Newton v. Pa. State Police

1

ROBERT M. NEWTON, Plaintiff, v. PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 18-1639

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

August 8, 2022

Re: ECF No. 180

OPINION

KELLY MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Robert M. Newton (“Newton”) commenced this action against the Pennsylvania State Police (“PSP”) to recover damages stemming from employment discrimination. The jury trial portion of this case was conducted on November 8 through 10, 2021, and resulted in a verdict for Newton. The jury found that the PSP terminated Newton's employment in violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and awarded Newton compensatory damages of $100,000. ECF No. 155. On November 12, 2021, the Court conducted the non-jury portion of the trial as to back pay, front pay, reinstatement, and prejudgment interest. ECF No. 156. On March 24, 2022, the Court held that Newton was entitled to back pay, front pay and prejudgment interest of $1,653,274.18. ECF Nos. 176 and 177.

Presently before the Court is PSP's Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 180, requesting entry of judgment in its favor as a matter of law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50 a new trial, or an order amending the judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). For the reasons that follow, the Motion for Reconsideration will be denied.^[1]

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Newton successfully completed PSP academy training and was promoted to the rank of Trooper in March 1996. ECF No. 159 at 121-22. As a Trooper, he was one of 4,700 PSP members assigned to 16 troops across the Commonwealth. The total force is capped by statute at 4,310; however, Pennsylvania provides additional funding for many ancillary roles bringing the total force to 4,700. There is no evidence that the statutory limit was a factor in Newton's termination or considered by PSP at any time relevant to this litigation. Id. at 160-61. Of the 4,700 members of the PSP, approximately 3,000 troopers serve in a patrol function. Id. at 157, 160. The remainder serve in various assignments including anti-crime, administrative roles, gaming enforcement, and liquor enforcement. Id. at 157, 160, 191.

At times relevant to this litigation, each of the 16 PSP Troops throughout the Commonwealth was assigned a “specialized” position of Procurement and Supply Officer. Id. at 82. PSP's specialized roles include job categories that are not patrol positions. Id. at 55, 84. The Procurement and Supply Officer is not reserved for Troopers on limited duty due to injury or illness, and all Troopers, whether full-duty or not, can apply for an opening in this specialized position.

In April 2001, Newton transferred to the Troop D Patrol Unit in Butler, Pennsylvania to be closer to his family. Id. at 50-51. In August 2001, Newton was diagnosed with osteosarcoma to his left shoulder. In February 2002, he underwent surgical removal of the affected bone and muscle. The procedure limited the use of his left arm. Id. at 52-53. He continued to work in a limited-duty capacity during much of his cancer treatment. Id. 54-55. In April 2003, Newton applied for and was selected for an open position as Alternate Troop Procurement and Supply Officer. This administrative position was open to all Troopers, existed before Newton's limited duty status, and was not created to accommodate his illness or disability. The next month, PSP placed Newton on “permanent limited-duty status.” Id. In August 2003, the full-time Procurement and Supply Officer retired and, as the alternate, Newton successfully applied for the position. Id. at 56.

The evidence at trial included the job description for the Procurement and Supply Officer position. The jury learned that the job did not require Newton (or any other Trooper holding the position) to carry or use a firearm to fulfill his responsibilities. Instead, he was required to ensure that each of the five stations within Troop D had all the supplies, uniforms, fuel, and equipment necessary to carry out assigned operations, and to function as the field purchasing officer. Newton was responsible to monitor expenditures, ensure cost containment and vendor compliance with contractual obligations, assist in preparation of the annual troop budget, and track equipment and inventory. Id. at 57 - 64. If an incident occurred that required a large-scale response, whether day or night, or on a day off, Newton was responsible to provide necessary special equipment, food, hygiene, lighting, and communications gear. Id. at 64-65. Newton also served as the CPR/First Aid/AED instructor for Troop D, and as the designated Members' Assistance Program peer contact. Id. at 65-67. Newton's written job description also provided that he would perform other assigned duties “as required inasmuch as they do not conflict with the limitations set forth by the state police medical officer.” Id. at 68. These limitations related to exposure to physical confrontation, none of which fell within any Procurement and Supply Officer responsibilities. There is no dispute that Newton satisfactorily performed all essential duties of his job for 17 years.

Despite the longevity of other Troopers in the same specialized position, Newton was forced to retire upon reaching 25 years of service. PSP contends that its interpretation of the union contract between PSP and The Pennsylvania State Troopers Association requires any Trooper on permanent limited-duty status to retire on the day he or she reaches 25 years of creditable service. ECF No. 159 at 112. The jury learned, however, that the language of the contract is not mandatory. Rather, under the contract, “[m]embers placed into a permanent limited-duty status shall not be guaranteed entitlement of continuing limited duty beyond the date they reach 25 years of creditable service.” Id. at 111 (emphasis added). The PSP Chief of Labor Relations agreed that this language gives the PSP discretion to retain permanent limited duty Troopers. Yet, PSP interprets this provision to require the retirement of any union member on permanent limited duty status because of disability, regardless of job title or the essential functions of any specialized position. Id. at 112-13. Thus, while Troop E employed a full duty trooper who held the Procurement and Supply position for over 30 years, PSP required Newton to retire at 25 years of service only because of his disability. Id. at 82-83,113-115.

Newton received notification that he would be forced to retire on September 5, 2020. He requested that PSP elect to withdraw his “forced retirement” and permit him to continue in his job as a Procurement and Supply Officer. His request was denied. Id. at 115-17.

Newton commenced this action against the PSP on December 7, 2018, with the filing of the initial Complaint. When his complaint was filed, Newton was still employed and challenged only PSP's refusal to promote him to the rank of Corporal due to his limited duty status. ECF No. 1. He sought damages in the form of back pay, front pay, and compensation for emotional distress, as available under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794a(a)(2) and 28 U.S.C §§ 1343(a)(3) and (a)(4) and 1331, and the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et seq. In Count I of the initial Complaint, Newton alleged violations of the Rehabilitation Act based on the PSP's refusal to promote him to the position of Corporal because of his disability, record of disability, or perceived disability. ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 28-34. In Count II, Newton alleged that he faced harassment, discrimination, and retaliation by the PSP based on his disability in violation of the PHRA. Id. ¶¶ 35-37.

At the close of discovery, Newton filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment seeking judgment as a matter of law on Count I, discrimination in violation of the Rehabilitation Act and, as to part of Count II, discrimination in violation of the PHRA. ECF No. 39 ¶ 5. This Court denied the motion sua sponte and dismissed Plaintiff's PHRA claims in federal court based on Eleventh Amendment immunity. ECF No. 53.

PSP forced Newton to retire on September 5, 2020. Newton filed an Amended Complaint to assert additional claims for the violation of the Rehabilitation Act including Termination (Count II) and Retaliation (Count III). ECF No. 68. Following the issuance of a right to sue notice by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) for his wrongful termination claim, Newton filed the operative Second Amended Complaint. ECF No. 81. The Second Amended Complaint added claims under the ADA for Discrimination (Count IV) and Retaliation (Count V). Id.

On April 8, 2021, the parties stipulated to the dismissal of the ADA and Rehabilitation Act retaliation claims (Counts III and V). ECF No. 93. Before trial, the parties stipulated to the dismissal of the ADA discrimination claim (Count IV). ECF No. 142. As a result, the case proceeded to trial on Newton's failure to promote and termination claims, alleging violations of the Rehabilitation Act.

The jury trial portion of this case was conducted on November 8 through 10, 2021. At the close of Newton's case, PSP moved for entry of judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a) and contended: (1) Newton is not a qualified individual for his position as a Procurement and Supply Officer; (2) PSP has no obligation to continue his employment as an accommodation; (3) Newton's disability was not the sole reason for his retirement rather, the union contract requires termination of limited duty troopers who reach 25 years of service; (4) PSP did not discriminate and displayed no animus against Newton based on his disability as evidenced by a going away lunch (complete with cake); and, (5) Newton...