Burton v. Pa. State Police, Case No. 1:11–CV–1968.

990 F.Supp.2d 478

Maurice BURTON, Plaintiff

v.PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE, and Kathy Jo Winterbottom, Defendants.

Case No. 1:11–CV–1968.

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania.

Jan. 2, 2014.

Nathan C. Pringle, Jr., Harrisburg, PA, for Plaintiff.

M. Abbegael Giunta, Office of Attorney General, Harrisburg, PA, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM

SYLVIA H. RAMBO, District Judge.

Presently before the court is Defendants' joint motion for summary judgment (Doc. 38) challenging the adequacy of Plaintiff's claims against his former employer and a state police investigator for discrimination, retaliation, and constructive discharge in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (“Title VII”), and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, 43 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 951 (“PHRA”). Defendants also challenge Plaintiff's freedom of association claim, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against the state police investigator. Disposition of this case turns on Plaintiff's failure to acknowledge that his employer had a legitimate prerogative to curb his admitted continued excessive socialization in the workplace. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' motion will be granted.

I. Background¹A. Facts

Plaintiff Maurice Burton (“Plaintiff”) is an African–American male, formerly employed as a State Trooper with the Pennsylvania State Police (“PSP”). ² (Doc. 19, ¶ 9.) Plaintiff entered the State Police Academy in 1993 when he was 28 years old, and was promoted to the rank of Corporal in 2004. (Burton Dep. at pp, 9–11; Doc. 19, ¶¶ 14–15.) In 2006, he transferred to PSP headquarters to join the Bureau of Research and Development, which is made up of two divisions: a Planning Division and a Programming Division. (Burton Dep. at p. 12; Doc. 19, ¶ 16.) At the time pertinent to the instant matter, Lieutenant Walter Margeson (“Lt. Margeson”) was the Director of the Planning Division, and Lieutenant Carl Harrison Jr. (“Lt. Harrison”) was the Director of the Programming Division. (Burton Dep. at pp. 13–14.) The Bureau Director, Major Richard Stein (“Major Stein”), supervised both Divisions. ( Id.) In 2007, Plaintiff accepted the position of Supervisor of the Policies and Procedures Section of the Programming Division. ( Id. at pp. 13, 15–17.) In this capacity, Plaintiff supervised approximately six subordinates, most of whom were enlisted members ³ of PSP. (Burton Dep. at pp. 16–17.)

During the course of his employment at PSP headquarters, Plaintiff became acquainted with Pamela Yandrich (“Yandrich”), a Caucasian female who was employed as the E–Library Administrator at the headquarters. (Doc. 39, ¶ 14; Doc. 19, ¶ 17.) Plaintiff's job duties necessitated frequent interaction with Yandrich and, as a result, the two became friends and often socialized while in the office. (Doc. 19, ¶¶ 18–19.) At some point in 2007, several of Plaintiff's superiors noticed that Plaintiff and Yandrich “were spending an extraordinary amount of time together.” (Doc. 44–15, p. 26.) In an interview conducted by Defendant Lieutenant Kathy Jo Winterbottom (“Lt. Winterbottom”), an investigator with the Internal Affairs Division at PSP, Major Stein explained,

It started to be kinda a running joke. You have to keep a bucket of cold water handy just to separate the two ‘cause it was out of control.... They have a friendship that they are letting affect the workplace ... I had a lot of people come up to me and make comments about it.

( Id.) Initially, Major Stein and Lt. Harrison addressed the matter informally by asking Plaintiff and Yandrich to reduce the amount of time they spent together in the office. ( Id. at p. 22.) According to Lt. Harrison, Plaintiff and Yandrich generally would comply for a couple of weeks before resuming the same behavior. ( Id.)

In his deposition, Plaintiff recalled Lt. Harrison approaching him on numerous occasions in 2007 and 2008 concerning his frequent and lengthy conversations with Yandrich.⁴ (Burton Dep. at p. 25.) Plaintiff characterized Lt. Harrison's comments as unfair because nearly all of his conversations with Yandrich were “work-related,” yet they were constantly told to watch the amount of time they spent together, while no one reprimanded the white members in the Bureau who “just talk[ed] constantly.” ( Id. at pp. 28–30.) In the fall of 2008, after being addressed once again for spending too much time talking to Yandrich, Plaintiff approached Lt. Harrison regarding the constant criticism. During the conversation, Plaintiff questioned the reason certain white employees, who Plaintiff concedes were supervised by Lt. Margeson rather than Lt. Harrison, were not being similarly reprimanded. ( Id. at pp. 29–30.) Lt. Harrison responded: “I can control my Division. I don't control the other Division. [Does] somebody over there [in the Planning Division] screw around too much? ... [T]hat's not my bailiwick.” (Doc. 44–15, p. 23.)

During another conversation pertaining to Plaintiff's interactions with Yandrich, Lt. Harrison, who is also an African–American male, stated, “any time a black man talks to a white woman, there's an issue.” (Burton Dep. at p. 29; Doc. 44–15, p. 23.) Plaintiff noted in his deposition that Lt. Harrison was PSP's Equal Employment Opportunity (“EEO”) liaison for the Bureau (Burton Dep. at p. 29); however, he was unsure of the context of Lt. Harrison's comment, explaining, “I don't know if [Lt. Harrison]'s saying it's an issue [to him], but I don't know if it's just a society thing or he's saying that's a problem here [at PSP]. I don't know.” (Doc. 44–15, p. 11.) In his deposition, Lt. Harrison clarified that he was giving Plaintiff advice on a personal level. ⁵ ( Id. at p. 23; see Harrison Dep. at p. 26.)

Shortly after the conversation between Lt. Harrison and Plaintiff, Major Stein acknowledged Lt. Harrison's remark, but told Plaintiff, “That's not who I am, and that's not how I operate.... [W]e're here to put out a good product and do a good job and that's it.” ⁶ ( Id.) However, Major Stein added, “I'd hate to see you leave[ ] though you do good work.” (Burton Dep. at pp. 31–32.) In relaying the conversation to Lt. Winterbottom, Plaintiff said he interpreted Major Stein's last remark as a threat, noting, “Why [else] would he say that? It's not like I gave him an inclination I was leaving.” ⁷ (Doc. 44–15, p. 11.)

In fact, at the time the conversation occurred, Plaintiff was in the process of testing for the rank of Sergeant, a promotion which requires a candidate to achieve a certain score and rank on a written and oral exam.⁸ At the oral portion of the exam in May 2008, Lt. Margeson, the Director of the Planning Division, was an assessor on one of Plaintiff's panels. Plaintiff immediately objected to Lt. Margeson's inclusion based on his concern that Lt. Margeson held a negative bias toward him because of Plaintiff's interactions with Yandrich.⁹ ( Id. at pp. 58–60.) Although the site administrator provided Plaintiff with several options,¹⁰ Plaintiff elected to keep Lt. Margeson on the panel and have a consultant examine the scores. ( Id. at Ex. 3.) Plaintiff concedes that Lt. Margeson did nothing that was out of line or that threw Plaintiff off track during the exam. (Burton Dep. at pp. 66–68.) Nevertheless, following the exam, Plaintiff contacted the Bureau Director to discuss his concerns and she offered to have Lt. Margeson's scores removed from the panel. (Burton Dep. at p. 72, Ex. 4; Stephens Dep. at p. 60.) Plaintiff declined, and again chose to have Lt. Margeson's score remain. ( Id.)

Plaintiff's results were less than impressive. He received scores ranging between 3.86134 and 4.79720 out of nine possible points for his performance between both panels of the Oral Board. (Burton Dep. at Ex. 5, pp. 2–3.) After standardizing the scores and re-scaling, the highest overall test score out of all the candidates was a 67 and the lowest was a 33.11615. (Burton Dep. at Ex. 5, p. 4.) Plaintiff received an overall score 44.15257 and was ranked 244 out of 476 (Burton Dep. at pp. 75–76, Ex. 5, p. 4.); consequently, Plaintiff did not receive the promotion.¹¹

Plaintiff remained in his position as Corporal Supervisor in the Programming Division and continued to engage in lengthy conversations, albeit mostly work related, with Yandrich. In response to the conversations, Lt. Harrison issued Plaintiff and Yandrich written reprimands after his multiple informal censures went unheeded. The Supervisor's Notation ¹² issued to Plaintiff provided as follows:

I have continued to take heat this past year over the amount of time that you and Mrs. Pamela J. Yandrich spend in each other's office. For the most part I have defended your actions as you both continue to do good work.

I decided that this week, I would simply observe and not say anything. On Tuesday, the 25th of November, I watched as you spent a total of three and a half hours with Pam in your office before she came out.

On Wednesday, the 26th of November, she was in your office for a total of two hours and 20 minutes before I went to lunch. I also observed that you stood in her office for at least one and a half hours in the afternoon.

The Bureau as a whole is under scrutiny, and I cannot logically justify the amount of time being spent in each other's office.

I have asked the both of you to monitor the amount of time spent together. It is now getting to the point where it is affecting the things that I do. I cannot allow this to continue.

I am not going to dictate the amount of time that you interact. However, you must be much more reasonable in the amount of time spent together.

This is not open for discussion or debate. Simply watch what you are doing.

(Burton Dep. at Ex. 1.) While Lt. Harrison insisted that he issued the Supervisor's Notation on his own accord, he acknowledged that Major Stein had some influence in the matter. (Harrison Dep. at p. 12.)

In his deposition, Major Stein could not recall if he specifically...