HARRISBURG – An African-American and longtime Human Resources Analyst with the state attorney general’s office claims she was the target of both age and racial discrimination at the agency, and was terminated after 21 years while being replaced by substantially-younger white employee.
Anita Robinson initially filed suit in the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas on Sept. 26 versus the Pennsylvania Office of the Attorney General. Both parties are of Harrisburg.
“Robinson is a 60 year-old African-American female. In September 1999, Robinson commenced employment with the OAG. Robinson was continuously employed for over 21 years, until her employment was terminated on April 13, 2021. Robinson last earned an annual salary of $71,990, plus employment benefits. Robinson was last employed as a Human Resources Analyst III (EEO Officer), a position that she assumed as of 2014,” the suit said.
“Robinson’s duties as a Human Resource Analyst III (EEO Officer) included serving as the first point of contact for EEO matters, serving as a secondary point of contact for employee/labor relations matters, including providing guidance for employees and managers to assist with performance, management, special projects and general inquiries. Prior to being designated as an EEO Officer, during Robinson’s career at OAG, she had substantial experience in Labor Relations.”
The suit adds Robinson conducted investigations including those for EEO, sexual harassment and hostile work environment matters, interacted with Labor Relations Officer and union representatives to resolve grievances, participated in discussions, provided guidance to department management on union issues and policy and conducted training for supervisors and managers.
When Robinson was reassigned as an EEO Officer, her former duties were initially distributed to Miranda Shirk, Lauren Beaston and Mandy Saul, all Caucasian women in their 30’s. Besides those three women, the other Human Resources Analysts were also Caucasian women, ranging from their 20’s to 40’s in age.
“On April 13, 2021, Robinson was called to a meeting with Sherri McGraw, Human Resources Director and Jodi L. Lobel, Executive Deputy Attorney General of Operations, and advised that her employment was terminated immediately due to ‘restructuring of the Human Resources Section.’ OAG’s proffered reason for terminating Robinson is pretextual. Robinson was not notified that any work performance issues whatsoever were reason for the termination. In April 2021, Robinson was the only Human Resources Analyst who was terminated, and each of the substantially-younger, Caucasian Human Resources Analysts remain employed,” the suit states.
“Immediately after terminating Robinson, OAG issued a job posting for an open Human Resources Analyst III. OAG hired Bania Tonelotti (Caucasian, approximate age: 35) for the open Human Resources Analyst III job. Prior to being hired as a Human Resources Analyst III, Tonelotti had never worked for the OAG. Tonelotti has substantially less human resources experience than Robinson. OAG has recently exhibited a pattern and practice of terminating ‘older’ employees and replacing them with substantially-younger employees. OAG employees who have 25 years of service are eligible for a super annuity retirement, the Retirement Employees Health Program (REHP) and are eligible for sick leave payout.”
As Robinson did not have 25 years of service, she was not eligible for any of those initiatives – and claims that the defendant’s calculated plan was to replace long-tenured employees such as herself before they could take advantage of those programs.
The Attorney General’s Office removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on Oct. 27 and motioned to dismiss it on Nov. 3, arguing that while the plaintiff was terminated in April 2021, it was denied she was an EEO Officer, as well as the only Human Resource Analyst terminated – and that she was offered the opportunity to resign in lieu of termination, but rejected the defense’s separation offer.
“The complaint fails, in whole or in part, to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by his failure to exhaust applicable administrative remedies. Some or all of plaintiff’s claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Defendants are immune from liability by virtue of absolute, qualified, official, governmental, state, sovereign or any other immunity. All decisions regarding plaintiff were based upon legitimate business reasons, none of which violated the U.S. Constitution, federal law or Pennsylvania laws,” per the answer’s affirmative defenses.
For counts of violating the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for age discrimination and racial discrimination, the plaintiff is seeking a declaratory judgment that the conduct complained of violated the aforementioned statutes and damages in excess of $50,000, including compensatory damages, back pay, costs and all other relief permitted under applicable law.
The plaintiff is representing herself in this matter, along with Andrew S. Abramson of Abramson Employment Law, in Blue Bell.
The defendant is represented by Daniel P. McGannon of the Pennsylvania Office of the Attorney General, in Harrisburg.
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania case 1:22-cv-01704
Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas case 2022-CV-07391
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com