Mudie v. Phila. Coll. of Osteopathic Med.

577 F.Supp.3d 375

Andrea MUDIE, Plaintiff,

v.PHILADELPHIA COLLEGE OF OSTEOPATHIC MEDICINE, et al., Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 21-2156-KSM

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

Filed December 29, 2021

David A. Berlin, Matthew B. Weisberg, Weisberg Law PC, Morton, PA, Gary Schafkopf, Hopkins Schafkopf, LLC, Bala Cynwyd, PA, for Plaintiff.

Patricia A. McCausland, Curley, Hurtgen & Johnsrud LLP, Philadelphia, PA, for Defendants Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine, PCOM Office Manager Charles Pascall, Christina Mazella.

MEMORANDUM

MARSTON, District Judge

Plaintiff Andrea Mudie sues her former employer, Defendant Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine ("PCOM"), and two PCOM employees, Charles Pascall¹ (Office Manager) and Christina Mazella (Chief Human Resources Officer), (collectively "Defendants"), for discrimination based on her race and national origin under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"). (Doc. No. 14.) Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 20.) Mudie opposes the motion.² (Doc. No. 22.) For the reasons discussed below, the Court grants in part and denies in part the motion.

I. Factual Background

Accepting all of Plaintiff's allegations as true, the relevant facts are as follows.

Mudie is African American and emigrated to the United States from Trinidad; she speaks with an accent. (Doc. No. 14 at ¶¶ 1, 11.)

Mudie worked as a registered nurse at PCOM's Family Medicine Healthcare Center. (Id. at ¶ 1.) Pascale, who is Caucasian, supervised Mudie. (Id. at ¶ 12.) Mudie alleges that Pascale discriminated against her by refusing to allow her to take time to eat lunch, frequently telling her that he could replace her at any time, and calling her a "liar" when she asked to take a day off work because she was closing on a new house. (Id. at ¶ 15(d), (e), (h).) In addition, Pascale "constantly" told Mudie that she did not understand English well and did not understand the "American way." (Id. at ¶ 15(a).) Likewise, Pascale instructed Mudie not to speak in meetings because she did not understand the "American way." (Id. at ¶ 15(b).) Pascale also advised Mudie that she needed "to go out and learn about America because she knows nothing about it." (Id. at ¶ 15(c).) And, when Mudie was in the process of applying for United States citizenship, to the extent she needed time off to complete the process, Pascale required Mudie to show him documentation first. (Id. at ¶ 15(f).)

Further, Pascale told Mudie that "Donald Trump should build a wall for all outsiders [who] do not belong in the United States," above and beyond a wall on the Mexico border. (Id. at ¶ 15(g) (emphasis added).) Mudie complained to Human Resources ("HR") about Pascale's comment; however, "nothing was done" in response. (Id. at ¶ 19.) Last, Mudie alleges that Pascale, along with her other managers, wrongly accused her of stealing patient co-pays and office supplies. (Id. at ¶ 16(b).) Mudie "felt like she was being set up" and reported this conduct to Mazella in HR, maintaining that the accusations were "untrue." (Id. ) According to Mudie, Defendants did not take any action with respect to these accusations.

Mudie also claims that other PCOM employees, including her coworkers, discriminated against her. (See id. at ¶ 16.) For example, Mudie alleges that Mazella and an individual named Peg³ repeatedly threatened her with termination in 2019 and 2020. (Id. at ¶ 16(d).) Specifically, Mazella and Peg demanded that Mudie report to HR each week, and they would tell her that they were auditing her and threatened her with termination to the extent the audit revealed any wrongdoing. (Id. ) And Mudie claims that in 2020, one of her co-workers, Angela Solomon, told Mudie that she did not want to work with "islanders." (Id. at ¶ 16(a).) Mudie reported Solomon's statement to Mazella; she is not aware of Defendants taking any action after receiving this complaint either. (Id. ) Moreover, in August 2020, PCOM's Director of Operations, Steven Castello, transferred Mudie to a different PCOM facility, which was located in a "dangerous neighborhood" that made Mudie feel unsafe. (Id. at ¶ 16(c).) Mudie complained about the transfer to her supervisor, Tiffany Floyd, and to Mazella; however, "these complaints never went anywhere." (Id. ) According to Mudie, her coworkers also told her that she would be fired because of her repeated complaints to HR. (Id. at ¶ 20.)

Mudie also alleges that she received two threats "against her life" while working for Defendants that PCOM never properly investigated or resolved. (See id. at ¶ 17.) First, in 2019, Mudie received a letter via interoffice mail, stating, "You should have never told on us. You will pay. You might escape this time but next time you won't." (Id. at ¶ 17(a); Doc. No. 14-2.) The police were called, and an investigation was opened. (Doc. No. 14 at ¶ 17(a).) But the person responsible for sending the letter was never identified. (Id. ) The following year, in November or December 2020, Mudie received a letter stating: "It's Halloween, watch what you eat, drink and be scary! Told you we would get you. This is only the beginning, your best bet is to resign or lose your career. Your choice." (Id. at ¶ 17(b); Doc. No. 14-3.) Mudie reported this to PCOM's management, but management failed to investigate. (Doc. No. 14 at ¶ 17(b).)

On January 2, 2021, PCOM terminated Mudie for allegedly making unauthorized phone calls to Trinidad using PCOM's landlines during work. (Id. at ¶¶ 22–23.) Mudie asserts that Mazella and Dr. Wayne Westerberg had actually given her permission to use PCOM's landlines and the code to make calls outside of the United States so that she could contact her family in Trinidad because of a difficult and tragic family situation—namely, her sister, who lived in Trinidad, suffered from COVID-19 and ultimately passed away from the virus—and that Defendants’ reason for terminating her was therefore pretextual. (Id. at ¶ 23.)

II. Procedural History

Mudie filed an initial Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") prior to her termination⁴ and received a right-to-sue letter from the EEOC on March 16, 2020. (Doc. No. 20-1 at pp. 2–4, Ex. 1).

Then, after her termination, on August 3, 2021, Mudie filed another Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC. (Doc. No. 20-1 at pp. 6–7, Ex. 2.) In that charge, she alleged that the discrimination took place from 2018 through January 1, 2021 and checked the boxes for discrimination based on "race," "color," "national origin," and "retaliation." (Id. ) Mudie received a right-to-sue letter from the EEOC on August 5, 2021. (Doc. No. 14-1.)

Mudie initially filed this action on May 11, 2021. (Doc. No. 1). She then filed a first amended complaint on July 21, 2021 (Doc. No. 7) and a second amended complaint on August 10, 2021 (Doc. No. 14). In her second amended complaint, Mudie raises three counts for unlawful harassment, discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment based on her ethnicity/national origin and race under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Count I); Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 (Count II); and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act ("PHRA") (Count III). (Id. ) Shortly thereafter, Mudie filed a stipulation in which she agreed to withdraw Count III, the PHRA cause of action. (Doc. No. 19.)

Defendants move to dismiss the remaining two counts, contending that (1) Mudie cannot state a claim for race discrimination under § 1981 because her factual allegations all pertain to discrimination on the basis of her national origin and not her race, and (2) Mudie's Title VII claim is untimely. (Doc. No. 20.) In support of its motion, PCOM relies on Mudie's 2021 EEOC charge form. (Doc. No. 20-1.) Mudie opposes the motion. (Doc. No. 20).

III. Standard of Review

"To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quotation marks omitted). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. "The plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Id. "Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007).

When reviewing a motion to dismiss, courts "must accept the allegations in the complaint as true, but are not compelled to accept unsupported conclusions and unwarranted inferences, or a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation." Castleberry v. STI Grp. , 863 F.3d 259, 263 (3d Cir. 2017) (quotation marks omitted). "As a general matter, a district court ruling on a motion to dismiss may not consider matters extraneous to the pleadings." In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig. , 114 F.3d 1410, 1426 (3d Cir. 1997). "However an exception to the general rule is that a document integral to or explicitly relied upon in the complaint may be considered without converting the motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment." Id. (quotation marks omitted and alterations accepted). The court may also consider "matters of public record, orders, exhibits attached to the complaint and items appearing in the record of the case." Keystone Redevelopment Partners, LLC v. Decker , 631 F.3d 89, 95 (3d Cir. 2011) (quotation marks omitted).

Because Mudie's EEOC charge is a matter of public record and integral to her claims, we consider it in deciding this motion to dismiss. See Savage v. Temple Univ. – of Commonwealth Sys. of Higher Educ. , Civil Action No. 19-6026, 2020 WL 3469039, at *2 (E.D. Pa. June 25, 2020) ("Because Savage's EEOC charge is a matter of...