ALLENTOWN – A federal judge has rejected additional sanctions, after a successful trial result for 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.
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.
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.
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.
UPDATE
At the conclusion of a seven day-long trial, a jury verdict was reached on June 30 in Billman’s favor.
On Aug. 8, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Gene E.K. Pratter denied Billman’s sanctions motion with respect to a copy of the reprimand – though further noted the Court “admonishes the District and counsel for lack of respect for discovery duties and diligence.”
“The Court finds that this [document’s] production failure is not substantially justified because it is counsel’s duty to ensure complete collection of documents for discovery. It is not enough to leave it merely to the client to properly canvas the likely location of discoverable material. The duty to supplement requires lawyers to act when they learn that their prior ‘responses are in some material respect incomplete or incorrect.’ Lawyers who sign discovery responses must make a ‘reasonable inquiry’ in performing their duties,” Pratter stated.
“Similarly, the Model Rules of Professional Conduct require lawyers to ‘act with reasonable diligence.’ Pennsylvania’s version of this Rule does likewise. Here, the District’s counsel did not make a reasonable inquiry or act with reasonable diligence. Upon determining that Dr. Emili’s personnel file did not include her reprimand letter, the District did not even ask Dr. Emili about the letter. Instead, the District unilaterally obtained a version from a secretary’s computer without verifying whether it was the correct version. This slapdash approach was ‘utterly inadequate.’ This would be an unreasonable approach even for collecting documents of marginal significance, let alone a document that would figure prominently in the case. Therefore, the District has not shown that its failure to produce was substantially justified.”
However, Pratter added that failure was “harmless”, given its practical effect in the case.
“There is no indication that the District actually knew about the final version of Dr. Emili’s letter before everyone else learned about the discrepancy on the second day of trial or intentionally produced an old version. The Court accepts counsel’s eventual representation that Mr. Reinhart’s testimony about another version of the letter surprised the District too,” Pratter said.
“Additionally, the draft version produced to Billman actually included language damaging to the District’s case. This demonstrates a lack of bad faith (normally, a party would not intentionally produce a document version that is more damaging to its own arguments) and a lack of prejudice to Billman as to the substance of the exhibit he used at trial.”
The plaintiff was represented by John S. Harrison and Erika A. Farkas of Broughal & DeVito, in Bethlehem.
The defendant was 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