SCRANTON – A federal judge has dismissed without prejudice consolidated litigation brought by a therapist at a Pennsylvania juvenile detention and rehabilitation facility, who claimed he faced racial discrimination and retaliation for reporting physical and mental abuse at the facility.
Kenneth Ramirez first filed suit on June 17, 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Bureau of Juvenile Justice Services, Youth Forestry Camp No. 2, Jeremy Kistler, Eric Lennartz, Christopher Kivak and Gregory Swartzlander, alleging violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
(This is in addition to a prior action filed against nearly identical defendants in the same Court, on Oct. 21, 2020.)
Ramirez, an African-American and Latino bi-racial male, was hired by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on Oct. 21, 2018, as a therapist at its Youth Forestry Camp No. 2 location run by the Bureau of Juvenile Services, according to his complaint.
He claimed that in January of 2019, he began to notice the employees’ “illegal conduct” against the juveniles at the facility, including withholding meals as a punishment, unlawful and physical restraints as well as other mental and physical abuse.
Ramirez further claimed he reported the abuse through Child Line and that one of the supervisors at the facility, Kistler, became aware of his report. He alleged that he suffered anxiety and depression over the incidents and that his hours were cut, he faced interference to perform his job duties, was not granted accommodations for his disability and even faced assault by a supervisor.
Ramirez also alleged the Caucasian employees who made reports to Child Line did not face any retaliation, and finally, in September of 2020, he was constructively terminated from his position.
The defendants moved to dismiss the case in October 2021, countering that the plaintiff did not illustrate their liability under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act or comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8.
Following a report and recommendation issued by U.S. Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania Judge Robert D. Mariani ruled on March 7 that the two separate cases brought by the plaintiff against these defendants would be consolidated.
“The report and recommendation is adopted. Civil action No. 3:21-cv-01076 shall be consolidated at No. 3:20-cv-01936. Defendant’s motion to dismiss is terminated. All further filings shall be made under civil action No. 3:20-cv-01936. The Clerk of Court is directed to close civil action No. 3:21-cv-01076. Civil action No. 3:20-cv-01936 is remanded to Magistrate Judge Carlson for further proceedings consistent with this order,” Mariani stated.
The plaintiff filed a request for an entry of default judgment on March 29.
“It appeared that the complaint was filed in this case on June 17, 2021, that the summons and complaint were duly served upon the defendants on Aug. 19, 2021 via personal service upon the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, The Bureau of Juvenile Services, and The Youth Forestry Camp #2 and no answer or other pleading has been filed by said defendant as required by law,” the filing stated.
“Therefore, upon request of the plaintiff, default should be entered against the defendants the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, The Bureau of Juvenile Services and The Youth Forestry Camp #2, as provided in Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”
However, Carlson denied this request for default judgment on April 1.
“Following a telephone conference with counsel regarding the plaintiff’s request for default, and in accordance with the instructions provided to counsel during the conference, it is hereby ordered that the request for default, which was filed in a case that has been administratively closed, is denied. To the extent counsel believes there have been issues with proper service, they may file motions to show cause to that effect. We recognize that such motions may not be ripe until the pending motions in this case have been resolved. The Court will endeavor to address those pending motions promptly,” Carlson said.
UPDATE
U.S. Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson issued a report and recommendation on Aug. 1 that the defendants’ motion to dismiss would be granted, that the plaintiff’s motion to amend be denied as futile and further recommended that the plaintiff’s claim under the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law be dismissed without prejudice, in order for the plaintiff pursuing such a claim in state court.
“After a review of the pleadings, we conclude that the plaintiff’s substantive due process claim should be subsumed by his First Amendment claim, but that this claim fails as a matter of law. In addition, the plaintiff has failed to state a claim for discrimination, retaliation, or hostile work environment under Title VII,” Carlson said.
“With respect to the claim under the state Whistleblower Law, while we conclude that amendment of this claim may not be futile, it would be inappropriate to allow amendment to assert a single state law claim when the federal claims in this case fail on their merits. Accordingly, we recommend that the motion to dismiss be granted with prejudice as to the federal claims, and without prejudice to Ramirez bringing his state law claim in state court. We further recommend that the motion to amend be denied as futile.”
Carlson added that supplemental jurisdiction would not be exercised as to the state law claim.
“After consideration, we conclude that the plaintiff’s claims, both in the first amended complaint and proposed second amended complaint, fail on their merits. Moreover, we conclude that permitting leave to amend these claims would be futile. Accordingly, for the reasons that follow, we recommend that the plaintiff’s motion to file a second amended complaint be denied, and that the motion to dismiss be granted,” Carlson said.
“Here, we have found that Ramirez’s federal claims against these defendants are subject to dismissal at the outset of this litigation. Therefore, in the exercise of our discretion in this district, we should decline to assert supplemental jurisdiction over potential ancillary state law claims in this case where all potential federal claims brought before us failed as a matter of law. Accordingly, we recommend that this pendent state law claim be dismissed without prejudice.”
In response to Carlson’s report and recommendation, Mariani adopted it and opted to close the case.
“The report and recommendation is adopted for the reasons set forth therein. Defendants’ motion to dismiss amended complaint is granted. Plaintiffs’ federal law claims are dismissed with prejudice. Here, plaintiff’s reports of child abuse to the ChildLine which he alleges present protected speech, for which he was subjected to retaliation, were undisputedly within the scope of his job duties as a therapist for the Commonwealth, which required him to be a mandated reporter,” Mariani ruled.
“Plaintiff’s federal claims having been dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1637(c)(3). Plaintiff’s claim under Pennsylvania’s Whistleblower Law is therefore dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff’s motion for leave of Court to file a second amended complaint is denied as futile. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the above-captioned action.”
The plaintiff was represented by Samuel C. Wilson, Charles Mason Scott and Scott E. Diamond of Derek Smith Law Group, in Philadelphia.
The defendant was represented by Anthony R. Bowers of the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office, in Harrisburg.
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania case 3:20-cv-01936
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com