PHILADELPHIA – A federal judge granted summary judgment to the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority against one of its former station directors, who alleged he was demoted in a retaliatory fashion 2020, in return for internal complaints he lodged with the group from 2017 to 2019.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Nitza I. Quiñones Alejandro granted a motion for summary judgment filed by SEPTA on Feb. 4, in a lawsuit brought against it by former employee Willie J. Abney.
Abney filed an employment discrimination complaint against his employer, SEPTA, in which he asserted claims of unlawful retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000(e) and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.
Abney started working for SEPTA in 1992 and was promoted to the position of Assistant Director of Station Operations in 2014 (classified as a Supervisory, Administrative or Management employee), and subject to SEPTA’s SAM Disciplinary and Appeal Policy.
As an Assistant Director, plaintiff directly or indirectly supervised approximately 400 maintenance custodians, station managers and cashiers.
Quiñones Alejandro then recounted seven occasions in which Abney either filed a complaint about perceived negative treatment he received while working at SEPTA, or cases in which his subordinates and other employees filed complaints about him.
These included, in part:
• Abney’s reporting in May 2017 of a Maintenance Custodian who allegedly violated the group’s uniform policy by wearing a headscarf and refused to remove it when requested to do so by Abney – the plaintiff was informed the custodian had a religious exemption to wear the scarf, and the plaintiff complained about alleged treatment he received in response to the situation from his own supervisor.
• A Cashier’s March 2018 submitting a complaint to SEPTA’s EEO Department regarding Abney, who allegedly confronted and “badgered” her regarding her uniform and taking breaks, despite the Cashier’s immediate supervisor having previously approved the breaks due to her pregnancy. An internal investigation found Abney did not violate policy, but noted increasing complaints being brought against him as a manager.
• Another Maintenance Custodian’s April 2018 reporting that plaintiff harassed her while she was taking a break, to catch her breath due to her asthma. Another investigation found the evidence did not violate any EEO policies, but noted that “the evidence reflects that [plaintiff] might have been more heavy-handed than might have been necessary…this Department has received several complaints regarding [plaintiff’s] interactions with employees.”
Abney also lodged his own complaints against the individuals investigating his reporting of these issues, before he filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in April 2019.
• A second Cashier’s reporting in August 2019 that the plaintiff committed harassment and intimidating behavior against her, when he asked her for her personal cell phone number, requested a picture for her contact on his phone and sent her inappropriate text messages, which Abney denied, but an investigation revealed a number of inappropriate text messages from him to the Cashier.
In February 2020, SEPTA Director of Station Operations Robert Toomer found Abney’s conduct inappropriate and recommended he be demoted.
Following several rounds of administrative appeal, SEPTA demoted Abney from his position as an Assistant Director to that of Dispatcher, resulting in a salary reduction of approximately $40,000 a year.
Before the demotion, the plaintiff had received no disciplinary action.
Abney they filed suit against SEPTA in September 2020.
“As noted, plaintiff asserts claims for retaliation under Title VII and the PHRA premised on his contention that his 2020 demotion was in retaliation for various complaints he voiced between May 2017 and April 2019. Defendant moves for summary judgment on the grounds that, plaintiff has failed to produce evidence sufficient to show that he engaged in the requisite protected conduct. This Court agrees with defendant,” Quiñones Alejandro stated.
Quiñones Alejandro termed the plaintiff’s interpretation of Title VII protections as “broad and nonsensical” – adding that though filing a complaint/charge of discrimination with the EEOC can constitute the requisite protected activity, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit found that filing a “facially invalid” complaint with the EEOC is not protected under the anti-retaliation provisions of Title VII.
The judge found that EEOC complaint as “facially invalid.”
“All of plaintiff’s purported complaints to management are complaints about how Plaintiff was treated when he was the subject of the discrimination charges lodged by other employees. Plaintiff was neither the complainant nor the alleged victim in any of these incidents. Rather, he was the alleged wrongdoer of the discriminatory conduct. Plaintiff has provided no legal basis under which such complaints by the alleged wrongdoer constituted protected conduct under Title VII. Indeed, recognizing such complaints as protected conduct would, in fact, turn the intended protections of Title VII on their heads,” Quiñones Alejandro said.
“Under plaintiff’s proffered expansion of Title VII’s protections, a person who was fired or demoted for engaging in discriminatory conduct could assert a viable retaliation claim under Title VII merely because he participated in the proceedings/investigations against him. This Court is unaware of any support for such a broad and nonsensical interpretation. Regardless, none of plaintiff’s alleged complaints contains explicit or implicit charges of discrimination under any of Title VII’s protected grounds. As such, plaintiff has not met his summary judgment burden with respect to the requisite protected activity. Accordingly, defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted as to all of plaintiff’s retaliation claims.”
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:20-cv-04435
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com