PHILADELPHIA – A local man who claimed that he was racially targeted at his place of business during his janitorial shifts and that his employer did nothing to remedy the series of events despite his making multiple reports of said discriminatory behavior, has the defense considering acceptance of a $300,000 settlement offer.
Shoun Randolph of Philadelphia first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on May 2 versus SuperPac, Inc. of Southampton and its Human Resources Manager, Lisa Faber.
“On April 30, 2020, SuperPac hired plaintiff as a janitor. SuperPac assigned plaintiff to its 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. shift, and assigned another janitor, Jeffrey Spungen, a Caucasian male, to its 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. shift. On Oct. 19, 2020, plaintiff started noticing that employee(s) were stuffing the toilets in the men’s bathroom with brown paper towels during his shift. Plaintiff reported these observations to his supervisor, Dan Holdsworth, a Caucasian male. Holdsworth told plaintiff that he will report the incident to SuperPac’s Human Resources Department, but did not get back to plaintiff about SuperPac’s response,” the suit said.
“On Nov. 1, 2020, plaintiff reported to Holdsworth about continued stuffing of the toilets with paper towels and now, someone urinating on the floor in the locker room, and that these activities only happened during plaintiff’s shift. Plaintiff also reported these incidents to the Nighttime Supervisor, Alberto Burgos, a Hispanic male. Plaintiff complained to these supervisors that he felt this despicable conduct was happening only during his shift and not during Spungen’s shift, and that it is racially motivated because plaintiff is Black and Spungen is white. Holdsworth told plaintiff that he would take it to SuperPac’s Human Resources, but plaintiff received no immediate response from Holdsworth or SuperPac’s Human Resources.”
The plaintiff explained that he is disabled, with a history of cardiovascular disease and between Nov. 14 and Dec. 10, 2020, he went out on short-term disability leave for stress-related illness – he added that his blood pressure was highly elevated and had to go through a battery of tests in the hospital.
Randolph returned to work on a part-time basis on Dec. 10, 2020 and full-time on Dec. 21, 2020.
“On Jan. 12, 2021, plaintiff reported to another of his supervisors, Jeremy Pasternak, a Caucasian male, that plaintiff’s co-worker, Spungen was not doing his work and leaving work for plaintiff to do, and that Spungen would tell plaintiff, ‘Hey Shoun, I left some work for you to do.’ Plaintiff told SuperPac that other co-workers would tell plaintiff that they would wait for plaintiff to report to work to clean the bathrooms, because Spungen wasn’t cleaning the bathrooms. Pasternak told plaintiff to report these incidents to SuperPac’s Human Resources, but he did not think SuperPac would take any action,” the suit stated.
“On Jan. 13, 2021, plaintiff complained to SuperPac’s Human Resources Manager, Faber, about Spungen’s failure to clean the bathrooms and leaving work for plaintiff to do, and the stuffing of paper towels in the toilets, urinating on the floor by one or more employees, and the fact that he felt these conducts were racially motivated. However, defendants never took any remedial action against Spungen, nor with regards to plaintiff’s complaint that he was being subjected to racially discriminatory actions with regards to how he was being treated as compared to Spungen and the hostile work environment he was experiencing. Faber told plaintiff that Spungen ‘was slow-minded and was a project from their church.”
Faber added that the company couldn’t place surveillance cameras inside the bathrooms and thus, took no disciplinary actions with regards to Randolph’s complaint.
The suit added that Randolph continued to endure escalating incidents over the following months, such as several occasions where feces were smeared on the wall inside the bathroom during his shift, and not Spungen’s.
At the end of April, the plaintiff took stress-related leave because of his disability and requested accommodation of same. As a result, the suit said Faber telephoned plaintiff at 1 p.m. on April 30 and told him he was being laid off, and that he would receive separation papers by Federal Express the following day.
“On Saturday, May 1, 2021, plaintiff received correspondence from Faber terminating plaintiff’s employment with SuperPac, with a separation agreement and general release document, requesting plaintiff to release SuperPac from any claims under Title VII and other federal or state statutory claims. Plaintiff asserts that he was subjected to racially-motivated discrimination and hostile work environment because of his race by defendants, and thereafter was subjected to retaliatory termination of his employment because he engaged in protected activities under Title VII, Section 1981, the ADA and PHRA,” the suit stated.
The defendants answered the complaint on July 25, contending that the plaintiff did not exhaust administrative remedies, and that it had acted in good faith with regard to Randolph’s reports of inappropriate behavior in the workplace.
“Plaintiff’s claims are barred because plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff’s claims are barred because plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies under Title VII, the ADA and the PHRA. Plaintiff did not engage in the administrative process in good faith. Plaintiff’s claims are barred because plaintiff never requested a reasonable accommodation for an alleged disability as required under the ADA, PHRA and any other applicable state law,” according to the company’s affirmative defenses.
“Plaintiff’s claims are barred because at the applicable times referenced in plaintiff’s complaint, plaintiff was not suffering from a serious medical condition as defined by the applicable law. If he was, plaintiff did not identify that serious medical condition as the reason for his request for leave and/or time off. Plaintiff’s claims are barred because he failed to comply with all conditions precedent and with all statutory requisites for filing the instant complaint against defendants. Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the equitable doctrines of waiver, estoppel, laches and unclean hands.”
UPDATE
In a Rule 26(f) Report entered by defense counsel on Aug. 19, the defense outlined a number of discovery and pre-trial procedures – in addition to the information that it was considering a $300,000 settlement offer from the plaintiff and his counsel.
“The parties do not foresee a need for a specific agreement on Electronic Discovery due to the nature of the evidence at issue in this matter; however, should the need arise, the parties will agree to conduct e-discovery on a consensual basis and will address the parameters of any electronic discovery. Expert witness disclosures plaintiff intends to retain expert witnesses and defendant wishes to reserve the right to use an expert witness should it find it necessary. In the event that, plaintiff elects to move forward with an expert witness, defendants will, most likely, also pursue use of an expert witness,” the report stated.
“Plaintiff’s settlement demand from defendants is $300,000. Defendants are considering this demand. The parties also request a date certain for trial. To that end, the Parties anticipate being trial-ready by 60 days following the Court’s decision on dispositive motions, if any. Should trial be necessary in this matter, it is anticipated that plaintiff’s case will take three days to be presented, and defendants’ case will take one to two days to be presented.”
For counts of racial discrimination, disability discrimination and retaliation through violating 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, the plaintiff is seeking back pay, front pay, loss of income, loss of benefits, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs of suit, compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees and expert witness fees as permitted by law, and such other equitable relief as the Court may deem necessary and just, including but not limited to, an order to make whole.
The plaintiff is represented by Olugbenga O. Abiona of Abiona Law, in Philadelphia.
The defendants are represented by Kayla M. Panek of Freeman Mathis & Gary, also in Philadelphia.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:22-cv-01683
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com