Ford-Greene v. NHS, Inc.
Decision Date | 20 May 2015 |
Docket Number | Civil Action No. 14–5846. |
Citation | 106 F.Supp.3d 590 |
Parties | Beverly FORD–GREENE, Plaintiff, v. NHS, INC. (a/k/a NHS Children's Services and NHS Philadelphia), Lori Paster, and Rachel Maid, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Raul I. Jauregui, Parish McCabe PC, Swarthmore, PA, for Plaintiff.
Patrick G. Murphy, Edward J. Murphy, Jr., Law Offices of Patrick G. Murphy, Blue Bell, PA, for Defendants.
Currently pending before the Court is the Motion by Defendants NHS Children's Services and NHS Philadelphia ("Defendant NHS"), Lori Paster, and Rachel Maid (collectively, "Defendants") to Dismiss Plaintiff Beverly Ford–Greene ("Plaintiff")'s Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and to Strike Paragraphs 20(d), 27–31, 34, and 45 of the Complaint. For the following reasons, the Motion to Dismiss is granted in part and denied in part and portions of Paragraphs 20(d) and 30 are stricken from the Complaint.
Plaintiff is an African–American adult female who resides in Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. (Compl. ¶ 3.) At all relevant times, Plaintiff was an employee and former employee with Defendant NHS. (Id. ¶ 4.) Plaintiff was hired by Defendant NHS as a Behavior Specialist/Mobile Therapist on February 26, 2003 and was terminated on February 8, 2012. (Id. ¶ 18.)
Defendant NHS is an entity engaged in an industry or activity affecting commerce and has over 300 employees nationwide for each working day during each of twenty or more calendar work weeks in the current or preceding year. (Id. ¶ 5.) Defendant Lori Paster is a white female who at relevant times worked for Defendant NHS as a manager and decision maker in NHS's BHRS Program, which operated out of various offices in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. (Id. ¶ 6.) Defendant Rachel Maid is a white female who at relevant times worked for Defendant NHS as a manager and decision maker including as Plaintiff's direct supervisor in the BHRS Program. (Id. ¶ 7.)
On February 10, 2012, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant NHS with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission ("PHRC"). (Compl., Ex. A.) In Count One of that complaint, for discharge and retaliation/discrimination, Plaintiff alleged that she opposed an unlawful practice as follows:
On or about November 2011 I spoke to Kenya Barrett and informed that I was being discriminated against because of my race, African American, by Lori Paster, Assistant Director and Rachael Maid, Supervisor, both race white. Ms. Barrett told me that she would look into my allegations and get back to me. The persons who harmed me, Lori Paster and Rachael Maid, knew I filed a complaint because they were informed by Human Resources. On February 8, 2012, I was [d]ischarged.
(Id. ¶¶ 8–10.) Plaintiff also stated that she believed Defendant NHS's actions were retaliatory because (Id. ¶ 11.)
In Count Two of her complaint with PHRC, Plaintiff also alleged that she was discharged on the basis of racial discrimination, and stated the following:
[NHS's] reason for the action taken was that I did not attend a meeting and I was late submitting a treatment plan. White employees were treated more favorably they did not submit their 30 day review on time and were not disciplined nor discharged. When white employees attended another supervisors [sic] group meeting they were not written up. White employees were not required to write an incident report when they were not present when a student was injured. White employees were excused from a case while I was kept on cases for longer periods of time.
(Id. ¶¶ 18–19.)
Two years later, on February 11, 2014, Plaintiff's counsel submitted an Amended Complaint with PHRC, which was stamped as received on February 19, 2014. (Defs.' Mot. Dismiss, Ex. 1.) The Amended Complaint "amends and supplements" Plaintiff's February 10, 2012 PHRC Complaint ("the 2012 Complaint") by incorporating the factual allegations of the 2012 Complaint and by amending Paragraph 3 of the 2012 Complaint to include Lori Paster and Rachel Maid as respondents. (Id. ) No additional factual allegations are included in the Amended Complaint. Plaintiff's counsel signed the Amended Complaint, but Plaintiff neither signed nor verified it. (See id. ) The Philadelphia District Office of the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") issued a Notice of Charge of Discrimination to Defendants on April 17, 2014. (Id. ) According to the Amended Certificate of Service, both Paster and Maid were served with copies of the Amended Complaint by first class mail on April 17, 2014. (Defs.' Mem. Supp. Mot. Dismiss, Ex. 1, Certificate of Service.)
On June 20, 2014, PHRC sent Plaintiff a letter advising her that it had investigated her complaint and determined that it should be dismissed for lack of probable cause to credit her allegations of unlawful discrimination. (Compl., Ex. B, PHRC Letter June 20, 2014.) Plaintiff subsequently received a Dismissal and Notice of Rights letter from the EEOC adopting PHRC's findings and notifying Plaintiff of her right to sue. (Compl., Ex. C, EEOC Dismissal and Notice of Rights, Aug. 7, 2014.) Plaintiff filed a Complaint in United States District Court on October 15, 2014, the contents of which are described in the following sections.
Plaintiff alleges that she suffered adverse employment actions on the basis of her race including the following:
(Id. ¶¶ 20(a)-(g).) Plaintiff asserts that her supervisors' actions "derailed" her career and "stained her reputation in a way that was completely unwarranted as the underlying circumstances of the career derailment were all pretext for racial discrimination." (Id. ¶ 22.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Paster and Maid treated NHS employees who were white and African "with distinct preference" over African–American and Latino employees. (Id. at ¶¶ 27–28.) According to Plaintiff, it was only when Defendants Paster and Maid became her supervisors that she began to "experience detrimental actions because of her race." (Id. ¶ 30.) For most of her career with Defendant NHS, Plaintiff's supervisors were African–American and she did not experience hostility, discrimination, or retaliation while under their supervision. (Id. ¶ 31.)
Plaintiff alleges that as soon as she came under the supervision of Defendants Paster and Maid, she was subjected to a racially hostile work environment "of an ongoing and continuing nature." (Id. ¶ 33.) Paster and Maid "routinely did not want or need to meet with her, to not properly or even adequately inform her in a supervisory setting what was it, if anything, in her professional behavior that was not up to par, all in a frequent, severe and pervasive manner" because of their "dislike of [P]laintiff's race." (Id. ¶ 34.) The "white management at NHS, Paster and Maid, disliked [P]laintiff's race and thus treated her differently and adversely by changing the terms and conditions of the BHRS program into a racist environment." (Id. ¶ 36.) Paster and Maid treated Plaintiff "as if she did not belong there" and "they also ruined her career at NHS as a result of this discriminatory conduct." (Id. ¶ 37.) Plaintiff alleges the following events contributed to the hostile work environment she experienced:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Reese v. Pook & Pook, LLC.
...that are so unrelated to the plaintiffs' claims as to be unworthy of any consideration should be stricken.’ ” Ford–Greene v. NHS, Inc., 106 F.Supp.3d 590, 615 (E.D.Pa.2015) (quoting Steak Umm Co., LLC v. Steak 'Em Up, Inc., Civ. A. No. 09–2857, 2009 WL 3540786, at *2 (E.D.Pa. Oct. 29, 2009)......
-
Burrell v. Lackawanna Recycling Ctr.
...Inc., 532 F.Supp.2d 726, 733 (M.D. Pa. 2007) (quoting Oberneder v. Link Computer Corp., 696 A.2d 148, 150 (Pa. 1997)); see also Ford-Greene, 106 F.Supp.3d at 613; Sendi, 619 F.Supp. at 1579. "Accordingly, a prerequisite for relief under the [P]WPCL is a contract between employee and employe......
-
Chun Ying Lin v. One Coco Nails & Spa Inc.
... ... Brandolini, ... No. 18-146, 2018 WL 2291117, at *4, at *10 (E.D. Pa. May 18, ... 2018); Ford-Greene v. NHS, Inc., 106 F.Supp.3d 590, ... 612 (E.D. Pa. 2015)) ... Under ... 29 U.S.C. § 203, a tipped employee ... ...
-
Burrell v. Loungo
...Inc., 532 F.Supp.2d 726, 733 (M.D. Pa. 2007) (quoting Oberneder v. Link Computer Corp., 696 A.2d 148, 150 (Pa. 1997)); see also Ford-Greene, 106 F.Supp.3d at 613; Sendi, 619 F.Supp. at 1579. "Accordingly, prerequisite for relief under the [P]WPCL is a contract between employee and employer ......