claiming that compliance with the grooming policy was necessary to ‘maintain compliance with OSHA safety standards regarding the seal of the self-contained breathing apparatus.’ Telling of the defendant’s discriminatory intent, it completely disregarded the fact that plaintiff Lindsay had passed the OSHA Fit Test,” per the suit.
“On or about April 3, 2019, plaintiff Lindsay received a termination letter that included additional alleged compliance issues. Interestingly, these ‘issues’ were never addressed to plaintiff Lindsay while employed with the defendant and he had never received a write-up or any disciplinary warnings for same. Upon information and belief, other similarly situated non-Muslim Firefighter Cadets such as Alonzo Thompson were not reprimanded for participating in the same activity as alleged in the termination letter.”
An attorney for the City filed an answer to the complaint on May 3, admitting that Lindsay was previously employed as a firefighter cadet from Feb. 19, 2019 to April 3, 2019 and that supervisors discussed grooming and attire policies with Lindsay, but denying the remainder of the claims contained in his lawsuit.
The City also asserted five separate affirmative defenses to bolster its case against the plaintiff.
“Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Answering defendant asserts all of the defenses, immunities, and limitations of damages available to it under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act and aver that plaintiff’s remedies are limited exclusively thereto. Plaintiff’s claim may be barred because plaintiff failed to exhaust the applicable administrative remedies,” the answer stated, in part.
“Answering defendant has in place a strong policy against discrimination and defendant otherwise exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any discrimination to which plaintiff claims he/she was subjected, and plaintiff unreasonably failed to take advantage of the preventive or corrective opportunities provided by defendant or to avoid harm otherwise. Plaintiff’s claims may be barred in whole or in part by the applicable statute of limitations and/or the doctrine of laches.”
UPDATE
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Timothy J. Savage decreed on Nov. 29 that due to a settlement in the case being reached, the litigation was dismissed. Terms of the settlement were not disclosed.
“The issues between the parties having been resolved, it is ordered that this action is dismissed with prejudice, without costs, pursuant to the agreement of counsel and Local Rule 41.1(b),” Savage said.
The plaintiff was represented by Sidney L. Gold and Neelima Vanguri of Sidney L. Gold & Associates, in Philadelphia.
The defendant was represented by Deputy City Solicitor Frank E. Wehr II, of the City of Philadelphia’s Law Department.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:21-cv-00361
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com