Law v. Harrisburg Area Cmty. Coll., 1:19-cv-02007

PETER G. LAW, Plaintiff v. HARRISBURG AREA COMMUNITY COLLEGE, Defendant

No. 1:19-cv-02007

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

August 6, 2021

MEMORANDUM

Kane Judge

This case arises out of the termination of Plaintiff Peter G. Law (“Plaintiff” or “Law”)'s employment with Defendant Harrisburg Area Community College (“Defendant” or “HACC”) in October of 2017, which Plaintiff alleges was due to age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (“PHRA”), 43 Pa. Stat. § 951 et seq. (Doc. No. 1.) Before the Court is Defendant's motion for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 28.) For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant the motion.

I. BACKGROUND^[1]

Plaintiff who was born on February 16, 1954, is currently a sixty-seven (67) year old white male who started working for Defendant on January 29, 2012, as the Dean of Student Affairs at Defendant's Harrisburg campus. (Doc. No. 29-1 ¶ 2.) HACC is a community college (the “College”) in central Pennsylvania with over 50, 000 students enrolled at the College's five campuses and online. (Id. ¶ 1.) In his position as Dean of Student Affairs Plaintiff was the highest-ranking student affairs employee at Defendant's largest campus. (Id. ¶¶ 3-4.) Plaintiff reported directly to Defendant's Vice President for Student Affairs as well as Defendant's Harrisburg campus Vice President. (Id.) Plaintiff's job duties as Dean of Student Affairs included the following: “supervision of approximately 65-80 staff members in the areas of recruitment, admissions, financial aid, counseling and advising, career services, placement services, student judicial affairs, student life, athletics and recreation and the day-to-day management of activities in student center areas.” (Id. ¶ 5.) Plaintiff received his bachelor's degree from Shippensburg University in 1976 and a master's degree from the same university in 1978, but did not complete a Ph.D. (Id. ¶ 6.)

At the beginning of his employment, Plaintiff received a number of Defendant's policies, including its harassment policy. (Id. ¶ 7.) Plaintiff was also trained on Defendant's Equal Employment/Educational Opportunity Policy (“EEO Policy”), which is attached to Defendant's motion as Exhibit E. (Id. ¶¶ 8-9.) Throughout Plaintiff's employment, Defendant also maintained a policy prohibiting sexual harassment. (Id. ¶ 10.) The parties dispute whether Exhibit F to Defendant's motion is its sexual harassment policy, as Defendant maintains (id. ¶ 11); Plaintiff asserts that Exhibit F is Defendant's harassment handbook, which he asserts is distinct from the harassment policy, which he attaches to his response as Exhibit T (Doc. No. 301 ¶ 9). The Court's review of the referenced exhibits reveals that Defendant's Exhibit F is entitled “Shared Governance Handbook Document, ” and Plaintiff's Exhibit T is entitled “Shared Governance Policy.” (Doc. Nos. 29-2 at 65-71; 30-2 at 198-201.) Both documents address the issue of harassment, and both documents define harassment to include “verbal harassment, ” which is defined as “jokes, epithets, slurs, negative stereotyping, and unwelcome or patronizing remarks about protected characteristics, ” such as “gender.” (Doc. Nos. 29-2 at 66; 30-2 at 198.)

The parties dispute the contents of the harassment handbook with regard to reporting obligations. (Compare Doc. No. 29-1 ¶ 12 with Doc. No. 30-1 ¶ 12.) Defendant maintains that it provides that an “authorized staff person” who receives a harassment complaint must conduct a thorough investigation, and, if the authorized staff person confirms the truth of the accusation or the situation cannot be resolved informally, the authorized staff person must report the matter to the College's Chief Human Resources Officer (Doc. No. 29-1 ¶ 12), while Plaintiff asserts that “if the authorized staff person confirms the accusation is true AND it cannot be resolved informally, the matter must be reported to the Chief Human Resources Officer” (Doc. No. 30-1 ¶ 12). Plaintiff asserts that if the matter “is substantiated and resolved informally, the Chief Human Resources Officer receives the documentation after the matter is resolved.” (Id.) Della Archer (“Archer”), Defendant's Director of Employee Relations, believes these reporting requirements serve the important College interests of mitigating the corrosive effect on employee morale that inappropriate behavior can cause, and avoiding exposure to potential liability for failing to investigate alleged harassment. (Doc. Nos. 29-1 ¶ 13; 29-2 at 74.)^[2]

Defendant trains its supervisory employees regarding these reporting requirements, and Law received such training through its Employee Training PowerPoint, attached as Exhibit H to Defendant's motion. (Doc. No. 29-1 ¶¶ 14-15.) Plaintiff attended the training for sexual harassment and supervisory employees' duties to report potential harassment witnessed by them. (Id. ¶ 16.) That training states that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes any supervisor responsible for reporting employment discrimination. (Id. ¶ 17.)

Within the first thirty (30) days of Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, the Vice President of Student Affairs issued Plaintiff a written warning for inappropriate conduct and comments toward female students and employees, warning Plaintiff that “one more legitimate incident of inappropriate behavior will result in immediate termination of your relationship with [Defendant].” (Id. ¶ 18.) On September 23, 2016, Plaintiff received another final written warning for his failure to follow policy requiring him to report harassment and potential violence/stalking of a college employee, Mireya Villalobos-Duran (“Villalobos-Duran”). (Id. ¶ 19.) Villalobos-Duran was married to Dr. James Duran (“Dr. Duran”), who was a professor of English at Defendant's Harrisburg campus. (Id. ¶ 20.)^[3] Although the parties dispute which of Defendant's departments employed Villalobos-Duran, and therefore where exactly she met Plaintiff, it is undisputed that she began a consensual sexual relationship with Plaintiff which continued for several years. (Id. ¶¶ 21-22; Doc. No. 30-1 ¶¶ 21-22.)^[4]

With regard to the details of the relationship between Plaintiff and Villalobos-Duran, Defendant's SUMF includes statements at paragraphs 23 through 28 (Doc. No. 29-1 ¶¶ 23-28), each of which Plaintiff denies because he “is not in possession of the facts to admit or deny this statement.” (Doc. No. 30-1 ¶¶ 23-28). Plaintiff's denials contain no citation to the record. Because a denial based on lack of knowledge is insufficient to create a genuine dispute of fact, the Court will deem the facts set forth at paragraphs 23 through 28 admitted for purposes of the instant motion. See Estate of D.B. v. Thousand Islands Central Sch. Dist., 327 F.Supp.3d 477, 485 n. 2 (N.D.N.Y. 2018) (finding that the plaintiff's “denial of the ability to confirm [an] assertion of fact is insufficient to create an issue of fact” and so deeming the fact admitted); Davis v. City of Syracuse, No. 12-0276, 2015 WL 1413362, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2015) (stating that “[o]n a motion for summary judgment, denials of fact that are based on a lack of personal knowledge . . . are insufficient to create a genuine dispute”); Bouriez v. Carnegie-Mellon Univ., No. 02-2104, 2005 WL 2106582, at *3-4 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 26, 2005) (holding that “lack of knowledge denials” without support in the record will be ignored and the court will deem those concise statements of material fact to be undisputed).^[5]

In June 2016, another professor at the College, Professor Reid Meredith (“Meredith”), reported to Christine Cappuzzo (“Cappuzzo”), Directing of Counseling for HACC's Harrisburg campus, that his babysitter, Sana-who was recommended by Villalobos-Duran and living with the Durans-told him that Dr. Duran was living with both Villalobos-Duran and Sana as his wives. (Doc. No. 29-1 ¶ 23.) Meredith also reported to Cappuzzo that Sana had told him that Dr. Duran had threatened to send Sana back to Pakistan, which concerned Meredith, leading to his report to Cappuzzo. (Id. ¶¶ 24-25.) Cappuzzo communicated Meredith's concerns to Archer. (Id. ¶ 26.) At the same time, Cappuzzo disclosed to Archer that Villalobos-Duran was having an extramarital affair with Plaintiff, who was Cappuzzo's supervisor. (Id. ¶ 27.) Cappuzzo also told Archer that she had previously reported concerns about Villalobos-Duran's performance and that, a day later, Plaintiff told Cappuzzo that she “should be more careful” when speaking with HACC's leadership because “news travels fast.” (Id. ¶ 28.) Cappuzo believed Plaintiff's statement was an implicit threat to silence her. (Id. ¶ 29.)^[6]

Archer began an investigation into Villalobos-Duran and Dr. Duran with the aid of legal counsel. (Doc. No. 29-1 ¶ 30.)^[7] Dr. Duran and Villalobo-Duran were interviewed separately (id. ¶ 31), and during Dr. Duran's interview, he accused Plaintiff of sexually harassing Villalobos-Duran and arranging a promotion for her within the Student Affairs Department in exchange for sexual favors (id. ¶ 32). Archer and legal counsel met with Plaintiff about these allegations. (Id. ¶ 33.)^[8]

During his first interview on September 1, 2016, Plaintiff admitted that he had been romantically involved with Villalobos-Duran for some time but claimed that the relationship was consensual. (Doc. No. 29-1 ¶ 34.)^[9] Plaintiff also denied Cappuzzo's allegations that he had intervened inappropriately on Villalobos-Duran's behalf. (Id. ¶ 35.)^[10] During the September 1 interview, Plaintiff claimed that Dr. Duran had physically abused and stalked both Villalobos-Duran and Sana (a HACC student). (Id. ¶ 36.) Plaintiff claimed that he attended a...