Discipline After Complaints of Discrimination Showed Sufficient Disputes of Material Fact to Avoid Summary Judgment on Retaliation Claims
In the employment law retaliation case of Lewis v. Commonwealth PICS No. 15-0379 (E.D. Pa. March 4, 2015) the Honorable Michael Bayson ruled that sufficient evidence showed disputes of material fact regarding whether the proffered reasons the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole disciplined an African-American female parole officer after she complained of impermissible racial and gender discrimination were pretextual or motivated by retaliatory animus to preclude summary judgment.
Gail Lewis, an African-American female parole office, brought this action against Pennsylvania’s Board of Probation and Parole, contending that the board discriminated and retaliated against her because of race and gender by imposing excessive discipline for alleged policy violations, preventing her from working with a foot injury and changing her work assignments and case load.
The allegations stemmed from two incidents in 2010. The first concerned Lewis allegedly telling staff members a certain officer was an “inmate lover” and had children with an inmate. Lewis was suspended for three days without pay and received a final warning for inappropriate and unprofessional comments.
Lewis was suspended for five days without pay for failing to report an accident involving a state vehicle while transporting an inmate to a halfway house. The inmate complained of injuries. Lewis took him to the halfway house, not a doctor. He filed suit against Lewis, which was settled by the board. The labor relations coordinator asserted that she had no knowledge of Lewis’ discrimination claims when she made these determinations.
The board moved for summary judgment. Lewis withdrew her 1981, 1983 and state law claims. For the remaining Title VII claims, the district court denied the motion. Lewis established a prima facie case of disparate treatment based on race and gender.
The board met its burden of showing legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for the adverse employment actions. However, Lewis produced sufficient evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to her as the nonmoving party, to show disputes of material fact about whether the board’s stated reasons for disciplining her were pretextual and whether the board’s actions after the filing of this lawsuit were motivated by retaliatory animus.
The disputed evidence precluding summary judgment on the race and gender discrimination claims included Lewis’ extensive disciplinary record and the board’s inability to name a similarly situated employee with the same amount of discipline as Lewis. Lewis never received an unsatisfactory performance evaluation. Her supervisor and deputy district director testified that they would recommend Lewis for promotion and considered her very professional. Further, Lewis denied using the term “inmate lover,” but admitted to telling a lieutenant that a certain officer had children with an inmate, contending she did so for officer safety.
The board failed to discipline a white male for calling a former district director a criminal and referring to an offender using profane language in an email, although such behavior was classified as unprofessional. Another male received a written reprimand alone for missing a revocation hearing, although such behavior was arguably unprofessional. The board named two similarly situated white male agents disciplined for unprofessional conduct. One was suspended for using unprofessional and degrading language toward an offender while another was suspended for a field note entry after Lewis brought her first discrimination claim.
Further, Lewis disputed involvement in the collision she allegedly failed to report. The board failed to discipline a white female agent who allegedly hit a pedestrian and failed to report the accident. No similarly situated employee was named who received the amount of discipline as Lewis for failing to report and accident.
For the retaliation claims, the disputed evidence included Lewis’ claim that her overtime increased dramatically after filing suit and unlike a male agent, she was prevented from working with a foot injury. Returning, Lewis contended her duties changed, she was transferred and her case load increased. The board asserted that all agents’ case loads increased.
Summary judgment was denied by the Court.
Reference: Digest of Recent Opinions, Pennsylvania Law Weekly 38 PLW 259 (March 17, 2015)
Filed Under: Employment Law; Race & Gender Discrimination; Retaliation: Summary Judgment
Kindly visit our Employment Law website for more information on this topic. Contact Philadelphia Employment Law Attorney today for your questions and concerns.