PITTSBURGH – Clairton City School District has won dismissal of a lawsuit filed by a former administrative employee alleging that she faced racial discrimination in her time working there, finding that the plaintiff’s claims were untimely filed.
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.
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.”
UPDATE
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania Judge Nora Barry Fischer granted the District’s dismissal motion on May 16, finding that Webb’s claims were not filed in a timely fashion.
“Having carefully considered the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that Webb’s claims brought under Title VII and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, whether for hostile work environment or disparate treatment, are untimely because she did not submit an administrative charge (or complaint) with either the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission within the time frames required by the applicable statutes,” Fischer said.
“Indeed, Webb appears to concede that the Title VII and PHRA claims are untimely (stating that Webb ‘will leave the court to decide whether her Title VII and PHRA claims are time-barred’ without providing an argument for why they are not time barred). Additionally, Webb’s Section 1981 claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. As such, the Court will dismiss her complaint, with prejudice.”
Fischer explained that for Title VII claims, a plaintiff in Pennsylvania must file a “charge” with the EEOC within 300 days “after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred” – while for PHRA claims, a plaintiff must file a “complaint” with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission within 180 days “after the alleged act of discrimination.”
“On the face of her complaint, Webb explains that she ceased working at Clairton on June 4, 2018, even though her contract expired on June 30, 2018. She also alleges that June 4, 2018 was the date that she was terminated by Clairton. Finally, she filed her charge of discrimination with the EEOC 304 days later, i.e., on April 4, 2019,” Fischer explained.
“Thus, Webb filed her charge with the EEOC more than 300 days after (1) Clairton terminated her contract, the discrete act for her disparate treatment claim, and (2) the last day in which she could have suffered from a hostile work environment. As such, both her disparate treatment and hostile work environment claims brought under Title VII are untimely. For the same reasons, Webb’s disparate treatment and hostile work environment claims brought under the PHRA are untimely because she made her administrative filing more than 180 days after the alleged discrimination. Accordingly, the Court will grant Clairton’s motion to dismiss Webb’s Title VII and PHRA claims.”
Fischer added that Webb’s Section 1981 claims would also be thrown out, since they were brought on Nov. 1, 2021, or more than three years after the events in this case – where the statute of limitations requires them to be brought within two years.
As a result, Fischer found that further amendment of Webb’s complaint would be futile and dismissed her case outright.
The plaintiff was represented by Lanre Kukoyi and Olanrewaju Kukoyi of Kukoyi Law Firm, in Carnegie.
The defendant was 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