PITTSBURGH – Clairton City School District has re-argued that a lawsuit filed by a former administrative employee alleging that she faced racial discrimination in her time working there, failed to state claims upon which relief could be granted and did not show that the plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages.
Courtney R. Webb initially filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on Nov. 1, 2021 versus Clairton City School District.
Webb alleged in her complaint that she began working for the Clairton City School District as a confidential secretary to the director of federal programs and curriculum in January of 2015.
The plaintiff further alleged that during her employment, she was the only African-American working in the administration and faced a hostile work environment.
Webb alleged that the district superintendent would go shopping and ask her to carry her bags, was given the task of cleaning an empty swimming pool to be used to store old textbooks and told to sell tickets to school football games. She also alleges she was excluded from meetings that pertained to her job duties, placed in a “remote” area of the administration building and had her supervisor hang up the phone on her during mid-sentence.
The complaint was then removed to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Nov. 30, 2021, and amended versions of the complaint were subsequently filed on Jan. 17 and March 17.
The District filed a motion to dismiss Webb’s suit along with an accompanying brief, on March 31.
“A review of plaintiff’s allegations reveal that she has provided absolutely no support of the assertion that she was subjected to a hostile work environment due to her race. When one examines the specific allegations of mistreatment of plaintiff by the District in the complaint, it is readily apparent that plaintiff has cited nothing more than isolated instances of alleged unfair treatment by her employer. Other than conclusory statements, however, there are no specific facts set forth which could allow a jury to conclude that this alleged unfair treatment was racially motivated – e.g., that employees who were not African-American were treated more favorably,” the brief stated.
“In the absence of any specific allegation whatsoever indicating that the District’s actions were racially motivated, plaintiff has failed to allege sufficiently severe or pervasive harassment necessary to all of her claims. Plaintiff has failed to allege the necessary element of severe and pervasive harassment required of all of her claims. Accordingly, plaintiff’s second amended complaint must be dismissed in its entirety.”
According to the District, though the plaintiff also sought punitive damages under Count III of her second amended complaint, as a matter of public policy, punitive damages are not recoverable against a municipality in Pennsylvania.
“A school district is a municipal agency and therefore punitive damages are not recoverable against the District. Accordingly, in the event that the Court does not grant defendant’s request for the outright dismissal of plaintiffs’ second amended complaint, plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages must be dismissed,” the motion stated.
UPDATE
The plaintiff filed a response to the defendant’s answer on April 21, arguing that only the Court should decide whether or not her claims are time-barred, and whether or not punitive damages are appropriate in this case.
“Plaintiff was the only black employee in the administration and experienced differential treatment that, when viewed in context, sufficiently allege a hostile work environment claim. For example, plaintiff alleged in that she waited for over a month in 2018 for her purchase order to be approved, and when brought to the attention of her supervisor, her supervisor indicated that she did not feel like signing for what plaintiff ordered, even though she knew plaintiff needed the materials to complete her projects,” the response stated.
“Plaintiff also experienced Dr. Hunt, the then-Superintendent of defendant School District hanging up on her several times while plaintiff was in mid-sentence. One or two occurrences may be seen as trivial, but when it occurs repeatedly, as it did here, it is quite negative and humiliating to the person on the receiving end. Plaintiff was also called to carry shopping bags by Dr. Hunt, although she was not Dr. Hunt’s secretary, while Gayle Colonna, a white employee and Dr. Hunt’s secretary was not doing anything that would have prevented her from carrying the shopping bags. Because of the foregoing and other allegations in her amended complaint, plaintiff pled a sufficient claim of a hostile work environment. A reading of plaintiff’s amended complaint shows that plaintiff indicated that she was treated differently because of her race. Therefore, plaintiff pled a sufficient Section 1981 claim.”
The following day, the defense issued a brief reply to the plaintiff’s response.
“The District believes, and therefore avers, that the issues raised in plaintiff’s brief have been adequately addressed by the District in its brief in support of motion to dismiss. The District asserts that no further substantive response is necessary,” per the reply.
For counts of discrimination in violation of both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, the plaintiff is seeking monetary relief, a trial by jury and all other just relief.
The plaintiff is represented by Lanre Kukoyi and Olanrewaju Kukoyi of Kukoyi Law Firm, in Carnegie.
The defendant is represented by Joseph W. Cavrich of Andrews & Price, in Pittsburgh.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:21-cv-01739
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-21-009561
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com