PHILADELPHIA – A former middle school teacher in Philadelphia who alleged his firing was due to objections he made in reference to a pro-LGBTQ student policy, which he stated are in violation of his Christian beliefs, recently settled his claims.
Ivan Collier first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on March 9 versus the School District of Philadelphia.
Prior to the filing of litigation, the plaintiff adds he filed a written Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, asserting claims of religious discrimination and retaliation, and was issued a Notice of Right to Sue on Dec. 23, 2022.
“Plaintiff holds sincere Christian religious beliefs. Plaintiff was formerly employed by defendant as a middle school teacher. Plaintiff was discharged from his employment with defendant because of his sincerely-held Christian religious beliefs, and denied an accommodation for those beliefs. Plaintiff’s employment was terminated because his religious beliefs conflicted with respondent’s Policy 252, a pro-LGBTQ policy,” the suit said.
“Plaintiff’s employment was terminated because he complained of the foregoing and because he had a religious objection to instructing young students about gender-based and sexual behavior he found objectionable based on his Christian religious faith and/or because it was religiously objectionable to him to refer to students in a manner not corresponding to their birth gender. Policy 252 violates the rights of plaintiff and other Christian teachers and is therefore discriminatory and unlawful.”
The suit explained Policy 252 states that “…the intentional or persistent refusal to respect a student’s gender identity (for example, intentionally referring to the student by a name or pronoun that does not correspond to the student’s gender identity) is a violation of this policy.”
“Policy 252 contains no exemption or accommodation to account for the religious beliefs of teachers. Defendant made no effort to accommodate plaintiff’s religious beliefs despite knowledge of same. Plaintiff was subjected to discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,” the suit stated.
On May 9, the District answered Collier’s complaint and contended that it fired Collier not for his religious beliefs, but for “willful neglect of duties and persistent and willful violation of, or failure to comply with, school laws of this Commonwealth, including official directives and established policy of the School District’s Board of Education.”
It further presented a number of affirmative defenses on its own behalf.
“Plaintiff fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted. Defendant caused no harm to plaintiff; rather, harm suffered by plaintiff, if any, was caused solely by his own acts or omissions. Defendant acted in good faith to comply with the law. Defendant had a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for their alleged employment decisions. Defendant had a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for their alleged employment decisions. Plaintiff failed to properly take advantage of any preventative or corrective opportunities provided by the defendant or to otherwise avoid harm. The School District exercised reasonable care to prevent any discrimination and/or retaliation of employees. Defendant took no adverse action against plaintiff on account of his religious beliefs. Plaintiff is unable to meet the legal requirements for the entry of declaratory and/or injunctive relief,” per those defenses.
“The School District’s actions were based on reasonable factors, separate from any alleged protected status of plaintiff. The School District operated in good faith in all its dealings with the plaintiff. Plaintiff’s claims for punitive damages are barred by the School District’s adoption, publication and enforcement of a policy against discrimination of the type alleged in the complaint. The accommodation(s) requested by plaintiff would impose an undue hardship on the School District. Plaintiff is not entitled to punitive damages because defendant’s actions with respect to plaintiff have in all respects been lawful and because defendant has not engaged in any discriminatory practices with malice or with reckless indifference to plaintiff’s rights. Any and all claims that may be stated in the complaint for damages on behalf of plaintiff resulting from emotional, psychological and/or physical distress and/or injury, pain and suffering, humiliation, loss of life’s pleasures, loss of self-esteem, depression, anxiety, stress, trauma, panic, mental anguish, and other physical, psychological and emotional symptoms and conditions are barred, and the Court lacks jurisdiction, to the extent that such claim is covered by the applicable workers’ compensation statute. Defendant did not engage in any conduct which would entitle the plaintiff to damages or relief of any nature. Plaintiff was provided equal protection under the law. Plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages, if any.”
UPDATE
Just two weeks after the District filed a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the case on Nov. 22 and before any response to that motion came from the plaintiff or his counsel, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Juan R. Sánchez announced that the case had been settled on Dec. 7.
Terms of the settlement were not disclosed.
“It having been reported the issues between the parties in the above action have been settled and upon Order of the Court pursuant to the provisions of Rule 41.1(b) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure of this Court, it is ordered the above action is dismissed with prejudice, pursuant to agreement of counsel without costs,” Sánchez said.
The plaintiff was represented by Wayne A. Ely in Richboro.
The defendant was represented by Kristen Diane Junod of the School District of Philadelphia’s Office of General Counsel, in Philadelphia.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:23-cv-00896
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com