PITTSBURGH – An Allegheny County school district has denied that it committed age discrimination and violated federal law, when it transferred a longtime art teacher from instructing at the middle school level to the elementary school level.
Nanci M. Goldberg first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Jan. 25 versus Fox Chapel Area School District, of Pittsburgh.
“Goldberg started working for defendant in January 1992 as an Art Teacher. For the past 28 years, Goldberg was assigned to the Middle School. Goldberg also held two additional positions as Department Head and Middle School Calendar Facilitator. At all times during her employment, Goldberg worked diligently and exhibited a high level of professionalism and competence, while being a well-known and highly respected educator who has received many accolades for the good work she has done with the Middle School students and for the community,” the suit said.
“As Middle School Department Head, Goldberg was constantly writing and refining the Middle School curriculum. Goldberg also co-founded a mental health project called The Positive Painting Project which focuses on the mental wellbeing of Middle School students and also started a small, free art gallery with a then-current Middle School student and his parent.”
The suit added that on May 25, 2021, Program Principal Laura Miller met with Goldberg and the other two Middle School Art Teachers and told them that she needed “a volunteer” to transfer to teach at the Elementary School level.
Three hours later, Middle School Principal Jonathan Nauhaus told one of the other two Middle School Art Teachers, who is significantly younger and much less tenured, not to apply for the Elementary School position because she is “not the person who’s going”, contradicting Miller’s statement that she needed someone to volunteer to transfer.
The suit stated that “unlike Goldberg, this significantly younger Middle School Art Teacher would be well suited to teach at the Elementary School level, due her having done so for three of her six years of teaching for defendant.”
“On June 3, 2021, without holding a mandatory conference per the term of the collective bargaining agreement, Miller verbally informed Goldberg that she would be involuntarily transferred to one of defendant’s Elementary Schools. Miller also failed to provide Goldberg with a specific reason for defendant’s decision to transfer her, also in violation of the collective bargaining agreement. In response to being told of defendant’s decision to transfer her, Goldberg told Miller that the decision was based on her age,” the suit stated.
“Rather than address Goldberg’s allegation, Miller recited a conclusion that the decision to transfer Goldberg was ‘what is best’ for defendant and the students and that the decision was ‘a business decision’ and ‘not personal.’ Goldberg asked Miller if defendant was trying to get rid of her. Miller did not respond to Goldberg’s question and instead recited the same rationale above. On June 7, 2021, Goldberg met with defendant’s Deputy Superintendent, Dr. David P. McCommons, to discuss the transfer. McCommons likewise failed to provide Goldberg with a specific reason for the decision.”
Goldberg’s legal counsel contacted defendant’s solicitor, through a letter dated June 10, 2021, to complain that this decision was age-based. Five days later, McCommons emailed Goldberg written confirmation of the decision to involuntarily transfer Goldberg from the Middle School to an Elementary School.
According to the plaintiff, the defendant treated other similarly situated teachers, who are significantly younger, more favorably than Goldberg by not forcing them to transfer from the Middle or High Schools – and the defendant’s decision to transfer Goldberg was an adverse employment action.
As a result of being involuntarily transferred, Goldberg was forced to take a year-long sabbatical at a reduced rate of pay due to her extreme emotional distress.
UPDATE
Fox Chapel Area School District’s counsel filed a motion to dismiss Goldberg’s case in its entirety on June 17, for failure to state a claim.
“Plaintiff has plead no facts in her complaint which suggest her reassignment to the District’s Elementary School was objectively a worse place to work, that the new position was going to be eliminated, or that she was placed in a ‘doomed to failure’ situation. Further, there are no allegations that plaintiff’s compensation, benefits, vacation, prognosis for longevity and/or success, contract terms and privileges of employment at the District’s Elementary School were different in any material respect from the District’s Middle School. Plaintiff also does not assert that teaching in the District’s Elementary Schools is any less prestigious than teaching in the Middle School,” the dismissal motion stated, in part.
“To the contrary, the simple fact remains that plaintiff simply does not like teaching in in the District’s Elementary School in the position to which she has been transferred. There is no objective reason offered, and no evidence presented, why her current music position in the District’s Elementary School is not equivalent to her former position for purposes of evaluating her claims. Indeed, given the value of the elementary school experience, there is a total absence of any facts plead to suggest that elementary schools are any less important than the divisions for older age groups.”
According to the District, Goldberg cannot establish that she was subjected to an adverse employment action, because assuming for the sake of argument that the District’s transfer of the plaintiff to one of its elementary schools constituted an adverse employment action, plaintiff “cannot establish a temporal relationship between her protected activity and the District’s alleged retaliatory actions, because the District decided to transfer the plaintiff prior to any date upon which plaintiff or her attorney complained of alleged age discrimination.”
For counts of violating the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and retaliation thereof, the plaintiff is seeking the following relief:
• That defendant be ordered to reinstate plaintiff into a suitable position, together with all benefits incident thereto, including, but not limited to wages, benefits, training and seniority;
• That defendant be required to compensate plaintiff for the full value of wages, she would have received had it not been for defendant’s illegal treatment of plaintiff, with interest until the date plaintiff is offered employment into a position substantially equivalent to the ones which plaintiff was denied;
• That defendant be required to provide plaintiff with front pay;
• That defendant be required to compensate plaintiff for lost benefits, including pension benefits until plaintiff’s normal retirement date;
• That a final judgment in favor of plaintiff and against defendant be entered for liquidated damages in an amount equal to the amount of wages due and owing plaintiff as provided by 29 U.S.C. §626(b) and 216(b);
• That defendant be enjoined from discriminating against plaintiff in any manner that violates the ADEA;
• That plaintiff be awarded against defendant the costs and expenses of this litigation and a reasonable attorney fee; and
• That plaintiff be granted such further legal and equitable relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
The plaintiff is represented by Colleen E. Ramage of Ramage Lykos, in Pittsburgh.
The defendant is represented by Joseph W. Cavrich of Andrews & Price, also in Pittsburgh.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:22-cv-00141
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com