Jackson v. Phila. Hous. Auth.

ROBERT JACKSON, Plaintiff, v. PHILADELPHIA HOUSINGAUTHORITY, GEORGE JOHNSON,GEORGE SAMBUCA, CITY OFPHILADELPHIA, and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-4872

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

May 28, 2015

MEMORANDUM

BUCKWALTER, S.J.

Currently pending before the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendants Philadelphia Housing Authority, George Johnson, and George Sambuca (collectively "Defendants"). For the following reasons, the Motion is granted.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Defendant Philadelphia Housing Authority ("PHA") is a public housing authority, organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with a mission of providing quality housing for low and moderate income families in Philadelphia. (Defendants' Statement of Undisputed Facts ("DSUF") ¶ 1; Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Statement of Undisputed Facts ("PRSUF") ¶ 1.)¹ In connection with PHA's mission, PHA established a program entitled"Working Together for Jobs," which was memorialized in a Memorandum of Agreement ("MOA"). (DSUF ¶ 2; PRSUF ¶ 2.) Under the MOA, PHA agreed to collaborate with a number of Unions to create a Pre-Apprenticeship Program (the "Program") to prepare PHA residents with the skills necessary to be eligible for selection for participating unions' apprenticeship programs. (DSUF ¶ 3; PRSUF ¶ 3.) This Program provided an introduction to skills including carpentry, plumbing, painting, and electrical work, and prepared participants to take the qualifying apprenticeship exams for each trade union. (DSUF ¶ 4; PRSUF ¶ 4.) Each cycle of the Pre-Apprenticeship Program was twenty-one weeks in duration. (DSUF ¶ 5; PRSUF ¶ 5.) PHA also agreed to provide funding for the Program under the terms of the MOA. (DSUF ¶ 6; PRSUF ¶ 6.) Accordingly, PHA paid Pre-Apprenticeship Program participants, or students, an hourly wage for their participation in the Program, and paid the cost for eligible students to take the examinations to qualify for each union's apprenticeship at the conclusion of the Program. (DSUF ¶ 7; PRSUF ¶ 7.)

To participate in the Program, applicants were required to complete a basic academic examination and undergo a background check and drug test. Prospective students were also required to complete an interview with Defendant George Johnson ("Johnson"), who served as the Training Coordinator at all times relevant to the instant matter. (DSUF ¶ 8; PRSUF ¶ 8.) Johnson also oversaw selection of the paid teaching assistants and conferred with the Pre-Apprenticeship Program instructors to identify the most qualified individuals for the positions and make selection decisions. (Defs.' Mot. Summ. J., Ex. C, Aff. of George Johnson ("Johnson Aff.") ¶ 18.) Defendant George Sambuca ("Sambuca") served as the Assistant Training Coordinator to Johnson at all times relevant to this matter. (DSUF ¶ 19; PRSUF ¶ 19.)Prospective students, such as Plaintiff, completed an apprenticeship agreement, which included a signed acknowledgment stating that they were not guaranteed employment upon completion of the Program. (DSUF ¶ 9; PRSUF ¶ 9.) Prospective students also signed (1) an acceptance letter stating that acceptance into the Program was not a promise of employment with PHA upon completion of the training period, and (2) an at-will employee agreement. (DSUF ¶¶ 10-11; PRSUF ¶¶ 10-11.)

At the conclusion of the Program, students were encouraged to pursue employment with the participating unions' apprenticeship programs by taking qualifying examinations and completing each union's interview process, if invited to interview. (DSUF ¶ 12; PRSUF ¶ 12.) There was no guarantee that a student who completed PHA's Program would be selected for a union apprenticeship position. (DSUF ¶ 13; PRSUF ¶ 13.) In some instances, when a student was not chosen by a union, he or she could be "held over" at PHA for extended training wherein the individual served as a paid teaching assistant for approximately five months. (DSUF ¶ 14; PRSUF ¶ 14.) Johnson averred that students were selected for paid teaching assistant positions with PHA based on their overall performance during the Pre-Apprenticeship Program. (Johnson Aff. ¶ 17.) There was no guarantee that a student who completed PHA's Program would be selected for a paid teaching assistant position. (DSUF ¶ 16; PRSUF ¶ 16.) Alternatively, a student not chosen by a union for an apprenticeship program could, in some cases, be hired for an open position at PHA. (DSUF ¶¶ 17-18; PRSUF ¶¶ 17-18.)

Plaintiff Robert Jackson was sixty-three years old at all times relevant to this matter. (DSUF ¶ 20; PRSUF ¶ 20.) Although Plaintiff has considered himself retired since age sixty-one, he indicated that he would have considered going back to work if the right opportunity camealong. (Defs.' Mot. Summ. J., Ex. G, Dep. of Robert Jackson ("Jackson Dep.") 169:23-170:13, Dec. 11, 2014.) Plaintiff has been a PHA resident for approximately four years. (DSUF ¶ 22; PRSUF ¶ 22.) In December 2011, Plaintiff interviewed with Johnson for a spot in the Pre-Apprenticeship Program. (DSUF ¶ 23; PRSUF ¶ 23.) Thereafter, from January 2012 to June 7, 2012, Plaintiff participated in the twenty-seventh cycle of the Pre-Apprenticeship Program. (DSUF ¶¶ 24-25; PRSUF ¶¶ 24-25.) Thirty-eight students started the Program during this cycle, and thirty-four students, including Plaintiff, completed and graduated from the Program. (DSUF ¶ 26; PRSUF ¶ 26; Defs.' Mot. Summ. J., Ex. H.) In addition to training at PHA, Plaintiff and his fellow participants also completed a five-day welding program at Philadelphia Technical Training School ("PTT"), an independent institution, during which time PHA continued paying students. (DSUF ¶¶ 27-28; PRSUF ¶¶ 27-28.) Plaintiff graduated from the Pre-Apprenticeship Program on June 8, 2012 and remains in good standing. (DSUF ¶ 30; PRSUF ¶ 30.)

Prior to beginning the Program, Plaintiff signed and understood an acknowledgment affirming his awareness that there was no guarantee of employment upon completion of the Program, and that his success was directly related to his commitment to the Program. (DSUF ¶ 31; PRSUF ¶ 31.) At the time he completed the Program, Plaintiff took the apprenticeship qualifying examinations with the carpenters', electricians', and painters' unions. (DSUF ¶ 32; PRSUF ¶ 32.) According to Plaintiff, he received letters stating that he passed the electricians' and painters' union apprenticeship qualifying examinations, but was not informed as to whether he passed the carpenters' union examination. (DSUF ¶¶ 33-34; PRSUF ¶¶ 33-34.) Thereafter, he completed apprenticeship interviews with the electricians' and painters' unions. (DSUF ¶ 35; PRSUF ¶ 35.) Notwithstanding his allegedly superior performance in the Program, however,Plaintiff was not chosen by any union to participate in its apprenticeship program at that time. (DSUF ¶ 36; PRSUF ¶ 36; Jackson Dep. 110:16-112:20.) Plaintiff was also scheduled to take the plumbers' union apprenticeship qualifying examination, but did not do so because he was "disgusted" and thought "it would just be a waste of time." (DSUF ¶ 37; PRSUF ¶ 37.) Plaintiff was placed on a waiting list for the painters' union, but he never followed up with them to see if they had work. (DSUF ¶ 38; PRSUF ¶ 38.) According to Plaintiff, he was told that businesses which hired from the apprenticeship program were only looking for minorities. (Jackson Dep. 92:6-9, Dec. 11, 2014.)²

Plaintiff was also not selected for a paid teaching assistant position at PHA. (DSUF ¶ 39; PRSUF ¶ 39.) At the completion of the twenty-seventh cycle of the Program, PHA was not hiring for positions other than paid classroom assistants and none of Plaintiff's co-students were hired other than as paid classroom assistants. (DSUF ¶¶ 40-42; PRSUF ¶¶ 40-42.) As Program Coordinator, Defendant Johnson was responsible for selecting the paid assistants. (DSUF ¶ 48; PRSUF ¶ 48.) According to Defendant Johnson, paid classroom assistants were selected based on a number of factors including test scores, instructor recommendations, classroom demeanor, work product, employment opportunities each student had prior to entering the Program, and overall performance in the Program. (Johnson Aff. ¶ 28.) According to Plaintiff, however, when he asked Johnson why he was not hired as a paid classroom assistant, Johnson told him that he "had [his] chance." (Jackson Dep. 157:5-24.) Plaintiff also avers that additional weldingtraining opportunities were available at PTT in which PHA would pay for further training, but he did not receive this information in writing. (DSUF ¶ 53; PRSUF ¶ 53.) Plaintiff contends that he was not selected for further training by PTT because the instructor, Sherman McLeod, did not want to offend Johnson or the PHA by accepting PHA's rejected candidates after Plaintiff filed an internal complaint against Johnson. (DSUF ¶ 55; PRSUF ¶ 55.)

Plaintiff alleged that he was not hired for a five-month paid teaching assistant position, or any other position at PHA, due to his age. (DSUF ¶ 58; PRSUF ¶ 58.) He also asserts that he was told that the best students from his cycle would be brought back as paid teaching assistants. (DSUF ¶ 59; PRSUF ¶ 59.) This statement, however, was never provided in writing. (DSUF ¶ 60; PRSUF ¶ 60.) Plaintiff admitted that he signed an agreement acknowledging that there was no guarantee for future employment upon completion of the Pre-Apprenticeship Program. (DSUF ¶ 61; PRSUF ¶ 61.) He also admitted that he was not privy to each student's test scores, but remarked that he was the first student to receive a score of 100 on a test—which was announced in class as a recognition of Plaintiff's accomplishment—and he consistently received 100s on every test he took. (DSUF ¶ 62; PRSUF ¶ 62; Jackson Dep. 111:9-112:14.) PHA never told Jackson that he was the top student in class. (DSUF ¶ 65; PRSUF ¶ 64.) Plaintiff testified that two men were hired by...