PHILADELPHIA – Temple University has denied that it did not hire an African national for a technical support manager position due to his racial background, but rather, that it offered him the role and he voluntarily turned it down.
Abubakarr Foray-Musa of West Chester first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on April 25 versus Temple University, of Philadelphia.
“Plaintiff is a 40-year-old college educated male. Plaintiff is black and was born and raised in Sierra Leone, Africa. Plaintiff speaks with a noticeable accent. In or about early 2022, Plaintiff applied for a GIS Manager/Technical Support position with defendant’s College of Science and Technology. Plaintiff was qualified for the job, as he possesses the requisite skill, education and experience for the position,” the suit said.
“On or about Feb. 17, 2022, plaintiff participated in an interview with defendant’s agents, including Brent Sewall (Associate Professor-Department of Biology), David Walton (Integrated Training Area Management Coordinator) and Andy O’Connor (Director of Plans, Operations, Training and Security at Fort Indiantown Gap National Guard Training Center). Upon plaintiff’s information, belief and observation, Sewall, Walton and O’Connor are Caucasian Americans. During the video-interview, plaintiff disclosed his credentials, answered defendant’s questions and also talked about his ethnic background, including telling the individuals who interviewed him that he was born in Sierra Leone, Africa and that he sometimes travels there to visit family. Although they told plaintiff that he was qualified for the job, they explained that defendant’s HR department would be making the hiring decision. On or about March 8, 2022, after not hearing from defendant, plaintiff reached out to Sewall to inquire about the status of his application for the position.”
The suit added on March 9, 2022, Sewall contacted the plaintiff and told him that he would be recommending to the defendant’s HR department that plaintiff be offered the position. On or about March 20, 2022, the plaintiff’s mother passed away.
On or about March 21, 2022, the plaintiff emailed Sewall and informed him that his mother passed away, that he would be traveling back to Sierra Leone for funeral services and that he would be unavailable until April 15, 2022.
Sewall responded by informing plaintiff that his trip to Africa would not interfere with the defendant offering him the position. In or about late March 2022, the plaintiff received a telephone call from representatives of the defendant’s HR department.
“Defendant informed plaintiff that he was being contacted to schedule a phone interview for the GIS position. Plaintiff asked for clarification regarding the process of scheduling a phone interview and also explained that his mother recently passed away, that he would be traveling home to Sierra Leone for his mother’s funeral and that he would be unavailable for the next approximate two weeks for any additional calls. Defendant’s representative spoke to plaintiff in a rude manner, cut him off and repeatedly told him, ‘I can’t understand you with your accent; can you speak more clearly.’ During the call, defendant did not offer plaintiff a job or inform him that he had been selected for any position. Plaintiff felt extremely uncomfortable by defendant’s comments. Defendant then abruptly ended the call with plaintiff,” the suit stated.
“In or about early May 2022, after plaintiff returned to the United States, he reached out to Mr. Sewall to inquire as to the status of his application for the GIS Manager/Technical Support position. In response, Sewall told plaintiff that HR told him (Sewall) that plaintiff declined a job offer months prior. This was untrue, as plaintiff was not offered the position and never declined the position. In fact, plaintiff repeatedly reached out to defendant upon his return from Africa to inquire about the position and reaffirm his interest in it. Sewall further informed plaintiff that he was not selected for the position, that the position was re-posted and that defendant hired another candidate for the position. Upon information and belief, the candidate defendant hired for the position is not Black or of African descent. Based on the foregoing, plaintiff asserts that he was not hired for the GIS Manager/Technical Support position because of his race, national origin, accent and/or ethnic characteristics.”
UPDATE
On July 10, Temple University answered the complaint and denied Foray-Musa’s substantive allegations – notably, the school said it did indeed offer the plaintiff the role in question, and he turned it down.
“It is admitted only that plaintiff was not hired for the Manager Technical Support position at Temple. By way of further response, Temple hired plaintiff as a Geospatial Technology Assistant in 2020, and did not hire plaintiff for the Manager Technical Support position in 2022 because plaintiff declined its offer,” per the motion.
Additionally, the school provided 22 affirmative defenses on its own behalf.
“Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff’s claim for monetary relief is barred to the extent that he failed to mitigate his damages or suffered no damages. At all relevant times, Temple made good faith efforts to comply with the Title VII, 42 Pa.S.C. Section 1981, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act and the Philadelphia Fair Practices Ordinance. At all times relevant to plaintiff’s claims herein, Temple acted in good faith. Plaintiff’s claims are barred because all alleged actions of Temple were proper, privileged, justified and undertaken in good faith. Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim for compensatory or punitive damages. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the applicable statute of limitations,” the defenses stated, in part.
“Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the failure to exhaust internal or external administrative remedies. No impermissible factor played any role whatsoever in any alleged adverse employment action. Moreover, even if some impermissible motive were a factor in this decision, which Temple denies, Temple would have made the same decision for legitimate business reasons. Temple did not discriminate against plaintiff on the basis of any protected class, race, national origin, ancestry or ethnic characteristics. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrines of waiver, laches, estoppel and unclean hands. If plaintiff suffered any damages or loss, such damages or loss were not caused by any wrongful or intentional conduct on the part of Temple. The conduct alleged by plaintiff is not a violation of plaintiff’s rights. Plaintiff has no evidence that any action of Temple was motivated by plaintiff’s race, national origin, ancestry, or other characteristics identified in the Complaint. Temple has not deprived plaintiff of any rights protected under Title VII, 42 Pa.S.C. Section 1981, the PHRA or the Philadelphia Fair Practices Ordinance.”
For counts of violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 through racial and national origin discrimination, the plaintiff is seeking the following relief:
• The defendant is to be prohibited from continuing to maintain its illegal policy, practice, or custom of discriminating or retaliating against employees and is to be ordered to promulgate an effective policy against such discrimination/retaliation and to adhere thereto (awarding plaintiff such injunctive and/or equitable relief);
• The defendant is to compensate plaintiff, reimburse plaintiff, and make plaintiff whole for any and all pay and benefits plaintiff would have received had it not been for defendant’s illegal actions, including but not limited to back pay, front pay, bonuses and medical and other benefits. Plaintiff should be accorded those benefits illegally withheld from the date he first suffered discrimination or retaliation at the hands of defendant until the date of verdict (in addition to front pay or other equitable relief);
• The plaintiff is to be awarded punitive damages as permitted by applicable law in an amount believed by the Court or trier of fact to be appropriate to punish defendant in this action for its willful, deliberate, malicious and outrageous conduct, and to deter others from engaging in such misconduct in the future;
• The plaintiff is to be accorded any and all other equitable and legal relief as the Court deems just, proper, and appropriate (including but not limited to emotional distress/pain and suffering damages - where permitted under applicable law(s)).
• The plaintiff is to be awarded the costs and expenses of this action and reasonable legal fees as provided by applicable federal and state law;
• Any verdict in favor of plaintiff is to be molded by the Court to maximize the financial recovery available to plaintiff in light of the caps on certain damages set forth in applicable federal law; and
• The plaintiff’s claims are to receive a trial by jury to the extent allowed by applicable law. Plaintiff has also endorsed this demand on the caption of this complaint in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b).
The plaintiff is represented by Jeremy M. Cerutti, Christa Levko and Ari Risson Karpf of Karpf Karpf & Cerutti, in Bensalem.
The defendant is represented by Joe H. Tucker Jr. and Kathleen Kirkpatrick of Tucker Law Group, in Philadelphia.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:23-cv-01574
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com