Williams v. Pa. Human Relations Comm'n

CHERYL WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. PENNSYLVANIA HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION, JOSEPH RETORT,ADAM STALCZYNSKI, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 14-1290

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

November 21, 2016

Judge Nora Barry Fischer

MEMORANDUM OPINION

I. INTRODUCTION

This case involves an employment dispute between Plaintiff Cheryl Williams ("Plaintiff" or "Williams") and her former employer, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission ("PHRC"), her former supervisor Joseph Retort ("Retort"), and the former Regional Director of the Pittsburgh Office of the PHRC ("Pittsburgh Regional Director"), Adam Stalczynski ("Stalczynski"). Remaining from her Amended Complaint, (Docket No. 10), are her claims for discrimination alleging that she suffered a hostile work environment and/or was constructively discharged based on race, gender, and disability. Presently pending is the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants (Docket No. [52]), and Plaintiff's opposition thereto. After reviewing the filings of the parties, including the Amended Complaint (Docket No. 10); Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, Brief in Support, Concise Statement of Undisputed Material Facts and Appendix thereto (Docket Nos. 52, 53, 54, 55); Plaintiff's response in opposition delineated as her "Motion in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment," (Docket No. 56), her Brief in Opposition and her Response to Defendant's Concise Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (Docket Nos. 57, 59); Defendants' Reply Brief (Docket No. 61) and Plaintiff's Sur-Reply Brief (Docket No. 62); and the parties' evidentiary submissions, and considering the record as a whole against standards for granting such a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, the motion will be granted for the following reasons.

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In November 2013, Williams filed a charge of discrimination ("Charge") with the EEOC. (Docket No. 54 at ¶ 15; 59 at ¶ 15). A right to sue letter was issued by the EEOC on July 9, 2014. (Docket No. 10-1, Exs. B and C). On September 22, 2014, Williams commenced this action originally only against the PHRC. (Docket No. 1). On order of this Court, she filed her Amended Complaint on November 21, 2014, then adding Defendants Retort and Stalczynski to her suit against the PHRC. The Amended Complaint sued the PHRC under Count I for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12112, et seq.; sued the PHRC under Count II for violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e; sued the PHRC under Count III for 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. §§ 951-963; and sued Defendants Retort and Stalczynski under Count IV pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of rights secured by Title VII, the ADA and the PHRA. (Docket No. 10).

On December 3, 2014, the PHRC filed a partial motion to dismiss, seeking dismissal of Counts I and III in their entirety and the portion of Count II alleging violations of the PHRA. (Docket Nos. 12, 13). By memorandum order dated January 14, 2015, the Court dismissed Counts I and III with prejudice as to the ADA and ADEA claims and dismissed Counts I, II and III without prejudice to Plaintiff to refile in state court as to the PHRA claims brought under thosecounts. (Docket No. 15). Thus, claims remained only under Count II against the PHRC for violation of Title VII and under Count IV against Retort and Stalczynski under § 1983. On January 22, 2015, Plaintiff sent to Defendants Retort and Stalczynski a Waiver of the Service of Summons, which they returned on January 23, 2015. (Docket Nos. 18, 19). The PHRC filed its answer to the remaining claims against it in the Amended Complaint on January 26, 2015, (Docket No. 16), and Defendants Retort and Stalczynski filed their answer to the claims against them in the Amended Complaint on March 24, 2015. (Docket No. 20). With leave, on August 11, 2015, Defendants Retort and Stalczynski filed an Amended Answer to the Amended Complaint. (Docket No. 35). On February 16, 2016, Defendants Retort and Stalczynski filed a motion for partial judgment on the pleadings, which the Court denied without prejudice on April 3, 2016 (Docket No. 40, 47). Discovery closed on April 18, 2016. (Docket No. 46). With leave, the Defendants filed a consolidated and second Amended Answer to the Amended Complaint on April 26, 2016 (Docket No. 51). Thereafter, Defendants filed the present motion for summary judgment. (Docket No. 52).

III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND¹

Williams is an African-American female. (ASOF ¶ 1).² She was employed by the PHRC in the early 1990's, and returned to the PHRC from other employment beginning in September 1999. (ASOF ¶ 2). She transferred from the Harrisburg office of the PHRC to the Pittsburgh office in or about February 2010. (Docket No. 55-14 at 14, 29). Williams also served as Chair of the Union, represented PHRC investigators, and was the chief negotiator for all of theinvestigators regarding the terms and conditions of their work. (Docket Nos. 57-4 at 16; 57-2 at 11, 15). She last was physically present at work for the PHRC on August 9, 2013 when she advised Stalczynski by email that she was ill and leaving for the day. (Docket No. 10; Exhibit 1, Exhibit 10; Docket No. 57-1 at 13) (ASOF ¶ 2). She formally resigned from her employment with the PHRC on January 15, 2014. (ASOF ¶ 3). At the time, she was employed full-time by the PHRC as a Human Relations Representative 2. (ASOF ¶ 4).

From the time she worked for the PHRC in Pittsburgh in 1999 until 2011, the Regional Director in charge of the Pittsburgh Office was George Simmons ("Simmons"), an African-American male. (ASOF ¶ 21). The Regional Director is responsible for supervising all of the office, including investigations, fact findings, intake and training. (Docket No. 55-14 at 10). In 2011, Simmons retired and Terrence McDaniel, an African-American male, became the acting Regional Director in Pittsburgh, serving until December 2012 when Stalczynski, a white male, became the Regional Director in Pittsburgh. (ASOF ¶ 22). Stalczynski was first employed by the PHRC in December 2012 and worked as the Regional Director in Pittsburgh until he left in January 2015 to take a job as the Director of Operations and Management for the Peace Corps in Benin, West Africa. (Docket No. 57-11 at 6-8). Thus, Williams worked with Stalczynski for a little over seven (7) months from December 2012 until she left the office on August 9, 2013. (Docket No. 57-1 at 130-132; 55-9 at 7). At the time she left, her direct supervisor was Retort, a white male who had been her supervisor since 2010, except for a short time when Kathleen Wilkes was her supervisor on Williams' request. (Docket Nos. 54 at ¶ 23; 59 at ¶ 23; 57-1 at 54-56).

Shortly after she returned to work for the PHRC in 1999, a minority contractor that Williams had interacted with in her previous work for the Department of General Services informed her that in a meeting that Williams was not involved in, Simmons had referred to her asan "aggressive female" and "a troublemaker." (Docket No. 57-1 at 65-67).

In March of 2009, Williams was suspended in an incident involving Ellen Surloff, who was assistant chief counsel at the PHRC and a supervising attorney, (Docket No. 55-14 at 59), and Mike Hardiman, another PHRC attorney. (Docket No. 57-18 at 61-63, 57-20 at 33-44, 72, 57-3 at 35). Williams was suspended without pay for five days for objecting to PHRC attorneys attending the PHRC fact finding conferences and allegedly cancelling a conference to prevent the PHRC attorney from attending; however, she actually had cancelled the conference because the case settled, and ultimately, the practice of attorneys attending the fact finding conferences did not last long, ending by early 2010. (Docket Nos. 57-18 at 61-63; 57-20 at 33-44, 72; 57-3 at 35). Thus, Williams' suspension resulted from improper and false allegations by Surloff against her.

Retort again became Plaintiff's supervisor during the 2009-2010 review period, taking over from Kathleen Wilkes. (ASOF ¶ 34). Retort's responsibilities as a supervisor included overseeing the work of investigators, helping them manage their caseload, and reviewing their recommendations as to probable cause. (Docket No. 55-14 at 10). In 2010, Retort put Williams on a performance improvement plan ("PIP") for a few weeks based on his review of her work for a period during which, in part, he did not supervise, and Williams successfully completed the PIP. (ASOF ¶ 35); (Docket Nos. 55-3 at 35; 55-14 at 58). Williams indicated in an email that she refused to sign any PIP issued by Retort. (Docket No. 55-11 at 5). Williams also claimed Retort's review of her was in violation of the bargaining unit agreement because Retort had only supervised her for a portion of the period beginning on February 15, 2010. (Docket Nos. 54 at ¶ 32, 59 at ¶ 32, 57-1 at 140-141; 57-3 at 17). No further employee performance improvement plans were ever put in place regarding Williams. (ASOF ¶ 36). Retort also regularly disagreed with Williams' finding of probable cause in cases of discrimination filed with the PHRC and purportedly held hercases longer than others. (Docket Nos. 54 at ¶ 32, 59 at ¶ 32, 57-1 at 140-141; 55-14 at 63).

Sometime in or about April and May of 2011, when Williams was complaining to Simmons about Attorney Surloff, as Williams was leaving Simmons' office, Surloff extended her arms to stop Williams from leaving and when Williams went to leave Surloff swung her arm and hit Williams. Williams then asked Surloff again to move so she could leave and Simmons told Surloff to move and let Williams leave. (Docket No. 57-3 at 28-30). Williams insists that Simmons witnessed Surloff hitting her; instead he denied it. (Docket No. 57-3 at 28-30). At some time prior to his departure...