Pierce v. City of Phila.

391 F.Supp.3d 419

Deanna PIERCE, Plaintiff,

v.CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-5539

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

Filed June 13, 2019

Laura Carlin Mattiacci, Stephen G. Console, Lane Schiff, Console Mattiacci Law, LLC, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiff.

Christopher H. Rider, Kia Ghee, City of Philadelphia Law Dept., Nicole S. Morris, City of Philadelphia Solicitor's Office, Philadelphia, PA, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM

PAPPERT, District Judge

This litigation arose from the City of Philadelphia's promotion of three employees—one Latina and two African-Americans—in the City's Department of Prisons ("PDP"). Plaintiff Deanna Pierce, a Native-American woman, claimed the City discriminated against her on the basis of race when it did not promote her, then retaliated against her because she complained of discrimination. A jury found the City did not discriminate against Pierce but did retaliate against her; it awarded nominal damages. Pierce filed three post-trial motions. One seeks judgment as a matter of law—or in the alternative, a new trial—on her discrimination claims and a new trial on municipal liability and damages. (ECF No. 86.) The other seeks equitable and injunctive relief from retaliation. (ECF No. 78.) The most recent motion seeks a new trial on the grounds that the City failed to produce certain evidence during discovery. (ECF No. 101.) The Court denies all three motions in their entirety.

I

Pierce applied for three promotions within the PDP in 2015, 2016 (the "HSPA positions") and 2017 (the "CJO position"). She interviewed against Adrienne Lyde, Jennifer Albandoz and Leroy Pendleton. Both Lyde and Pendleton are African-American; Albandoz is Hispanic. Pierce was not selected for any of the promotions. She filed her lawsuit on December 11, 2017 (Compl., ECF No. 1), alleging claims of race discrimination for the City's failure to promote her in 2015, 2016 and 2017, hostile work environment and retaliation in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act and the Philadelphia Fair Practices Ordinance. (Id. ) In her Second Amended Complaint,¹ filed on June 25, 2018, she added a sixth claim of disability discrimination. (ECF No. 18.) She withdrew the disability claim on July 17, 2018. (ECF No. 25.) She withdrew the discrimination claims regarding the 2015 promotion on November 1, 2018. (ECF No. 33.)

Pierce moved for partial summary judgment on her discrimination claims over Albandoz's promotion to the HSPA position in 2016. (ECF No. 32.) The City moved for summary judgment on all claims. (ECF No. 34.) The Court denied Pierce's motion, (ECF Nos. 63, 64), and also denied the City's motion as to the discrimination claims regarding Albandoz's 2016 promotion and the retaliation claims under Title VII, the PHRA and the PFPO. (Id. ) It granted the City's motion as to the discrimination and retaliation claims regarding Pendleton's promotion to the CJO position in 2017, the hostile work environment claims and the retaliation claims under § 1981. (Id. )

Trial began on January 8, 2019 on the remaining claims: race discrimination for the City's failure to promote Pierce to the HSPA job in 2016 (in violation of § 1981, the Equal Protection Clause, Title VII, the PHRA and the PFPO) and retaliation (in violation of Title VII, the PHRA and the PFPO). (ECF No. 67.) On January 11, the jury returned a verdict for the City on the discrimination claims and for Pierce on the retaliation claims. The jurors awarded Pierce one dollar in nominal damages. (ECF No. 73.)

II

Pierce moves for judgment as a matter of law on her race discrimination claim regarding Albandoz's 2016 promotion. She argues that under the mixed-motive discrimination analysis, which requires her to establish that race was a motivating factor in the City's decision, a reasonable jury could not have had a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the City. To the contrary, the evidence provided the jurors with ample basis to conclude as they did.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50 permits the Court to enter judgment as a matter of law where "a party has been fully heard on an issue during a jury trial and the court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue." Fed. Rule Civ. P. 50(a)(1) ; Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prod., Inc. , 530 U.S. 133, 149, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000). Reviewing all of the evidence in the record, the Court "must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party" and "disregard all evidence favorable to the moving party that the jury is not required to believe." Reeves , 530 U.S. at 150–51, 120 S.Ct. 2097 (citations omitted). The Court may not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence, as those are "jury functions, not those of a judge." Id. (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) ).

A

Pierce was in 2016, and still is, a social work supervisor in the PDP. See (Jan. 8, 2019 Hr'g Tr. ("Jan. 8 Tr.") 46:2–4). Social work supervisors report directly to Human Services Program Administrators ("HSPAs"). (Id. at 48:21–49:2.) The PDP has two HSPAs; both are civil service positions. See (id. at 119:22–24). Of particular relevance to Pierce's discrimination claims, to apply for a promotion to a civil service position, City employees must take a civil service examination. (Id. at 119:25–120:4; Jan. 9, 2019 Hr'g Tr. ("Jan. 9 Tr.") 86:24–87:3.) Under the "civil service rule of two," if there is one vacancy for a position, the City must interview the two interested candidates with the highest exam scores. (Jan. 8 Tr. 121:4–7; Jan. 9 Tr. 86:24–87:16.) The Commissioner of the PDP has final decision-making authority with respect to hiring and promotions. (Jan. 9 Tr. 175:24–176:3.)

Pierce took the civil service exam for the HSPA position in 2014, along with Adrienne Lyde, Dawn Hall and Jennifer Albandoz. (Jan. 8 Tr. 49:6–8; Trial Ex. 11.) Lyde scored highest, followed by Pierce, Hall and Albandoz, respectively. (Trial Ex. 11.) Pursuant to the civil service rule of two, Lyde and Pierce interviewed for the HSPA position when one became vacant in 2015. (Jan. 8 Tr. 52:17–22.) Lyde received the promotion. (Id. at 53:10.) Pierce thought the City failed to promote her because of her race and filed an EEOC charge of discrimination. (Id. at 118:10–119:7.)

In January of 2016, Philadelphia Mayor James Kenney took office. Blanche Carney was appointed Commissioner of the PDP several months later. (Jan. 9 Tr. 96:10–20.) In May of 2016, another HSPA position became available. (Id. at 97:18–98:20.) Pursuant to the rule of two, Dawn Hall and Pierce were slotted to interview for the position, but shortly before the interview Hall decided not to pursue the job.² (Id. at 144:9–17, 158:8–9; Jan. 10, 2019 Hr'g Tr. ("Jan. 10 Tr.") 175:3–176:16.) As the person with the next-highest test score, Albandoz became eligible for consideration and she and Pierce were both interviewed for the HSPA position on June 24, 2016. (Jan. 8 Tr. 60:23–61:7; Jan. 10 Tr. 175:3–176:16.) The interview panelists—Commissioner Carney, former Acting Commissioner Michael Resnick, Deputy Commissioners Karen Bryant and Terrell Bagby and Human Resources Manager Tracey Delaney—each took contemporaneous notes on an interview evaluation form. See (Trial Exs. 27, 29–32). Albandoz received the promotion.³ (Jan. 8 Tr. 62:17–19.)

Each panelist testified at trial and every interview evaluation form was admitted into evidence. The panelists' testimony was consistent with their contemporaneous notes. Delaney told the jury that Pierce began her interview by stating she did not feel well and "it took her a minute to gather her thoughts and answer the questions." (Jan. 9 Tr. 67:21–68:3.) Bagby testified that Pierce "had a hard time concentrating on the questions that [he] asked her," (Jan. 10 Tr. 72:6–7), and that the interview "was one of the weirdest ... [he'd] ever participated on" because he had "never had someone who just completely said they just couldn't keep the questions in their head...." (Id. at 73:3–7.) Resnick told the jury that Pierce's interview was "awful. She was horrible.... [S]he couldn't formulate responses to [the panelists'] questions.... It just seemed like she was not focused." (Id. at 131:19–132:1.) Carney, Resnick and Bryant all testified that no one from the panel recommended Pierce for the position. (Jan. 9 Tr. 176:24–177:1, 207:2–3; Jan. 10 Tr. 135:7–8.)

Carney, the ultimate decisionmaker, was kinder in her assessment of Pierce's performance but explained why she too favored Albandoz after the interviews. She testified that "Ms. Albandoz fully answered and responded to the questions, she was better prepared. She came with ... big goals and visions to expand service delivery in the prisons.... She gave good eye contact, engaged the board." (Jan. 9 Tr. 176:14–23.) "It wasn't that Ms. Pierce performed bad, she performed well, but when compared and competing for a position, Ms. Albandoz was the better candidate." (Id. at 162:10–13.)

Pierce's own testimony was in material part consistent with the panel members' assessment of her interview performance. She told the jury she was "extremely, extremely ill" on the day of her interview. (Jan. 8 Tr. 61:10.) She stated that during the interview, she was "focused on not throwing up and making sure that [she], you know, didn't have any accidents." (Jan. 9 Tr. 5:21, 6:6–8.) "Unfortunately or fortunately, [she] was able to push through, but [she] didn't feel like [her]self." (Id. at 6:10–12.) Moreover, it was Pierce's decision to interview even though she was, by her own account, far from her best that day. She stated that she has "great relationships with every one of" the panelists and Commissioner Carney testified that "had Ms. Pierce made ...