PITTSBURGH – A transit workers union has settled its litigation with the Port Authority of Allegheny County over a now-overturned ban on its employees wearing face masks emblazoned with “Black Lives Matter” at work, after both the trial court and a federal appellate court ordered the ban ended through injunction.
Plaintiffs Amalgamated Transit Union Local 85, James Hanna, Sasha Craig and Monika Wheeler first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Sept. 30, 2020 versus the Port Authority of Allegheny County (PAT). All parties are of Pittsburgh.
“Founded in 2013, Black Lives Matter is an anti-racist social movement seeking to eradicate racial prejudices, seek equal justice, and build power to intervene in systemic violence inflicted on Black and Brown communities by state actors and vigilantes,” the suit stated.
“The BLM movement garnered widespread global support and attention in the wake of the murder of George Floyd by police while in police custody on May 25, 2020. Support for BLM continued to swell worldwide throughout the summer of 2020. The ATU International and Local 85 as organizations have fully endorsed and support the Black Lives Matter movement.”
Shortly thereafter, on July 23, 2020, the defendant allegedly changed its “Uniform Standards for Port Authority Operators” to read as follows: “Buttons, stickers, jewelry and clothing (including masks or other face coverings) of a political or social protest nature are not permitted to be worn.”
Though PAT management publicly endorsed the Black Lives Matter movement, the transportation agency also held concerns that permitting its employees to wear masks in support of Black Lives Matter could potentially disrupt the workplace, from conflicts relating to other employees wearing face masks championing opposing sociopolitical movements.
However, there was not a single reported instance of such an incident.
In addition, PAT had previously espoused support for causes such as LGBTQ Pride, Black History Month, women’s rights and others, which the employees argued made the policy at issue an inconsistent one.
In a Feb. 24, 2021 opinion, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan ordered that a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of the “Black Lives Matter” mask policy would remain active, finding to do otherwise would violate the First Amendment rights of the defendant’s employees.
“Granting a stay would have the effect of allowing the Port Authority to enjoin speech of public importance that is protected by the First Amendment. That would be contrary to the public interest and cause harm to those employees who seek to exercise their First Amendment rights,” Ranjan said.
“Further, there is also a more practical harm that would result from a stay here. That is, granting a stay could effectively moot the entire lawsuit, handing the Port Authority a complete or near-complete victory by virtue of litigation delay alone.”
Ranjan felt that the Port Authority did not “show that it will suffer irreparable harm if the Court declines to stay its injunction.”
A subsequent appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit saw the preliminary injunction upheld in a June 29 ruling. Subsequent to the ruling, the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
Counsel for all parties indicated in an October status report that a settlement could be looming.
“The parties and their counsel met on Aug. 22, 2022, and discussed the structure and general terms of a comprehensive settlement. The parties continue to confer and have scheduled an in-person meeting for Nov. 2, 2022. The parties anticipate that a final settlement may be reached by the end of the year. The parties jointly request additional time, until Jan. 3, 2023, to pursue settlement and to submit an updated status report to the Court,” the status report said.
On Jan. 4, it was reported to the Court that a settlement had in fact been reached. Terms of the settlement were not disclosed.
“The parties, by and through their respective undersigned counsel, and in accordance with Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby stipulate to the dismissal with prejudice of all claims, causes of action and parties,” according to a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:20-cv-01471
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit case 21-1256
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com