Brady v. The Middle E. Forum, Civil Action 21-2252
| Decision Date | 28 October 2021 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 21-2252 |
| Parties | CAITRIONA BRADY v. THE MIDDLE EAST FORUM, GREG ROMAN, and DANIEL PIPES |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Caitriona Brady and her lawyer return with a fourth complaint against her former employer alleging discriminatory and retaliatory conduct from three or four years ago. She agreed to settle her discrimination and retaliation claims in early July 2020. We dismissed her claims against the employer and its agents with prejudice on July 6, 2020. She did not seek to vacate or alter our dismissal. Her former employer has allegedly not honored the settlement. She can timely sue to enforce the employer's possible contract obligation but not in this Court unless she meets our subject matter jurisdiction.
Caitriona Brady began working at The Middle East Forum in May 2017 as a development associate reporting to supervisors Greg Roman and Daniel Pipes.[1] She alleges discrimination based on sex, a hostile work environment, and retaliation in violation of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act[2] and the Philadelphia Fair Practices Ordinance.[3] Ms. Brady alleges Defendants subjected her to conduct violating Pennsylvania and Philadelphia discrimination laws from her hiring in May 2017 until November 2018 and again in 2019.[4] She filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on June 20, 2019, dual filed with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission and the Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations.[5]
Ms. Brady's October 29, 2019 complaint against Defendants.
Ms. Brady's filed her first complaint against The Middle East Forum, Mr. Roman, and Mr. Pipes on October 29, 2019 alleging discrimination on the basis of her sex, retaliation, and a hostile work environment leading to her constructive discharge in November 2018 in violation of Title VII, [6] the PHRA, and the PFPO.[7]
Ms. Brady then swore she filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC on June 20, 2019.[8] She alleged the EEOC issued her a right-to-sue letter on July 31, 2019.[9] She conceded her claims under the PHRA and PFPO asserted on October 29, 2019 were not ripe because one year had not passed from the filing of her June 20, 2019 EEOC charge dual filed with the PHRC.[10]
Director Roman and President Pipes moved to dismiss her complaint in Brady I arguing her PHRA and PFPO claims were not yet ripe.[11] We dismissed Director Roman, President Pipes, and Mr. Bennett without prejudice.[12] Ms. Brady did not amend her complaint to sue the individuals after her PHRA and PFPO claims became ripe on June 20, 2020.
Ms. Brady amended her complaint in Brady I on April 9, 2020 asserting disparate treatment, hostile work environment, and retaliation claims in violation of Title VII against The Middle East Forum only.[13] On July 6, 2020, we dismissed Ms. Brady's claims with prejudice after the parties advised us of their agreement to resolve the matter.[14] The operative complaint at the time of our July 6, 2020 order alleged violations of Title VII against The Middle East Forum only. Ms. Brady's PHRA and PFPO claims became ripe on June 20, 2020 - after she filed her April 9, 2020 second amended complaint - and before our July 6, 2020 Order dismissing her complaint with prejudice, but she did not amend her complaint to include the state statutory claims or to sue the individual defendants. She did not ask us to vacate or alter the dismissal.
The parties' settlement agreement.
The parties entered a settlement agreement for an undisclosed amount in July 2020. The Middle East Forum and Mr. Roman have not honored the agreement.[15] She concedes the settlement payment does not exceed $75, 000.
The Middle East Forum, Director Pipes, and President Roman move to dismiss.[16] They argue (1) the state law statutory claims under the PHRA and PFPO claims are barred by claim preclusion or res judicata; and, (2) we lack jurisdiction over the breach of contract claim because it does not exceed the $75, 000 jurisdictional limit.[17]
Ms. Brady responds res judicata does not apply because she could not have brought her PHRA and PFPO claims at the time we dismissed Brady I on July 6, 2020.[18] But she swore to us in this case weeks ago of filing her first administrative claim on June 20, 2019.[19] For the first time in this or the three earlier litigations against The Middle East Forum and its officers, Ms. Brady's lawyer now argues-contrary to her sworn statements-he did not file an EEOC charge until July 18, 2019 and her state statutory claims would not have been ripe until July 18, 2020, twelve days after we dismissed Brady I with prejudice.[20] Despite her multiple pleadings of a June 20, 2019 EEOC charge dual filed with the PHRC and the Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations, Ms. Brady astonishingly argues Defendants incorrectly identify June 20, 2019 as the administrative charge date. She steps into the brazen and unsworn world of making claims in briefs contrary to her several sworn statements. She places her finances and her counsel's license at risk. But the bottom line today is Ms. Brady cannot amend her complaint through her lawyer's undocumented response to Defendants' motion to dismiss.
We grant Defendants' motion to dismiss Ms. Brady's Pennsylvania and Philadelphia discrimination and retaliation claims as barred by res judicata. We deny Defendants' motion we lack subject matter jurisdiction.
Ms. Brady invokes our jurisdiction based on diversity under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).[21] She alleges she is a citizen of New Jersey; The Middle East Forum is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of business in Philadelphia; and Director Pipes and President Roman are citizens of Pennsylvania.[22] She alleges an amount in controversy in excess of the $75, 000 jurisdictional threshold based on damages available under the PHRA and PFPO and her contract claim.
Defendants argue we lack jurisdiction over Ms. Brady's contract claim and we must dismiss it under Rule 12(b)(1). They argue “[u]pon dismissal of the PHRA and PFPO claims due to claim preclusion, the only remaining claim is for an alleged breach of contract.”[23] They argue with the PHRA and PFPO claims dismissed, Ms. Brady's only remaining claim - contract claim -does not exceed $75, 000. Defendants put the proverbial cart before the horse.
When faced with a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) and (b)(6), we consider the jurisdictional ground first because if we lack jurisdiction to hear the case, we lack jurisdiction to rule on the merits of the case.[24] We determine whether diversity jurisdiction exists “by examining ‘the facts as they exist when the complaint is filed.'”[25] Our “temporal focus .. is on the time that the complaint is filed.”[26] “Subsequent events cannot reduce the amount in controversy so as to deprive the district court of jurisdiction ... nor can later events increase the amount in controversy and give rise to jurisdiction that did not properly exist at the time of the complaint's filing.”[27]
We look to the face of Ms. Brady's complaint and accept her good faith allegations to determine the amount in controversy.[28] Ms. Brady has the burden of satisfying the amount in controversy but it “is not especially onerous” and the amount of damages pleaded [29] Our evaluation of whether Ms. Brady pleads the jurisdictional amount is not affected by a potential defense like res judicata or statute of limitations.[30] Ms. Brady's claim of damages more than $75, 000 is legally impossible for jurisdictional purposes when a statute or contract caps the amount of damages or a nominal claim with punitive damages could still not exceed more than $75, 000 consistent with due process.[31]
Ms. Brady alleges the amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000 considering her Pennsylvania and Philadelphia discrimination and retaliation claims, including uncapped punitive damages, damages for emotional distress, and her breach of contract claim. Defendants assert the valid defense of res judicata and argue the contract claim has limited damages as a matter of common law. These are defenses not based on statutory or contract caps. Although she concedes the value of the settlement agreement alone does not reach the $75, 000 threshold, her damages plead in her complaint in the aggregate exceed the jurisdictional threshold. On the face of her complaint, she pleads an amount in controversy more than $75, 000. Our dismissal of her Pennsylvania and Philadelphia claims as barred by claim preclusion does not divest us of subject matter jurisdiction at the time she filed the complaint. We deny Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Defendants move to dismiss Ms. Brady's Pennsylvania and Philadelphia claims as barred by claim preclusion or res judicata. “Res judicata, also known as claim preclusion, bars a party from initiating a second suit against the same adversary based on the same ‘cause of action' as the first suit.”[32] Claim preclusion bars an action when three elements are present: “(1) a final judgment on the merits in a prior suit involving (2) the same parties or their privies and (3) a subsequent suit based on the same cause of action.”[33] To determine whether the elements exist, we are cautioned by our Court of Appeals not to ...
To continue reading
Request your trial