PHILADELPHIA – The Borough of Yeadon has denied allegations of gender and race discrimination from its former Borough Manager, arguing that it simply did not renew a contract with the plaintiff’s employer.
Mironda Presswood of Wallingford initially filed suit in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas on Sept. 25 versus the Borough of Yeadon and NJN & Associates, LLC, of New Castle, Del.
“Plaintiff began working for defendant Yeadon in or around June 2018 as an Assistant Borough Manager. In or around June 2019, plaintiff became jointly employed by defendant NJN. In or around June 2019, plaintiff was promoted to the position of Borough Manager,” the suit stated.
“During the entirety of her employment, plaintiff was qualified for her position and performed well. Beginning in or around June 2019 and continuing through the end of her employment, plaintiff was frequently subjected to harassing comments on the basis of her race and sex. The comments were made by supervisory employees within defendant Yeadon.”
The suit added that though defendant NJN was aware of the harassment, it allegedly did not take any steps to correct it.
“On Dec. 29, 2021, Learin Johnson, who was sworn in as Vice President or the Council of defendant Borough on Jan. 3, 2022, falsely claimed to plaintiff that a man normally held the position of Borough Manager. Learin Johnson further implied that a man should hold plaintiff’s position. Plaintiff reasonably believed these comments were discriminatory on the basis of sex and/or gender. Plaintiff made a complaint of discrimination to both defendants,” the suit said.
“Only days later, on Jan. 3, 2022, defendants terminated plaintiff’s employment. Plaintiff was thereafter replaced by a male employee with fewer qualifications. The male employee was required to perform the exact same work that plaintiff did. The male employee was paid a significantly higher salary than plaintiff had been paid.”
On Dec. 6, the defendants removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, since federal laws were invoked in the complaint.
“Plaintiff’s complaint asserts multiple claims against the defendants under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. Moving defendants assert that this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 and 28 U.S.C. Section 1441(c) as claims are being asserted against the defendants under the laws of the United States of America. This notice is timely filed as it is filed within 30 days of service of the complaint on the defendants. Defendants herein demand a trial by jury,” the removal notice stated.
UPDATE
The defendants answered the complaint on Jan. 8, denying its substantive allegations and providing 15 separate affirmative defenses.
“Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against defendants. Plaintiff’s complaint fails to establish grounds for punitive damages against any defendant. Plaintiff is not entitled to punitive damages under any of the statutory schemes upon which she relies. Neither of the defendants have committed any discriminatory act, nor is any act being committed with discriminatory intent. Plaintiff’s position was not renewed when the Borough restructured on Jan. 3, 2022 and ended the contract it had with NJN, which was plaintiff’s employer. The vote was 7 to 0 to not renew the contract with NJN, and the seven Borough Councilmembers voting to not renew said contract were all African-American females. Plaintiff was laid off by NJN and collected unemployment benefits and, thereafter, failed to mitigate her damages. Plaintiff fails to present a valid wage claim as plaintiff’s contract of employment through NJN was fully upheld and after its contract was not renewed she was laid off and collected unemployment benefits. Further, plaintiff actually received higher wages than the African-American male who replaced her,” the defenses stated, in part.
“Plaintiff has failed to set forth any facts that establish a retaliation claim under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act or Title VII. At all times material to plaintiff’s complaint, the answering defendants treated plaintiff no differently than any other individual similarly situated and did not treat plaintiff in any discriminatory fashion due to her gender, sex or race. Plaintiff’s claims that the reason for her termination were pre-textual is without valid basis, as the contract with NJN was terminated by the Borough, plaintiff was an employee of NJN not the Borough, and plaintiff thereafter received unemployment benefits through NJN. At all times material to plaintiff’s complaint, the Borough had every right to reorganize following the election of new Councilmembers and had every right to retain or replace various public officials and contractors. Accordingly, defendants lacked any discriminatory motivation. Some or all of plaintiff’s claims may be barred by the applicable statute of limitations and/or the failure to timely exhaust her administrative remedies. Answering defendants incorporate by reference all defenses available to them under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.”
For multiple counts of retaliation, sex discrimination, gender discrimination, race discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 and the Equal Pay Act, the plaintiff is seeking the following relief:
• Damages for past and future monetary losses as a result of defendants’ unlawful discrimination and retaliation;
• 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, their directors, officers, employees, agents, successors, heirs and assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, from engaging in, ratifying, or refusing to correct, employment practices which discriminate in violation of Title VII, the PHRA, the EPA and Section 1981;
• Order 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 her adverse actions, disciplines and termination; and
• Awarding extraordinary, equitable and/or injunctive relief as permitted by law, equity and the statutory provisions sued hereunder.
The plaintiff is represented by Eva C. Zelson, Gregg L. Zeff and Derek J. Demeri of Zeff Law Firm, in Mount Laurel, N.J.
The defendants are represented by Robert P. DiDomenicis of Holsten Associates, in Media.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:23-cv-04819
Delaware County Court of Common Pleas case CV-2023-008300
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com