Frankovich v. Pittsburgh Pub. Schs.

KRISTEN FRANKOVICH, Plaintiff, v. PITTSBURGH PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Defendant.

No. 2:19-CV-01643-CCW

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

August 23, 2021

OPINION

Christy Criswell Wiegand, United States District Judge

Plaintiff Kristen Frankovich claims that her employer, Defendant Pittsburgh Public Schools (“PPS”), discriminated against her on the basis of her race (Caucasian) in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act by: (1) treating African American employees more favorably than her on particular occasions from 2012-2017; (2) failing to reclassify (promote) her in 2018; and (3) subjecting her to retaliation in 2019 when she complained about this allegedly disparate treatment. See generally ECF No. 13. In its Motion for Summary Judgment, PPS argues that: (1) Ms. Frankovich's 2012-2017 claims are time-barred; (2) Ms. Frankovich cannot point to evidence sufficient to make out a prima facie failure to promote claim; and (3) she likewise cannot establish a prima facie case of retaliation. See ECF No. 43 at 1-2. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant PPS' Motion.

I. Background

A. Procedural History

Ms. Frankovich initiated this case by filing a Complaint on December 18, 2019. See ECF No. 1. She filed her operative Amended Complaint on March 23, 2020. ECF No. 13. In the Amended Complaint, Ms. Frankovich asserts claims for unlawful employment discrimination on the basis of race under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. (Count I); unlawful retaliation, also under Title VII (Count II); and unlawful employment discrimination under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (“PHRA”), 43 P.S. § 951, et seq. (Count III). See Id. at ¶¶ 34-39, 40-44, and 45-51.

Following discovery, PPS filed its Motion for Summary Judgment, which is now fully briefed and ripe for disposition. See ECF Nos. 40-43, 48-50.

B. Administrative Exhaustion

Ms. Frankovich cross-filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and the Pennsylvania Human Rights Commission (“PHRC”) on March 25, 2019 (“First Charge”). See ECF No. 50. at ¶ 1. In the First Charge, Ms. Frankovich claims to have been discriminated against on the basis of race by PPS since 2007, specifically claiming that PPS' “actions, from in or about 2012 until the present, indicate a continuing course of discriminatory conduct towards Caucasian employees and evidence a continuing violation” of Title VII. See Id. at ¶¶ 2, 4. The First Charge does not state the earliest date of discrimination, but it does place the latest date of discrimination at November 15, 2018. See Id. at ¶ 3.

Ms. Frankovich then cross-filed a second charge with the EEOC and PHRC (“Second Charge”) on August 2, 2019. See Id. at ¶ 5. Ms. Frankovich signed the Second Charge on May 2, 2019, and identified the latest date of discrimination as May 9, 2019. See Id. at ¶ 6.^[1] In general, Ms. Frankovich's Second Charge claims that PPS employees (including “decisionmakers”) retaliated against Ms. Frankovich after she filed the First Charge. Ms. Frankovich's Second Charge describes the retaliatory conduct as consisting of African American employees “display[ing] a marked difference in their interactions with [her], ” not treating her “with professionalism or respect, ” being wrongfully accused of not performing her job, and being subjected to “increased scrutiny” by PPS decisionmakers and employees. Id. at ¶ 7.

The EEOC issued Dismissal and Notice of Rights letters to Ms. Frankovich for the First and Second Charge on November 27, 2019 and March 11, 2020, respectively. See Id. at ¶¶ 9-11.

C. Material Facts

The following facts, related to Plaintiff's claims for (1) discrimination in the 2012-2017 period, (2) failure to promote/reclassify in 2018, and (3) retaliation in 2019, are drawn from the parties' Combined Concise Statement of Material Facts, ECF No. 50, and are undisputed unless noted otherwise.

Ms. Frankovich, who is Caucasian, has been employed with PPS since November 2007. See ECF No. 50 at ¶¶ 4, 7, 17. She began her career as a “supervisory aide 2 (food service worker), ” before being promoted to Transportation Assistant in April 2008, a position she remained in until 2014. See Id. at ¶¶ 17-18. Ms. Frankovich was then promoted to the position of Project Assistant, Summer Dreamers Academy in May 2014, and finally to her current position as a Chief Executive Secretary in February 2017. See Id. at ¶¶ 19-20.

1. Alleged Discriminatory Treatment - 2012-2017

Ms. Frankovich's claims for employment discrimination under Title VII (Count I) and the PHRA (Count III) rest, in part, on alleged discrimination that occurred in the 2012-2017 period.

First, in 2013, PPS hired an African American woman to fill the position of Transportation Account Clerk on an acting basis. See ECF No. 50 at ¶¶ 26-27. Ms. Frankovich would have applied for the position had it been advertised. See Id. at ¶ 28. The newly hired acting Account Clerk remained in the position for only a few months. See Id. at ¶ 29.

Also in 2013, Ms. Frankovich unsuccessfully applied for the position of Program Assistant in Student Support Services. See Id. at ¶ 41-43. Ms. Frankovich believes she was not given proper consideration for this position because the hiring officer indicated they had already decided to give the job to Ms. Evelyn Newsome, an African American woman. See id.

Next, after Ms. Frankovich had been promoted to Project Assistant, Summer Dreamers Academy in 2014, PPS hired an African American man, who was a former substitute teacher, to fill the position of Transportation Agent. See Id. at ¶¶ 31-33. This individual was paid a higher salary than what Ms. Frankovich had been making as a Transportation Assistant. See Id. at ¶¶ 30.^[2]

Finally, in 2015, while Ms. Frankovich was employed as the Project Assistant, Summer Dreamers Academy, PPS hired an African American woman on a temporary basis with an hourly stipend equal to the pay of a manager, i.e. higher than Ms. Frankovich's salary at the time. See Id. at ¶¶ 36-40.

Ms. Frankovich testified that she believed at the time the above summarized decisions were made by PPS that PPS' actions were discriminatory, but she acknowledged that she did not put her complaints in writing, raise them with human resources, or file a claim with any outside agency until she filed her First Charge in March 2019 with the EEOC and PHRC. See Id. at ¶ 45. Ms. Frankovich attempts to generate a dispute about her testimony on this point, suggesting that she “did not understand the District's conduct to be discriminatory in nature until its denial of Mr. Anderson's repeated requests to reclassify her position in June and November of 2018.” See id. (Plaintiff's response, quoting Frankovich deposition testimony, ECF No. 42-1 at 105:8-106:12). However, Ms. Frankovich specifically testified that:

Q. And if I also understood though given the nature of the conversations that you had like with Mr. Vasser [Director of Pupil Services] and others that you had, you said it was offensive, but you had a sense or a belief that some of these decisions at least were discriminatory; is that fair to say?

A. Correct. There also was just an underlying understanding by pretty much most staff that this was happening. So I mean, at the time it was just understood. So when we had these conversations, we knew that there were certain people that would have to do the work and certain ones would have to, and it was just an understanding. So I didn't -- I don't know. Maybe I should have went to HR earlier, I don't know. I mean, I really liked the work I was doing and I believed in it. I didn't think this stuff would keep continuing.

Q. So it seems then that after you assumed your current position and then in particular in 2018 when you had discussions with Mr. Anderson about change in job title or maybe more importantly change in pay, that when that didn't happen, you reached the point where you are going to complain and that you also viewed that not in isolation, meaning this was one of several discriminatory decisions that have been made against me; is that fair to say?

A. Correct.

ECF No. 42-1 at 105:8-106:12. In light of the above-and given Ms. Frankovich's statement in opposition to PPS' Motion that she “was aware of inexplicable pay inequalities between herself and various African American employees, ” ECF No. 48 at 5-there is no genuine dispute that Ms. Frankovich testified that she believed the above-summarized decisions made by PPS in the 2012- 2017 period to have been discriminatory in nature at the time the decisions were made.

2. Ms. Frankovich Seeks Reclassification - 2018

Ms. Frankovich was promoted to her current position of Chief Executive Secretary in February 2017. See ECF No. 50 at ¶ 20. In that role, she reported to Mr. Anthony Anderson, Deputy Superintendent, and was responsible for providing “support” to Mr. Anderson and the Chief Academic Officer.^[3] See Id. at ¶ 52. Specifically, Ms. Frankovich was responsible for “[c]alendars, payroll attendance for [Mr. Anderson's] department, which included the chief of school side and documentation. She set up for the professional learning activities, and travel and liaison for communication with schools if they contacted and communication with parents.” See Id. at ¶ 53.^[4]

Sometime in or around June 2018, and again in November 2018 ^[5] Ms. Frankovich “initiated a discussion with [Mr. Anderson] about her job responsibilities and classification” because she believed “that individuals were ‘being given titles that provided them with more pay' despite doing the ‘same type of work' and ‘said she was doing more work.'” See Id. at ¶¶ 56-58, 99-100. Ms. Frankovich's position was never reclassified, however. Mr. Anderson testified that he did not...