PHILADELPHIA – A Black lifeguard alleges that he was discriminated against and wrongly fired by a Philadelphia-area YMCA facility for supposedly not participating in an emergency rescue situation – but he says that he in fact led the rescue effort, while the posted lifeguard, a Caucasian woman, was absent.
De’Marco Taylor of Philadelphia filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Nov. 6 versus the Greater Philadelphia YMCA, of Conshohocken.
“Plaintiff is an African-American male. On Feb. 14, 2022, defendant hired plaintiff in the position of Head Lifeguard. Plaintiff was well qualified for his position and performed well. By way of background, the majority of defendant’s aquatics team were Caucasian,” the suit says.
“Despite plaintiff’s superb work performance and disciplinary record, on or around June 30, 2022, defendant abruptly terminated plaintiff’s employment. In connection therewith, defendant claimed that plaintiff had a delayed response to an emergency situation in the pool the prior day.”
However, the suit adds that the plaintiff “was not on the lifeguard stand and accordingly was not expected to be the first to respond to an emergency, as per the defendant’s policy.”
“Importantly, once plaintiff observed that the lifeguard on the stand was not responding, he immediately began the rescue and performed CPR. Notably, defendant did not terminate the employment of the other on-duty lifeguard who was likewise not on the stand, a Caucasian female, even though she failed to take any part in the rescue. It is plaintiff’s position that defendant subjected him to disparate treatment based on his race in violation of Title VII and the PHRA,” the suit states.
For counts of violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act through racial discrimination, the plaintiff is seeking the following relief:
• Compensatory damages;
• Punitive damages;
• Liquidated damages;
• Emotional pain and suffering;
• Reasonable attorneys’ fees;
• Recoverable costs;
• Pre- and post-judgment interest;
• An allowance to compensate for negative tax consequences;
• A permanent injunction enjoining defendants, its directors, officers, employees, agents, successors, heirs and assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in, ratifying, or refusing to correct, employment practices which discriminate in violation of the Title VII and the PHRA;
• An order for defendants to institute and implement, and for its employees, to attend and/or otherwise participate in, training programs, policies, practices and programs which provide equal employment opportunities;
• An order for defendants to remove and expunge, or to cause to be removed and expunged, all negative, discriminatory, and/or defamatory memoranda and documentation from plaintiff’s record of employment, including, but not limited to, the pre-textual reasons cited for its adverse actions, disciplines and termination; and;
• Extraordinary, equitable and/or injunctive relief as permitted by law, equity and the federal statutory provisions sued hereunder, pursuant to Rules 64 and 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The plaintiff is represented by David M. Koller of Koller Law, in Philadelphia.
The defendant has not yet obtained legal counsel.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:23-cv-04333
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com