HARRISBURG – An African-American and longtime Human Resources Analyst with the state attorney general’s office has maintained her claims that 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, 2022 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 added 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 pre-textual. 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 stated.
“Immediately after terminating Robinson, OAG issued a job posting for an open Human Resources Analyst III. OAG hired Vania 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, 2022 and motioned to dismiss it on Nov. 3, 2022, 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, and 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.
UPDATE
An Aug. 9 motion for summary judgment from the defense called for the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims.
“Plaintiff Anita Robinson proceeds in this action by pontificating: ‘I am Black, over 40 and terminated.’ However, having now turned over every stone, the evidence supporting her proposition remains elusive. Thus, the time has come for Robinson to produce competent admissible evidence showing the existence of every element essential to the claims remaining in this case for which she bears the burden of proof at trial. This is a problem for Robinson, because she may no longer rest on the unsubstantiated allegations of her pleadings but must, instead, produce competent admissible evidence showing she can sustain each element of her discrimination claims. Robinson cannot sustain that burden,” the summary judgment motion stated.
“Robinson cannot produce competent admissible evidence sufficient to give rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination in any actions taken by her employer, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Office of Attorney General. Robinson produced no evidence of record – documents or testimony – corroborating her claims that she was the subject to racial or age discrimination. Indeed, discovery established the opposite given that a member outside both of Robinson’s protected classes was treated in exactly the same manner. As such, Robinson will be unable to establish any relevant admissible evidence reflecting any kind of improper motive. Simply put, Robinson will be unable to produce competent evidence showing the existence of every element essential to the claims remaining in this case for which she bears the burden of proof at trial. Defendant OAG is entitled to summary judgment.”
Conversely, the plaintiff argued in an Aug. 21 response brief that the summary judgment motion should be thrown out.
“Anita Robinson, a Black/African-American was terminated at age 59 after a 21-year career at OAG. Robinson, the only Black and the oldest employee in the Human Resources Department, alleges that she has been discriminated against based upon her age (Count I) and her race (Counts II and III). Robinson was last employed as a Human Resource Analyst III (EEO Officer), a position that she assumed as of 2004. Throughout Robinson’s employment with OAG, it is undisputed that she received satisfactory annual performance appraisals,” per the response.
“On April 13, 2021, Robinson’s employment was terminated due to what OAG terms, a ‘restructuring of the Human Resources Section.’ Immediately after terminating Robinson, OAG issued a job posting for a new combined Human Resource Analyst III position for which Robinson was not permitted to apply, that includes some of her duties, as well as others that she had performed or was familiar with during her 21 year OAG career. OAG hired Vania Tonelotti, a non-Black [woman], age 36, for the new combined Human Resource Analyst III position. Tonelotti had never worked for OAG before, has substantially less human resources experience than Robinson, and never performed many duties listing on the job posting at any other employer. Any of Robinson’s former duties not part of Tonelotti’s duties were distributed to non-Black, substantially-younger employees. Defendant’s argument that plaintiff is unable to establish a prime facie case of age and race discrimination is entirely misplaced by solely relying upon the wrong comparator.”
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 represented by Andrew S. Abramson of Abramson Employment Law, in Blue Bell.
The defendant is represented by Anthony R. Bowers 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