PHILADELPHIA – A federal judge has thrown out a foreman’s age, religious discrimination and retaliation lawsuit against the City of Philadelphia and two of its employees, after the defendants protested that a 10-page affidavit submitted by the plaintiff was “a sham” and contradicted his previous deposition testimony.
Paul Hall first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on April 11, 2023, versus the City, Shariff Abdus-Salaam and Mike Finnen (in their individual capacities only).
Hall contended that over a four-year time span beginning in the summer of 2019, Abdus-Salaam, his supervisor, regularly derided him, his age and his religion, denied the plaintiff overtime and subjected him to a continuous stream of verbal culminating in him being suspended without pay.
Additionally, Hall alleged that when he reported these incidents, Abdus-Salaam then retaliated against him with adverse employment actions.
During the litigation, Hall was deposed and later submitted a 10-page affidavit in the case – which the defendants responded to by filing a motion to strike the affidavit on July 1 of this year, calling it a “sham.”
“The City filed a motion for summary judgment on March 15, 2024. After repeated lapses and extensions, plaintiff Paul Hall filed his response in opposition on June 17, 2024. The City then filed a reply brief on June 24, 2024. Plaintiff then filed a handful of exhibits on June 26, 2024. Ostensibly, the additional exhibits were cited in plaintiff’s response in opposition, but not attached when the response was filed on June 17, 2024,” the motion to strike stated, in part.
“One of the newly-filed exhibits is a staggering 10-page, 121-paragraph sham affidavit, which repeatedly contradicts plaintiff’s sworn deposition testimony. This sham affidavit, which was manufactured by counsel, is in bad faith and should be stricken in its entirety.”
The strike motion mentioned that the affidavit alleged that Abdus-Salaam ordered Hall around with threats and hostility, denied Hall overtime, made false reports about Hall, obstructed Hall’s grievance reports about Abdus-Salaam from making it to the proper authorities and that Abdus-Salaam’s negative treatment of the plaintiff continued to the present day – however, the motion added, the plaintiff never testified to any of those incidents in his deposition, and thus, the affidavit should be stricken.
On Aug. 26, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Harvey Bartle III granted the defense’s motions to strike and for summary judgment, dismissed the plaintiff’s case and ruled in favor of the defendants.
“First, defendants aver that plaintiff, in his affidavit, provides a more exhaustive list of ‘threats and hostility’ made by plaintiff’s supervisor and defendant, Shariff Abdus-Salaam, than plaintiff testified to at his deposition. Plaintiff explains this seeming contradiction by noting that, in his deposition, he stated that he had not testified to an exclusive list of each instance of discrimination. In fact, plaintiff stated that ‘he has a number of numerous other instances, but I have to recollect and recall those certain things off the top of my head. But yes, there have been other instances,” Bartle said.
“The affidavit also avers that Abdus-Salaam made ‘false reports’ in retaliation against plaintiff. However, plaintiff provided no additional details regarding this, and did not discuss such false reports in his deposition. Plaintiff does not explain the discrepancy in his affidavit, nor does his counsel address such discrepancy in his opposition to the motion to strike. Finally, the affidavit avers that defendant Abdus-Salaam continues to harass plaintiff to this day. At his deposition, plaintiff stated that he did not experience discrimination after June 2022, when he was placed on paid administrative leave. Plaintiff’s counsel failed to provide an explanation for this contradiction. Plaintiff introduced this affidavit in response to defendants’ motion for summary judgment in order to create issues of material fact. Defendants’ motion to strike will be granted and the court will disregard all conflicting facts from plaintiff’s affidavit.”
Bartle further found, as to the defense motion for summary judgment, that the plaintiff had failed to provide proper substantive support for each of his claims and that the summary judgment motion should be granted.
The plaintiff was represented by Seth D. Carson of Carson Legal Group, in Philadelphia.
The defendants were represented by Christopher A. Iacono, Gaetan Alfano and Mark T. Sottile of Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, plus Nicole S. Morris of the City of Philadelphia Solicitor’s Office, all also in Philadelphia.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:23-cv-01381
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com