Quantcast

Muslim photographer who sued Pa. GOP House Caucus for religious discrimination settles claims

PENNSYLVANIA RECORD

Saturday, December 21, 2024

Muslim photographer who sued Pa. GOP House Caucus for religious discrimination settles claims

Federal Court
Markdschwartz

Schwartz | Mark D. Schwartz, Esq.

HARRISBURG – A former employee of the State House of Representatives’ Republican Caucus who sued the body for discrimination, unlawful termination and retaliation, claiming he received prejudicial treatment for his practice of the Islamic faith, has settled his claims.

Kalim A. Bhatti of Harrisburg first filed suit in Harrisburg federal court on Nov. 9, 2018 versus The Republican Caucus of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, Jennifer L. Jones, John Dille, Stephen Miskin and John & Jane Does 1-10, all care of the Republican Caucus.

The suit stated Bhatti immigrated to the United States as a child with his parents and was raised in Harrisburg. After beginning a professional photography career, he came to work for the Caucus as a contractor in late 1997 before starting up with the group full-time in April 1998.

However, Bhatti claimed that Jones, his immediate supervisor, “continuously and repeatedly discriminated against [him]” by “saddling him with low pay, a low job title and as many as 100 Caucus members that he was required to cover.” Defendant Jones reports to defendant Dille, the Video Department Supervisor, who in turn reports to defendant Miskin, Caucus Communications Supervisor.

“Plaintiff’s excellent professional reputation was exemplified by the call he received on Sept. 11, 2001 from the Associated Press to cover an airplane down in Western Pennsylvania. Plaintiff covered the AP assignment for two days. Upon his return, he found that Ms. Jones had convinced herself and told others that plaintiff was a terrorist and should be reported to the authorities,” the suit stated.

According to Bhatti, the harassment continued when he abided by his religious obligation as a Muslim to pray several times during the day. He states he was interrupted during his prayers by Dille, prior to making it a practice to leave the Capitol building and pray at a nearby mosque. After he began observing his prayer routine, Bhatti said his requests for raises and performance evaluations were “postponed or entirely ignored” for a time.

But after receiving a positive evaluation in 2014, Dille allegedly promised him a raise – which never came. When asked about the raise never arriving, defendant Miskin is said to have profanely laid the blame for that at the doorstep of then-Gov. Tom Corbett. Furthermore, Bhatti said Miskin later supported Rep. Daryl Metcalfe after he made offensive remarks denigrating Jews and Muslims.

When Human Resources leveled complaints against Bhatti, he claimed to have prepared evidence refuting the accusations but was not permitted to submit them.

“Simply stated, consistent with her determination that plaintiff was a terrorist and that he angered a religiously-intolerant Mr. Miskin, write-ups were simply a pretext for Ms. Jones to harass, discriminate and eventually get plaintiff fired,” the suit said.

That firing took place on April 30, 2018.

“The Caucus and the other defendants are supporting cast members of a Pennsylvania state capitol culture that avoids hiring minorities in the first place. For the very few who are hired, it then denigrates and humiliates them. Plaintiff has witnessed the fact that of the roughly 600 people employed by the Caucus, only four have been people of color like plaintiff. In fact, plaintiff was the only Muslim.”

The Caucus allegedly committed post-employment retaliation against plaintiff, which includes opposing his obtaining unemployment compensation. Bhatti filed a report with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) as to these charges and received a right-to-sue letter on Aug. 13, 2018.

However, the Caucus claimed that Bhatti’s complaint contained “vague, bald assertions” which were both time-barred and failed to state a claim under the statutes he cited, for each count.

On Oct. 1, 2019, U.S. District Court Judge Sylvia H. Rambo dismissed any alleged discriminatory acts that occurred prior to Oct. 13, 2017 and all counts in the lawsuit with prejudice, except for the counts of First Amendment rights violations and false light, which were dismissed without prejudice.

This allowed Bhatti to re-file an amended version of his complaint, which he did so as directed by the Court’s previously-outlined stipulations on Oct. 14, 2019.

Two weeks later, the defendants re-filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, arguing that Bhatti did not cure the deficiencies from the original version of his lawsuit and instead filed a substantially-similar complaint.

After an eight month-long hiatus in proceedings, Rambo opted to dismiss with prejudice Bhatti’s false light and Section 1981 claims, and dismiss without prejudice Bhatti’s claims for hostile work environment and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The defendants provided an answer on July 20, 2020, asserting they are immune from liability and Bhatti’s claims were barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel.

The defendants added all their employment decisions made and actions taken with respect to plaintiff were made or taken for lawful, legitimate, and non-discriminatory reasons that were not pre-textual, and were made or taken in good faith.

UPDATE

Plaintiff counsel filed a notice of voluntary dismissal in the case on April 29, subsequent to a settlement being reached between the parties. Terms of the settlement were not revealed.

“Plaintiff Kalim A. Bhatti, by his undersigned counsel who represents that as this matter between the parties has been settled, that plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed with prejudice,” according to the notice.

Rambo summarily ordered the case dismissed on May 4.

“With plaintiff’s counsel having reported to the court that this matter has settled, it is hereby ordered that all deadlines in the above-captioned action are stayed, the Clerk of Court is directed to mark this matter closed for statistical purposes only, and the parties shall, as soon as practicable, submit an appropriate dismissal filing in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a),” Rambo stated.

The plaintiff was represented by Mark D. Schwartz in Bryn Mawr.

The defendants were represented by Adam Lawrence Santucci and Micah T. Saul of McNees Wallace & Nurick, in Harrisburg and Lancaster.

U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania case 1:18-cv-02178

From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com

More News