PHILADELPHIA – A Delaware County school district has denied that it discriminated against a Black special education professional who claimed she was demoted from a new role she applied for, simply because her white predecessor opted to re-apply for the role after initially stepping aside.
Tamika Pitchford first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Aug. 1 versus William Penn School District. Both parties are of Lansdowne.
“Ms. Tamika Pitchford is an African-American female. On Sept. 10, 2019, Pitchford was excited to be selected for the position of Special Education Department Head. Significantly, throughout her employment and all times relevant hereto, Pitchford performed her duties in an excellent manner, received positive performance reviews and had ample qualification for the instant promotion. Pitchford decided to apply for the position when she was made aware that Ms. Rebecca Vandenberg, the Department Head for the past several years, had decided not to run for an additional term,” the suit said.
“In fact, Vandenberg, a White female, made an open and notorious comment that she did not intended to seek an additional term. Pitchford timely applied for the position and was given at least two separate interviews for the position, including at least one with defendant’s employee Joe Conley. Pitchford was awarded the position and yet, in the short term of her new position, Pitchford was subjected to ridicule and harassment by administrators and discriminated against. Upon information, Vandenberg provided an email after the deadline for application for the position had lapsed, that she indeed desired to run for the position for a new term.”
The suit added that Vandenberg’s email did not comply with the District’s own policy in regards to re-applying for her role.
“In fact, the EEOC found that defendant, when asked about Vandenberg’s compliance provided little with regard to a proper response. Defendant demoted Pitchford, giving the position back to Vandenberg and explaining that the Union policy compels that Vandenberg continue in the position. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that the instant decision was based on racist animus, discrimination based on race and in contravention of the rights bestowed by the U.S. Constitution,” the suit stated.
“Defendant had a general policy and ongoing practice of discriminating against non-White and particularly, African-American employees. This policy was manifested in the following ways: Demoting African-American employees, namely the plaintiff, on the basis of race and not performance and failing and refusing to take adequate steps to eliminate the effects of its past discriminatory practices. The discriminatory demotion by defendant was clear and manifest. Defendant discriminated against Pitchford based on her race.”
UPDATE
On Dec. 9, William Penn School District answered the complaint and denied that it had discriminated against Pitchford.
Rather, it argued that the plaintiff was in fact not qualified for the position she sought, inasmuch as the position was a union position subject to seniority which plaintiff did not have – and that Vandenberg sought out the role in question. Furthermore, it contended that Vandenberg was contacted by the Human Relations Director at the time, Conley, who indicated that she might be interested in the open position and encouraged her to apply, unaware that Ms. Vandenberg was still interested in keeping that position.
The District also provided 15 separate affirmative defenses to support its position.
“Defendant’s actions in removing plaintiff from the supplemental position she had taken over were reasonable under the circumstances, based upon legitimate business reasons advanced and could have been successfully grieved by the teacher’s union. Defendant was bound by the provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement with the teachers’ union and the outcome of a grievance filed by Ms. Vandenberg who wanted to keep the supplemental position taken over by plaintiff. Defendant’s reason for removing plaintiff from the position was based upon a union grievance filed from an unintentional oversight by the Director of Human Resources who did not know that Ms. Vandenberg intended to keep that supplemental position when suggested that plaintiff apply for it,” the defenses stated, in part.
“Plaintiff was advised of the oversight but was unwilling to accept the truth. Rather, plaintiff contacted the local police in an attempt to have Ms. Vandenberg removed from the supplemental position. Plaintiff’s behavior in that regard was immature and unprofessional. Plaintiff’s professional development was not affected by the transfer of the position to Ms. Vandenberg, but could have been affected by her unprofessional reaction to it. Plaintiff has failed to mitigate her damages. Plaintiff has failed to show that the defendant acted intentionally to deprive her of the terms, conditions and benefits of employment on the basis of her race as a motivating factor for its decision.”
For counts of violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act and 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages, actual damages, damages for her emotional and psychological pain-related injuries, punitive damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs of suit and attorney’s fees, plus such other relief as the Court deems just and proper and a trial by jury.
The plaintiff is represented by Michael A. Walker of The Law Office of Michael A. Walker, in Norristown.
The defendant is represented by Sharon M. O’Donnell of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, in Camp Hill.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:22-cv-03021
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com