A Case Of The Mondays
delivers up-to-date coverage of new developments affecting employers and employees alike.
For more information about our employment and labor practice, please contact Natalie Klyashtorny either via email at natalie.klyashtorny@nochumson.com or by telephone at (215) 399-1346
|
1616 Walnut Street
Suite 1819
Philadelphia, PA 19103
(215) 399-1346 (telephone)
(215) 399-1347 (facsimile)
www.nochumson.com (website)
|
| FREE CONSULTATIONS |
|
On the first Monday of each month, between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m., our firm provides free 20-minute legal consultations either in person at our office or via telephone. To reserve a timeslot for our next First Mondays at Nochumson P.C., you may either e-mail us at first.mondays@nochumson.com or call us at (215) 399-1346.
|
|
DISTRICT COURT DISMISSES RACIAL DISCRIMINATION SUIT BY EMPLOYEES WORKING AT THE CITY'S COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS
By Natalie Klyashtorny
In a decision handed down last week, Baker v. City of Philadelphia, a federal district court granted summary judgment in a lawsuit brought by several former or current African-American employees of the City of Philadelphia’s Commission on Human Relations (the “Commission”). The individuals brought claims against the City, the Commission and its acting Executive Director, alleging violations of Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”).
All of the plaintiffs alleged a racially hostile work environment in violation of Title VII and Section 1983 as they claimed they were treated worse than their colleagues because of their race. The federal district court found that no racially hostile work environment existed and that the City did not violate Section 1983. The claims made against the Commission were dismissed earlier because the Commission is a department of the City and not a separate legal entity that can be sued directly.
The federal district court found that plaintiffs in Baker could not demonstrate a racially hostile work environment as most of the incidents of which they complained "implicate [the acting Executive Director's] personality, temperament, and the other various factors that tend to cause favor or disfavor between co-workers rather than racial issues”. Additionally, the federal district court held that the conduct complained of did not reflect racial animus, but was attributable to the plaintiffs’ work performance, not their race. In totality, the federal district court did not consider the conduct to be severe or offensive enough as to constitute a hostile work environment.
The federal district court likewise dismissed the Section 1983 claim as it held that the plaintiffs could not demonstrate that the Acting Executive Director, the supervisor accused of the discriminatory conduct, had final policy making authority for the City. Therefore, plaintiffs could not show that any harm they may have suffered was the result of a policy or custom of the City and, accordingly, their Section 1983 race discrimination claim against the City could not survive summary judgment.
|