ALLENTOWN – An ex-varsity high school wrestling coach who sued Easton Area School District alleging he faced discriminatory and racist conduct, including being fired, because he is Black, is further seeking sanctions against the defendant.
Jamarr Billman of Allentown first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on June 10, 2020 versus Easton Area School District, of Easton.
Billman worked as a wrestling coach for EASD’s junior varsity wrestling team for the 2006-2007, 2007-2008, and 2008-2009 school years. In June 2016, Billman was hired by defendant EASD as its head wrestling coach to coach its varsity wrestling team.
“Soon after Coach Billman was hired and repeatedly throughout Coach Billman’s employment, defendant EASD’s Athletic Director, James Pokrivsak, Jr., proudly identified himself as racist, and made a mockery of it. Also, defendant EASD’s Assistant Football Coach, Joe McIntyre, who is white and the parent of an EASD wrestler, cornered Billman and told him that he has no respect for him,” the suit stated.
Though Billman reported his concerns of Coach McIntyre’s harassment towards him to members of defendant EASD’s Administration, it failed to investigate his reports, the lawsuit claimed.
Billman said he was also provided much less money for his athletic program budget than other coaches who are white, was paid less than his fellow coaches who are white, and was also threatened with bodily harm and labeled the n-word by the irate grandfather of a white wrestler who was disqualified from participating in a wrestling tournament.
“On March 16, 2018, two days after Billman received a notice of termination, one of defendant EASD’s Assistant Superintendents, Alyssa Emili, who is now also serving as the Director of Human Resources, attended a ‘Fire Billman Party,’ together with the wrestler who did not make weight, the wrestler’s grandfather who had choked Coach Billman and called him a ‘n—r’, and his father,” the suit alleged.
However, Billman was not terminated at that time. But, he alleged that he continued to have parents of certain white wrestlers complain and threaten him, and because of his being black, received no protection or assistance from the District in the process.
He also accused the District of pressuring his supervisor Elaine Arnts, the Assistant Athletic Director, to change her original positive assessment and evaluation of Billman into a negative one to satisfy District officials.
After receiving a highly unfavorable performance review in May, counsel for Billman reached out to counsel for the District to see if they would resolve the plaintiff’s claims before going to court.
Subsequently, the District fired Billman, which he claimed is retaliation for notifying it of his intention to file a lawsuit.
The District filed a motion to dismiss certain counts from Billman’s suit on Aug. 10, 2020, leading him to file an amended complaint on two weeks later without calling for punitive damages.
The District claimed that Billman’s allegations relating to alleged discriminatory acts under the PHRA and Title VII are time-barred, since they occurred more than 300 days before Billman dual-filed a charge of discrimination.
In a trial brief filed on June 14, the District explained Billman must present evidence that he was unlawfully discriminated against on the basis of his race, African-American, under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981 and 1983 (equal protection) and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.
“Under the defendant’s burden, the defendant carries only a burden of persuasion such that it must articulate a legitimate business reason for its decision to open the head coaching position in 2020. Defendant has done so. Two witnesses, the Athletic Director, James Pokrivsak, and the new Superintendent of Schools, David Piperato, both testified that plaintiff was unable to bring together the wrestling community of parents and prevent students from leaving the District over the course of his four-year tenure, in addition to which, his performance had fallen below satisfactory, which was of grave concern to the Athletic Director,” the District’s brief stated.
“With respect to the near-posting of plaintiff’s position in 2018, defendant, former Superintendent, John Reinhart, testified that plaintiff Billman was given the same opportunity to take a season to improve his performance as the white head football coach, Schiffert, had been offered in a previous season. Therefore, defendant has not only met its burden of articulating a legitimate business decision for opening plaintiff’s position in 2020, it has also presented testimony regarding the same or similar treatment of two head coaches, one white, one black, and therefore, has successfully defended plaintiff’s prima facie case of showing that plaintiff was treated less favorably, or ‘unequally’, under similar conditions.”
The District countered the plaintiff’s claims by arguing he “will continue to carry the burden of proof to show pretext for defendant’s articulated business decisions” and the plaintiff “has failed to carry his burden of proving that the reasons given by Mr. Pokrivsak and Mr. Piperato for the opening of plaintiff’s position in 2020 were not the real reasons, but rather, pretext for race discrimination”, and that under this reasoning, the plaintiff’s claims under Title VII and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act will fail.
“Assuming plaintiff can prove entitlement to damages, he must also prove that he has met his duty to mitigate those damages. Defendant submits that the plaintiff has filed to do this and no evidence to make a showing of mitigation,” the defendant’s trial brief said.
UPDATE
Billman and his counsel filed a motion seeking sanctions on June 24, for the defense’s alleged failure to disclose during discovery, a signed written reprimand to Assistant Superintendent Alyssa Emili.
As a result, the plaintiff argues that a curative instruction should be provided to the jury and attorney’s fees and costs should be imposed against defendant.
“This [reprimand] document was not with the other documents identified as part of Ms. Emili’s personnel file, but rather in a PDF with documents corresponding to raises and wages of high school coaches. Nonetheless, Plaintiff assumed it was part of Ms. Emili’s personnel file. The reprimand provided contained language that Ms. Emili never inquired into Mr. Billman’s welfare and ‘failed to recognize the impact your differential treatment of the only Black coach in the league would have in the public and the negative impression it would create in our school system.’ Furthermore, the reprimand indicated Ms. Emili violated the school district’s non-discrimination policy,” the motion for sanctions stated.
“Relying on this document as the official reprimand, plaintiff deposed Ms. Emili on Jan. 7, 2021. Her deposition went from 10 a.m. until approximately 4:22 p.m. Ms. Emili was asked about the reprimand and shown the document. She identified this document as the one she received from John Reinhart. Up until her testimony at trial, Ms. Emili never stated that document was not actually the document she received from Mr. Reinhart.”
At trial, Reinhart testified via Zoom that this other reprimand document was not the reprimand he provided Ms. Emili – and that the only difference between the unsigned reprimand used in the deposition and the signed version was “one paragraph that the solicitor wrote and he removed, which included the language about Ms. Emili’s differential treatment towards the only Black coach in the league.”
According to Billman’s attorneys, defense counsel has represented they do not intend to introduce the signed reprimand into evidence at trial – and in the meantime, they seek sanctions totaling $5,802, comprised of attorney’s fees for the time spent in depositions of Ms. Emili and Mr. Reinhart, the cost of the transcripts and the preparation of the instant motion.
On June 27, the District responded to the sanctions motion and claimed it should fail, because a copy of the reprimand in question was supposedly not in its possession.
“Defendant does not oppose the first and third sentences of plaintiff’s proposed curative instruction. However, the second sentence is inappropriate because defendant did not ‘have an obligation to turn over this version,’ insofar as defendant fulfilled its obligation to conduct an appropriate investigation of the documents in its possession and produced everything in its possession that was responsive to plaintiff’s discovery requests. Defendant simply did not have the signed reprimand in its possession when it produced the discovery,” the defendant’s response said.
“In fact, after Dr. Reinhart’s trial testimony on June 22, 2022, when he first mentioned the signed reprimand, defendant conducted another detailed search of its files and email server, with parameters specified by the Court, and that search again did not locate the signed reprimand. At the Court’s direction, defendant also produced Dr. Emili’s original personnel file, which the Court reviewed, and that file does not contain the signed reprimand. Defendant simply does not have the signed reprimand. Nor could defendant’s counsel have reasonably foreseen that Dr. Reinhart and Dr. Emili, who were former employees when the discovery was produced, would have retained copies of the signed reprimand in their personal files after their employment with defendant ceased.”
Defense counsel maintains that because its client fulfilled its obligation to produce discovery in good faith, sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1) would be inappropriate.
“Although (again) defendant does not oppose the Court’s issuance of the first and third sentences of plaintiff’s proposed curative instruction. Because defendant fulfilled its discovery obligations, plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees is improper,” the response stated.
For counts of race-based discrimination, harassment and retaliation under Title VII and the PHRA, plus another federal civil rights violation, the plaintiff is seeking back pay, front pay, compensatory damages, attorney’s fees and any other relief the Court deems proper, plus a trial by jury.
The plaintiff is represented by John S. Harrison and Erika A. Farkas of Broughal & DeVito, in Bethlehem.
The defendant is represented by Lara K. Dellegrotti and Sharon M. O’Donnell of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, in Camp Hill.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 5:20-cv-02730
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com