PHILADELPHIA – Counsel for an ex-constituent services worker for state Sen. Anthony Williams who claims she was fired before Christmas in 2018 and after contracting breast cancer, has lodged objections to what they feel are defense counsel’s maneuvers to drag out the case.
Plaintiff Rondabay Liggins-McCoy, whose LinkedIn page listed her as “Director of Constituent Services at Senate of PA,” filed her discrimination suit on April 16, 2019 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Williams and the Democratic Caucus of the Senate.
Liggins-McCoy, who sued Williams in his individual capacity only, initially claimed violations of the Rehabilitation Act and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).
Liggins-McCoy started working as a constituent services representative for Williams in 2008, working in his main legislative district office in southwest Philadelphia, according to the background portion of her eight-page lawsuit. She was later transferred to the senator’s district office in Yeadon, serving there as constituent services director.
Liggins-McCoy was diagnosed with breast cancer in early 2017 and over the course of her treatments, began having problems at work and sometimes could not come in to work at all, court filings said.
“The medications caused significant side effects such as joint/leg/muscle cramps, pain and inflammation. There were also physical limitations caused by the surgery. These conditions required physical therapy sessions which (Liggins-McCoy) generally scheduled after work,” Liggins-McCoy said in her lawsuit.
Meanwhile, unless the senator’s management team was able to “dispatch assistance,” the Yeadon office would experience “short period of times during certain days when there was no coverage,” the lawsuit said.
The senator “took exception when this happened” and “made comments reflecting his displeasure” when Liggins-McCoy was out for treatment for her cancer, the lawsuit said.
When Liggins-McCoy was hospitalized in November, “Senator Williams asked if it was for the same issue,” the lawsuit said. “She told him it was.”
Early the following month, a few weeks before Christmas in 2018, Liggins-McCoy was informed during a meeting with Williams’ chief of staff and Democratic Caucus human resources that “her job was being eliminated, and that they were reorganizing the office,” the lawsuit said.
Her most recent FMLA request had been approved by “a different legislative management office” the day before she was fired, the lawsuit said.
“The same chief of staff – who had assumed his role just weeks earlier – had made a comment regarding the age of the senator’s staff, and about getting younger,” the lawsuit said. “He himself had replaced an employee who was approximately 64 years of age.”
At the time of filing, Williams was 62 years of age while Liggins-McCoy was 60, court filings said.
The lawsuit said Liggins-McCoy’s job duties were not eliminated but were instead “absorbed” by another employee “approximately one-half” her age.
Williams, who has represented the 8th District in the state Senate since 1998 and had a past unsuccessful run for Philadelphia mayor, said in a past email statement to the Pennsylvania Record, “I have a long history of fairness, transparency and inclusion in my workplace.”
In an amended version of her complaint filed March 6, 2020, Liggins-McCoy attached an additional age discrimination claim for violation of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act against Williams – while counsel for Williams responded that it failed to pass muster in a motion to dismiss filed March 20, 2020.
On April 3, 2020, counsel for Liggins-McCoy countered that her age discrimination claim was properly pled and pursued.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Petrese B. Tucker ordered the PHRA case dismissed without prejudice on July 1 – ruling that while the age discrimination claim was made after the appropriate exhaustion of administrative remedies, it needs to be pled with more specificity as to defendant Williams.
On Sept. 2, counsel for Williams filed for summary judgment in the case.
“In this lawsuit, plaintiff asserts the following causes of action with respect to Sen. Williams: Retaliation in violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act (Count Two), and aiding and abetting age discrimination in violation of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act. Sen. Williams is entitled to summary judgment on these claims for a number of reasons,” the motion said.
“First, this Court should grant Sen. Williams’ motion for summary judgment on Count Two because plaintiff is exempt from coverage under the FMLA, or, in the alternative, because plaintiff has not established a prima facie case of FMLA retaliation, or because plaintiff has no evidence that her inclusion in the reorganization was a pretext for FMLA retaliation. Second, this Court should grant defendant’s motion for summary judgment on amended Count Three because there is no corresponding primary violation of the PHRA by the Caucus for Sen. Williams to aid and abet, or, in the alternative, because plaintiff has not established a prima facie case of age discrimination, or because plaintiff has no evidence that her inclusion in the reorganization was a pretext for age discrimination.”
On Dec. 22, a new filing said Williams decided to supplement his witness disclosures and added a Joy Norman, an employee of his, to the witness list. It is this witness which counsel for Liggins-McCoy objects to.
“Although Norman’s name was referenced a few times in the exchanged documents and depositions, there was no indication from either defendant that Norman possessed discoverable information relevant to their defenses. In other words, if Norman was going to be a witness in support of Williams’ defenses, Williams needed to disclose it, along with the relevant information she possesses. And it’s not like Norman or her knowledge has been newly-ascertained by Williams such that it could justify a belated disclosure. Norman works for Williams in his Senate office,” the plaintiff’s motion to strike stated.
“In order to find out what Norman knows, the Court would have to reopen discovery and permit plaintiff to depose her. Plaintiff then would have to revisit her summary judgment briefings to account for Norman’s new information. Irrefutably, this would cost plaintiff thousands of dollars in counsel fees. And it would unfairly delay these proceedings – commenced in 2019 – even longer. Williams can tender no justification, let alone a ‘substantial’ justification, for his dilatoriness given that Norman has been employed by him the whole time. The Court may fairly presume that in the course of generating billings up to $15,000 in a single month to defend a relatively simple discrimination case, Williams would have become aware of what Norman knows and of his obligation to disclose it during the discovery period.”
UPDATE
Plaintiff counsel authored a letter to Tucker on Feb. 25, in which it was alleged that the defense is dragging out the litigation with ongoing filings and has the privilege of being bankrolled by taxpayers’ money to boot.
“This case was initially filed in April 2019 and so the litigants approach three years of litigation for a relatively simple discrimination case. Ever since defendants filed their separate summary judgment motions last September, there has been a cascade of motions, briefs, opposition briefs, motions to file reply briefs, etc. It never ends, perhaps because defendants are buoyed by unlimited taxpayer dollars to fund their tactics, and not coincidentally they always seem to need to have the last word,” plaintiff counsel Marc E. Weinstein said.
“In Williams’ opposition brief, he offers no justification as to why he waited more than two years to add this witness – an employee of his – to his disclosures. Rather he blames plaintiff for not surmising that she could be a defense witness based on her name being discussed in other depositions. Again, in trying to avoid more briefing cycles, plaintiff asks to address this contention at oral argument. In particular, Williams fails to recognize that the Rule 26 disclosures are required so that the parties don’t have to guess as to whom may have information relevant to a party’s defenses.”
Weinstein added that if that witness has information likely to support Williams’ defenses, the plaintiff “had the right to know during the nearly two years of discovery – not two months after summary judgment briefs had been filed.”
“The underhanded tactic, again, smacks of foul play and deprives a civil rights plaintiff of an even playing field. Plaintiff asks the Court to ensure there is an even playing field – despite the massive disparity in resources – and to schedule oral argument in person on these motions at the Court’s earliest opportunity,” Weinstein said.
In her suit, Liggins-McCoy is seeking wages and compensation and other damages.
The plaintiff is represented by Marc E. Weinstein of the Weinstein Law Firm, in Fort Washington.
The defendants are represented by Joseph Wendell Fluehr and Michael J. Torchia of Semanoff Ormsby Greenberg & Torchia in Huntingdon Valley, and Elizabeth A. Malloy and Steven Daniel Millman of Cozen O’Connor, in Philadelphia.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:19-cv-01639
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com