Cooper v. Pa. Human Relations Comm'n

• Decision Date: 05 January 2022
• Docket Number: Civil No. 1:19-CV-2230
• Citation: 578 F.Supp.3d 649
• Parties: Jelani T. COOPER, Plaintiff, v. PENNSYLVANIA HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania

578 F.Supp.3d 649

Jelani T. COOPER, Plaintiff,

v.PENNSYLVANIA HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION, Defendant.

Civil No. 1:19-CV-2230

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania.

Signed January 5, 2022

Charles K. Sunwabe, Sunwabe Law Firm, Erie, PA, for Plaintiff.

Jonathan M. Blake, Office of Attorney General - Civil Litigation Division, Harrisburg, PA, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Martin C. Carlson, United States Magistrate Judge

I. Introduction

This is an unusual case in many respects. First, this case involves an unusual constellation of parties in that the defendant in this workplace discrimination lawsuit is the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (PHRC), the state agency charged with enforcing state laws forbidding workplace discrimination. The case also has an unusual and convoluted procedural history which involves longstanding acrimony, claims of discrimination, the settlement of those claims by the EEOC, and then renewed claims of retaliation and discrimination, many of which deeply implicated the prior, settled dispute. In an unusual move, we are then invited to vitiate the settlement agreement negotiated under the aegis of the EEOC and conflate these previously settled claim with Cooper's new allegations without first allowing that agency to make any determinations regarding whether there has, in fact, been a breach of this settlement agreement.

This workplace discrimination case, which has been lodged against the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (PHRC) by an attorney formerly employed by that agency, comes before us for consideration of a motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff, Jelani Cooper, brings this lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e),$and Pennsylvania's Whistleblower Law, 43 P.S. §§ 1421 -28. In his complaint Cooper asserts that his former employer, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission ("PHRC") engaged in a campaign of race-based discrimination that led to a hostile work environment throughout his tenure with the organization. According to Cooper, the hostile work environment based on race discrimination started in 2016 and continued through the administrations of two executive directors, culminating in his allegedly retaliatory firing in 2019 by the current PHRC executive director, Chad Dion Lassiter. Cooper's race discrimination claims were previously raised with the EEOC and settled pursuant to an agreement that PHRC create a diversity committee ("the settlement agreement"). Much of Mr. Cooper's instant complaint concerns the alleged failure of PHRC to comply with, and Mr. Cooper's persistence in holding PHRC to the terms of, the settlement agreement.

Mr. Cooper's complaint is extensive in its recounting of numerous workplace disagreements, hard feelings, and animosity. The complaint's claims also present a study in contrasts. For example, Cooper's retaliation claim entails a straightforward, albeit, contested narrative regarding what the plaintiff describes as a pattern of retaliation against him when he endeavored to enforcement his prior settlement agreement with that agency. In stark contrast to the relative clarity of this retaliation claim, Cooper's hostile workplace discrimination claim appears to conflate and combine his past, settled grievances with his new complaints that sound in retaliation. Thus, an essential component to this discrimination claim, which seeks to resurrect Cooper's prior settled disputes with the PHRC, would be a finding that there was a breach of this prior settlement agreement. No such finding has been presented to us by the parties, and as we discuss below, we believe that it would be inappropriate for us to assess, interpret, or vitiate a pre-decisional settlement agreement brokered and overseen by the EEOC.

In parsing through his sweeping approach to his claims, we find the plaintiff's conflated discrimination and hostile work environment claim under Title VII and his Pennsylvania Whistleblower claim run afoul of several legal hurdles. First, to the extent that they invite us to make finding that would essentially set aside the settled negotiated under the aegis of the EEOC, we should decline to do so. In addition, once the previously settled discrimination claims are stripped from this lawsuit, what remains is a claim that sounds in retaliation, and not race-based hostile workplace discrimination. Further, some of these claims are procedurally barred on a number of grounds. In particular, we find that Cooper's state whistleblower law claim is time-barred.

However, as to Cooper's claim for retaliation under Title VII, we find that there exists an outstanding question of material fact for the jury as to whether Cooper's discipline and firing was in retaliation for his pursuit of his EEOC claim and demand that PHRC comply with what Cooper understood to be the terms of the settlement agreement. These questions of motive and motivation cannot be determined as a matter of law. Rather, they must be resolved as questions of fact. Accordingly, the defendant's motion for summary judgment, (Doc. 28), shall be granted in part and denied in part in that we will grant summary judgment on the discrimination claim, and Cooper's state law whistleblower claim, but deny summary judgment on Cooper's retaliation claim.¹

II. Statement and Facts of the Case

A. Cooper's Employment by the PHRC

The plaintiff worked for the PHRC, a state agency charged with enforcing Pennsylvania's anti-discrimination laws, from 2014 until his termination in 2019. (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 12, 152). During that time, he worked as an attorney in the Education and Community Services Division ("ECS") and his duties consisted of reviewing complaints, outreach, conducting diversity and cultural competency trainings, and litigating student and employee education complaints. (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 12-13). Cooper's complaint highlights his successes and accolades from his time with PHRC, including letters of recommendation and thank you notes from clients and witnesses, awards for his training and outreach efforts, and outstanding employee reviews from his supervisors. (Id., ¶¶ 17-18). He also notes that, prior to his termination in 2019, he had never received a disciplinary report, was the PHRC's longest tenured African American attorney, and was only one week away from a recommended promotion to Attorney III. (Id., ¶¶ 156-57).

B. Cooper's Initial Complaints of Workplace Discrimination

Despite his successes at PHRC, Cooper paints a picture of a toxic culture at the agency, particularly under the leadership of JoAnn Edwards, who served as Executive Director of PHRC from 2011 until 2018.² (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 21, 75). At its root, Cooper's complaint contends that, as the only African American male attorney at the time of his hire, from 2014 through 2016 senior management staff subjected him to race-based harassment and disparate treatment compared to other Caucasian employees with similar tenure.

Between 2014 and 2016, the plaintiff alleges he was subject to race discrimination and a hostile work environment directed by Special Assistant Heather Roth and an employee Jinada Rochelle who he alleges was a close ally of the Harrisburg Regional Director, Ms. Roth. (Id., ¶¶ 38, 40, 45). He avers that he was required to attend meetings and trainings by Ms. Roth despite her not being in his chain of command, accused of being argumentative in meetings, subjected to hostility, chastisement, and criticism for mistakes made by others, told his work was sloppy, and ambushed in meetings. (Id., ¶¶ 46-54). In contrast, he claims even when his Caucasian co-worker, Mr. Zimmerman, forgot about a case on his docket for several months, he was simply reminded by email. (Id., ¶ 53). Despite an increasing workload, Cooper alleges he was told he was not working hard enough, and he had to attend regular counseling to deal with the stress and harassment at work. (Id., ¶¶ 58-59). Near the end of 2015 into the beginning of 2016, the situation came to a head. In an affidavit, ECS Director, Geoffrey Biringer, alleged that on or about December 2015 he and Ms. Roth's assistant, Tammy McElfresh had a conversation about the plaintiff's conduct in which McElfresh stated that Cooper was "talking to other Black employees of the PHRC about filing a complaint," and that "if the PHRC could prove it, they would fire him." (Doc. 1-2, at 13). Biringer acknowledged conveying this information to Cooper in an effort to protect him from discipline. (Id. )

C. Cooper Files a Discrimination Complaint with the EEOC in 2016.

Shortly thereafter, on January 7, 2016, the plaintiff emailed the PHRC Commissioners and informed them of the alleged culture of discrimination at PHRC. (Doc. 1-2, at 15). According to Cooper, the commissioners took no action after his complaint, prompting him to file a complaint with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on February 2, 2016, alleging race and gender discrimination by PHRC. (Doc. 1-2, at 17).

D. Cooper Settles This 2016 Discrimination Complaint

On May 8, 2017, the plaintiff entered an EEOC mediated pre-decisional settlement agreement with the defendant in which the PHRC agreed to establish a Diversity Committee with a vote introduced for its creation on or before June 26, 2017, and to not engage in discrimination or retaliation against the plaintiff because of the EEOC complaint or actions relating to the settlement. (Doc. 1-2, at 19). In exchange, the plaintiff agreed not to institute a lawsuit under Title VII based on the EEOC complaint. (Id. ) Further, this agreement, which was also executed by a representative of the EEOC, provided that this agency would terminate its investigation of Cooper's charges based upon the parties’ agreements and commitments. The settlement agreement also expressly provided that "the EEOC is authorized to investigate compliance with this Agreement, and to bring legal action to enforce the Settlement." (Id. ) Thus, the agreement vested...