Branch v. Temple Univ.

554 F.Supp.3d 642

Stephen BRANCH, Plaintiff,

v.TEMPLE UNIVERSITY et al., Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION No. 20-2323

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

Signed August 12, 2021

David Korsen, Andrew Olcese, Ari Risson Karpf, Karpf, Karpf & Cerutti, P.C., Bensalem, PA, for Plaintiff.

Danielle Banks, Adam D. Brown, Chelsea Biemiller, Melissa Lynn Perry, Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young LLP, Philadelphia, PA, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM

KENNEY, JUDGE

Plaintiff, Stephen Branch, filed this suit against his former employer, Temple University ("Temple"), his former supervisor, Sean Ounan, and Temple's head of Human Resources, Sharon Boyle, (collectively "Defendants") for race discrimination and retaliation in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and claims of interference and retaliation under the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"), and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act. Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 against all of Plaintiff's claims. ECF No. 65.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, Stephen Branch ("Plaintiff" or "Branch"), was hired as a roving engineer by Temple in 2004. Roving engineers are responsible for responding to maintenance calls, inspecting campus buildings for normal system operations, identifying and reporting system malfunctions, and calling in emergencies such as fire or flood. Roving engineers are required to record their rounds by initialing a logbook located at each building the roving engineer is assigned to inspect during every shift. Alternatively, a roving engineer may use an electronic software application, LogCheck, to record his or her rounds instead of initialing a logbook.

Temple terminated Branch's employment on January 29, 2020 for violating Temple's "Work Rules" D.2 – Fraudulent Statements or misrepresentations in employment (for submitting distribution cards for work he had not performed); D.4 – Falsification or Misrepresentation of Records (for misrepresenting the time he claimed to have worked on his distribution cards); D.6 – Leaving Campus without Permission (for leaving campus during his shift without authorization or advising any supervisor); and D.8 – Insubordination (for his repeated failures to comply with the directives of his supervisors to carry out his required duties of signing the log books or recording his rounds in the LogCheck application). According to Temple's Work Rules, the punishment for a first-time Category D violation is termination. Ex. 19.

Defendants deny any claims of racial discrimination and assert that Branch was terminated because he failed to sign 23 of the 24 logbooks he was assigned to during his three consecutive shifts on January 19, 20, and 21 in 2020. Additionally, Defendants contend that video footage shows that Branch entered his personal car and drove away during those shifts—also in violation of the Temple Work Rules.

Branch, an African American male, argues that Defendants discriminated against him due to his race, retaliated against him for his complaints of race discrimination, and retaliated and interfered with his FMLA usage. Branch maintains that no engineer has ever been terminated for failing to sign logbooks and that other roving engineers, particularly white engineers, regularly failed to sign logbooks and were not terminated. Branch claims that Defendants went on a "witch hunt" to ultimately find any reason to terminate Branch's employment. Specifically, Branch alleges that on January 22, 2020—two days after Branch requested FMLA leave—Defendant Ounan conducted a random spot check of Branch's logbooks in order to justify his termination, even though the signing of logbooks was never enforced. To further support his "witch hunt" theory, Branch points to the emails between Defendant Ounan, Defendant Boyle, and Temple Police after Branch was fired. In those emails, Defendants Ounan and Boyle asked the Temple Police to check the security footage "to make sure he leaves campus ... He was terminated today and we want to make sure all of our details are straight." Branch also asserts that this attempt to find "evidence to corroborate" his termination was unsuccessful because the police footage revealed he stayed on campus on January 20, to which Defendant Ounan replied in an email, "that's not good."

To further support his allegations of discrimination, Plaintiff contends that he was "disciplined and then targeted for termination in a manner disparately from his Caucasian coworkers." Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant, Ounan, harbored racial animus toward Branch and that Ounan disciplined African American engineers "for incidents which he routinely let white engineers slide." For these assertions, Plaintiff relies on the testimony of two former engineering supervisors who worked directly under Ounan—Robert Iodice and Brian Flanagan. Robert Iodice, who served as a supervisor from July of 2017 to July 1, 2019, testified that he perceived "that there was certainly a maybe covert or unannounced level of discrimination, if not actual racism." Furthermore, Iodice testified that "discipline" formed his perception of this belief, and that "I don't even know that Sean [Ounan] recognized that he acted that way as well. I think it might have been so subtle that he just liked white people better than he liked black people." He also testified that Ounan "hated Stephen Branch." Brian Flanagan, who served as a supervisor until 2014, testified that Ounan used racial slurs on two occasions. First, Flanagan testified that Ounan said, "why are all these black guys making all this money? And you've got that fucking n[*****] Stephen Branch making all of this money" (altered by the Court to omit a racial slur). Flanagan further testified that Ounan said, in reference to Branch, "even though you won't write him up, Brian, we'll get that n[*****] one day" (same).

Defendant Ounan denies making any racist comments to Branch. Defendants also argue that Flanagan and Iodice are not credible witnesses for multiple reasons. First, Brian Flanagan was terminated for falsifying records, and the allegations date back more than five years before Branch was fired. Second, Flanagan's certification has numerous errors—including the spelling of his own name and the dates of his employment. Further, Defendants claim that Iodice's testimony is based on speculation, not actual first-hand knowledge, and point out that Iodice himself was fired for failing to issue discipline for violations for the Work Rules.

Branch also alleges that Bill Schweizer—the Steam & Chilled Water Plant Supervisor—once used a racial slur during a phone call, and that Branch's complaint about that remark was not fully investigated. This allegation stems from an incident that occurred just after midnight on April 1, 2019. Defendants allege that Branch failed to respond for nearly four hours to a critical temperature alarm that had gone off in a building for which Branch was responsible. Schweizer called Branch, who Defendants allege became defensive and argumentative. Defendants claim that that Schweizer ended the phone call by telling Branch to meet with him the next morning. Branch contends that, at the end of this phone call, Schweizer said, "I hate you n[******]" (alteration by the Court) when ending the phone call. Then, the very next day, on April 2, 2019, Ounan requested that Branch be terminated. Schweizer denies making any such comment, and Defendants assert the Schweizer did not participate in any way in Branch's termination. Defendants contend that Ounan requested for Branch to be terminated because he failed to respond to the alarm and that Branch's complaint was investigated and unsubstantiated.

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff first filed his Complaint against Defendants on May 18, 2020. ECF No. 1. In response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (ECF No. 4), Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on July 31, 2020. ECF No. 5. Defendants filed their Answer on August 28, 2020. ECF No. 11. By stipulation of the parties, Plaintiff then filed a Second Amended Complaint on September 16, 2020 (ECF No. 17), which Defendants Answered on October 1, 2020. ECF No. 21. Currently pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on all of Plaintiff's claims (ECF No. 65), which has been fully brief and is ripe for disposition. See ECF Nos. 71, 72, and 74.

III. JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the claims arise under the laws of the United States.

Summary judgment is granted where the moving party has established "that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported summary judgment motion; the requirement is that must be no genuine issue of material fact. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 247–48, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) (emphasis in original). A material fact is one that "might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law." Id. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505.

When ruling on a summary judgment motion, the court will consider the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draw all reasonable inferences in the non-moving party's favor. Scheidemantle v. Slippery Rock Univ. State Sys. of Higher Educ. , 470 F.3d 535, 538 (3d Cir. 2006). The judge's role is not to weigh the disputed evidence and determine the truth of the matter, or to make credibility determinations; rather the court must determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp. , 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986) ; Anderson , 477 U.S. at 249, 106 S.Ct....