Mazur v. Sw. Veterans Ctr.

MARGARET MAZUR, Plaintiff, v. SOUTHWESTERN VETERANS CENTER & DEPARTMENT OF MILITARY AND VETERANS AFFAIRS, Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 17-826

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

September 12, 2019

OPINION

CONTI, Senior District Judge.

I. Introduction

Pending before the court in this racial discrimination action filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2000e(17) and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, are dueling motions for summary judgment filed by pro se plaintiff Margaret Mazur ("Mazur") and by her employers, defendants Southwestern Veterans Center ("SWVC") and the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs ("DMVA" and together with the SWVC, "defendants"). The case arises out of an incident in which $500.00 went missing from the SWVC. Defendants initially suspected that Mazur or her coworker Sharon Warden ("Warden") stole or lost the $500.00. Mazur alleges that she did not steal or lose the money and was unfairly disciplined and blamed for the missing money because of her race. Mazur also alleges that defendant harassed her and retaliated against her because she fought against their treatment of her with respect to her role in the missing $500.00.

For the reasons set forth fully in this opinion, defendants' motion for summary judgment will be granted and Mazur's summary judgment will be denied. The undisputed factual allegations in this case show that Mazur is not entitled to relief. In other words, a reasonable jury drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of Mazur could not find that defendants disciplined or harassed Mazur because of her race or that they retaliated against her for engaging in protected activity. Mazur did not set forth any other cognizable claims for relief. Under those circumstances, judgment will be entered in favor of defendants and against Mazur.

II. Procedural History

On June 22, 2017, Mazur initiated this case by filing a complaint under Title VII and § 1981 against defendants. (ECF No. 1.) On August 11, 2017, defendants filed an answer to the complaint. (ECF No. 11.) On January 14, 2018, Mazur filed a first amended complaint setting forth the following claims: (1) race discrimination in violation of Title VII; (2) disparate treatment in violation of Title VII; (3) hostile work environment "based on an ongoing pattern of harassment in retaliation for...Mazur having filed the...EEOC case on race and disparate treatment[;]" (4) retaliation in violation of Title VII; and (5) retaliation in violation of § 1981. (ECF No. 36 ¶ I.)

On February 12, 2018, defendants filed a partial answer to the first amended complaint (ECF No. 42), a partial motion to dismiss (ECF No. 43), and a brief in support of the motion (ECF No. 44). Defendants sought to dismiss Mazur's claims of retaliation based upon Mazur filing her first charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on July 2, 2016. (ECF Nos. 43, 44.) Defendants did not argue the claims of retaliation based upon Mazur complaining to her superiors about disparate treatment and racial discrimination beginning on June 15, 2016, should be dismissed. (ECF No. 96 at 20.) On February 17, 2018, Mazur filed a response in opposition to the motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 45.) The court granted the partial motionto dismiss with respect to Mazur's claims of retaliation based upon filing her first charge of discrimination with the EEOC, of which defendants received notice on August 10, 2016. (ECF No. 96 at 34.) The court explained that Mazur did not set forth factual allegations sufficient to show plausibly that there was a causal connection between Mazur filing her first charge of discrimination with the EEOC and defendants taking an adverse employment action against her. (Id. at 30-31.)

On September 12, 2018, Mazur filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. (ECF No. 110.) Mazur in the second amended complaint set forth the same claims stated in the first amended complaint and sought leave to assert the retaliation claim based upon the Notice of Charge of Discrimination dated August 10, 2016, which was addressed to an employee at the DMVA. (Id.) The court denied Mazur's motion for leave to amend because she did not set forth factual allegations sufficient to cure the deficiencies cited by the court in its opinion setting forth the reasons it granted the partial motion to dismiss the retaliation claim based upon the Notice of Charge of Discrimination dated August 10, 2016. (ECF No. 117 at 6.)

On January 17, 2019, Mazur filed a motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 121), brief in support of the motion (ECF No. 122), and concise statement of material facts (ECF No. 123). On January 18, 2019, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 126), a brief in support of the motion (ECF No. 127), a concise statement of material facts (ECF No. 128), and an appendix (ECF No. 129). On January 29, 2019, Mazur filed an amended brief in support of the motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 132.) On February 15, 2019, Mazur filed a response in opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 135) and a responsive concise statement of material facts (ECF No. 136). On February 18, 2019, defendants filed their response in opposition to Mazur's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 137), a responsive concisestatement of material facts (ECF No. 138), and an appendix (ECF No. 139). On March 1, 2019, Mazur and defendants each filed a reply brief. (ECF Nos. 140, 141.) On March 14, 2019, the combined concise statements of material facts were filed. (ECF Nos. 142, 143.)

On August 11, 2019, Mazur filed a motion to compel a name-clearing hearing, which raises issues related to the issues raised in the motions for summary judgment. (ECF No. 159.) On August 21, 2019, defendants filed a response in opposition to the motion. (ECF No. 161.) On August 21, 2019, Mazur filed a reply brief. (ECF No. 162.)

The motions for summary judgment, having been fully briefed, are now ripe to be decided by the court.

III. Factual Background

The factual background is derived from the undisputed evidence of record and notes the disputed facts of record. With respect to the dueling motions, each disputed fact is to be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party for each motion. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986) ("The evidence of the nonmovant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor."). Because defendants' motion is being granted, all the disputed facts described below are viewed in the light most favorable to Mazur.

A. Background about the DMVA and the SWVC

The DMVA is part of the Executive Department of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ("Commonwealth"). 71 Pa. Stat. § 61(a); Defendants' Combined Concise Statement of Material Facts ("DCCSMF") (ECF No. 143) ¶ 1.) The DMVA's central administrative offices are located in Fort Indiantown Gap ("FIG"), which is located in Lebanon County, Pennsylvania. (DCCSMF (ECF No. 143) ¶ 2); (ECF No. 129-2 ¶ 2.) The DMVA operates six veterans' homes throughout the Commonwealth, including the SWVC. (DCCSMF (ECF No. 143) ¶ 6.) The veterans' homesfall under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Veterans Homes ("BVH"). (Id.) The BVH is headed by a director. (Id.)

During the relevant time period, Andrew Ruscavage ("Ruscavage") served as the director of the BVH. (DCCSMF (ECF No. 143) ¶ 6.) Kim Kreiser ("Kreiser") was a division chief in the DMVA's human resources office at FIG at the times relevant to this litigation. (DCCSMF (ECF No. 143) ¶ 3); (ECF No. 129-2 ¶ 3.) Jennifer McClain-Miller ("McClain-Miller") was a labor relations analyst in the DMVA's human resources office at FIG at the times relevant to this litigation. (DCCSMF (ECF No. 143) ¶ 4; ECF No. 129-9 at 9.)

The DMVA has Standards of Conduct and Work Rules. (ECF No. 129-1) "These work rules constitute the general rules applicable to employees of the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs[,]" and cover topics including "Work Performance[,]" "Time and Attendance[,]" "Safety Standards[,]" "Use of Property[,]" and "Unauthorized Behavior[.]" (Id. at 2-5.)

Each veterans' home under the operation of the DMVA is headed by a Commandant, who is assisted by a Deputy Commandant. (DCCSMF (ECF No. 143) ¶ 7.) At the SWVC, during the relevant time period, Rich Adams ("Adams") served as the Commandant and Barry Lowen ("Lowen") served as the Deputy Commandant. (Id.) Jamie Cuthbert ("Cuthbert") was the human resources analyst ("HR analyst") at SWVC at the times relevant to this litigation. (DCCSMF (ECF No. 143) ¶ 8.)

The SWVC has an accounting department that is responsible for aspects of the financial operation of the SWVC. At the times relevant to this litigation, Darren Lindsay ("Lindsay") was the accountant at the SWVC and supervised the accounting department. (ECF No. 129-2 ¶ 9.)

B. Mazur's Employment with the SWVC

Mazur, who is white, was employed by the DMVA at the SWVC until she resigned on April 27, 2017. (DCCSMF (ECF No. 143) ¶¶ 10-11.) Mazur had "fair share" status with the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees ("AFSCME"). (ECF No. 129-3 at 58.) At the SWVC, Mazur was initially employed as a clerk typist in the human resources office, but after five months was placed as one of two accounting assistants in the accounting department. (ECF No. 129-3 at 24-25; ECF No. 129-8 at 12-13; ECF No. 129-2 ¶ 10.) Mazur worked with Cuthbert in the human resources office. (ECF No. 123-6 ¶ 17.) When Mazur transferred to the accounting department, she was not on "good terms" with Cuthbert. (Id.)

Mazur was first supervised in the accounting assistant position by Don Shields ("Shields"). (ECF No. 129-3 at 25.) Shields retired and Lindsay became Mazur's supervisor. (Id. at 26-27.) Lindsay is black. (DCCSMF (ECF No. 143) ¶ 15.) Lowen is Lindsay's supervisor. (ECF No. 129-5 at 11.) Lindsay gave Mazur an "outstanding" Employee...