Hightower v. Easton Area Sch. Dist.

Decision Date03 October 2011
Docket NumberCivil Action No. 09–5730.
Citation277 Ed. Law Rep. 912,818 F.Supp.2d 860
PartiesDavid HIGHTOWER v. EASTON AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

John S. Harrison, Broughal & DeVito, LLP, Bethlehem, PA, for David Hightower.

John E. Freund, III, King, Spry, Herman, Freund & Faul, LLC, Bethlehem, PA, for Easton Area School District.

MEMORANDUM

DALZELL, District Judge.

Plaintiff David Hightower (“Hightower”) sues the Easton Area School District (“EASD” or the “District”), asserting claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq., and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (“PHRA”), 43 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 951 et seq.

Hightower works as a principal with EASD, and alleges that the District subjected him to a hostile work environment and discrimination as to promotions and discipline, as well as retaliatory harassment when Hightower complained about discriminatory conduct by the District. EASD has filed a motion for summary judgment, to which Hightower has responded. For the reasons set forth below, we will grant EASD's motion in part.

I. Factual Background

Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a), [t]he court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law,” where [a] party asserting that there is a genuine dispute as to a material fact must support that assertion with specific citations to the record.” Bello v. Romeo, 424 Fed.Appx. 130, 133 (3d Cir.2011). We will thus begin by reciting the undisputed facts in this matter, and then consider the disputed facts that the parties have supported with specific citations to the record. In so doing, we will keep in mind that [h]earsay statements that would be inadmissible at trial may not be considered for purposes of summary judgment,” Smith v. City of Allentown, 589 F.3d 684, 693 (3d Cir.2009), and that we should not credit statements in affidavits that “amount[ ] to (i) legal argument, (ii) subjective views without any factual foundation, or (iii) unsupported assertions made in the absence of personal knowledge.” Reynolds v. Dep't of Army, 439 Fed.Appx. 150, 152, 2011 WL 2938101, at *2 (3d Cir.2011).

As will be seen, this action involves a long and complicated factual background, as evinced by defendant's and plaintiff's statements of facts and their submissions (accompanied by seven and thirty-eight exhibits, respectively). Our canvass of the record, especially in light of the hostile work environment claim, will necessarily be fact-intensive.

A. The Undisputed Facts

The parties agree on the essential details of Hightower's employment history with the District. Hightower is an African–American man, Pl.'s Compl. ¶ 9; Def.'s Ans. ¶ 9, who began his employment at EASD in 1989 as a physical education teacher. Def.'s Statement of Material Facts (“Def.'s Facts”) ¶¶ 1; Pl.'s Statement of Material Facts (“Pl.'s Facts”) ¶¶ 1. Hightower became an Assistant Principal with EASD in 1996, and after two and a half years in that position (at Cheston and Palmer Elementary Schools), he advanced to the position of Principal of Paxinosa Elementary School in 1999. Def.'s Facts ¶¶ 2–4; Pl.'s Facts ¶ 2–4. Hightower still holds this latter position. Def.'s Facts ¶ 4; Pl.'s Facts ¶ 4.

In 2002, Hightower applied for a position as the Director of Human Resources at EASD and interviewed for the position with Tom Evans (the former Superintendent of EASD) and Dennis Riker 1 (“Riker”) (the Director of Human Resources at EASD). Def.'s Facts ¶¶ 10–11; Pl.'s Facts ¶¶ 10–11. EASD also interviewed two other candidates, John Castrovinci and Linda Marcincin, but the District ultimately hired none of these people, instead selecting Joseph Kish, a white man.2 Def.'s Facts ¶¶ 12–14; Pl.'s Facts ¶¶ 12–14, 60. In 2007, Hightower again applied for the Director of Human Resources position, listing Kish as a reference on his application. Def.'s Facts ¶¶ 16–17; Pl.'s Facts ¶¶ 16–17. Hightower interviewed twice for the position with a team of EASD administrators that included Riker, Kish,3 Gregory Shoemaker,4 Guy Greenfield, and a few others. Def.'s Facts ¶¶ 18–19; Pl.'s Facts ¶¶ 18–19. However, EASD did not hire Hightower as Director of Human Resources, instead selecting LaToya Monroe, an African–American woman. Def.'s Facts ¶¶ 20–21; Pl.'s Facts ¶¶ 20–21.

Hightower also applied that year for the position of Director for Support Programming at the District, listing Kish, Shoemaker, and Guy Greenfield as references on his application because they had knowledge of his skills and abilities. Def.'s Facts ¶¶ 23, 25; Pl.'s Facts ¶¶ 23, 25. Hightower interviewed for the position with EASD administrators, including Riker, Shoemaker, Kish, Greenfield, and Angela Donaldson, Def.'s Facts ¶ 24; Pl.'s Facts ¶ 24, but the District did not hire him, instead choosing Susan McGinley, a white woman. Def.'s Facts ¶¶ 26–27; Pl.'s Facts ¶¶ 26–27. Finally, on March 20, 2008, Hightower applied to be Superintendent of Schools for EASD, submitting his application only to the Pennsylvania School Boards Association (“PSBA”). Def.'s Facts ¶ 31; Pl.'s Facts ¶ 31. He was not interviewed for the position, and had no conversations with any PSBA representatives as to why he was not interviewed. Def.'s Facts ¶¶ 32–33; Pl.'s Facts ¶¶ 32–33.

B. The Disputed Evidence

While the parties do not disagree as to the existence of many facts,5 Hightower alleges an array of additional factual details pertaining to his relationship with EASD that are not found in the District's statement of facts. These facts pertain to (1) the decision-making processes governing the above hiring choices; (2) racially discriminatory behavior by EASD administrators; (3) complaints that Hightower registered with EASD administrators about perceived discrimination at the District; and (4) harassment that Hightower experienced at EASD.

1. The District's Hiring Process

As a prefatory matter, with respect to the hiring choices described above, Hightower claims that he was qualified for each central office position for which he applied. Pl.'s Facts ¶ 94 (citing Riker Dep. at 47–48; Ex. 4 to Pl.'s Facts (“McGinley Dep.”) at 135). Hightower alleges that Kish got the Director of Human Resources position in 2002 despite not having applied or interviewed for the position.6 Pl.'s Facts ¶ 14 (citing Kish Dep. at 267–68). Hightower also claims that sometime in 2003 or 2004, Riker placed Donaldson, a white woman, in charge of Human Resources at EASD without posting this position or soliciting an application from Hightower, though Donaldson held no degrees related to human resources, had no human resources certifications, and was not a college graduate. Id. (citing Riker Dep. at 16–18). Both parties agree that after Hightower interviewed for the Director of Human Resources position in 2002, Kish met with Hightower and suggested that he take a position as an assistant principal at Easton Area High School as a way of gaining more experience for a central office position, Def.'s Facts ¶ 15; Pl.'s Facts ¶ 15. Hightower adds, without factual support other than the hearsay statements of another principal in the District, that such a move would have been “a demotion from which he would not recover in his efforts to be promoted.” Pl.'s Facts ¶ 15 (citing Ex. 1 to Pl.'s Facts (“Hightower Dep.”) at 94–95).

As for Hightower's application in 2007 for the position of Director of Human Resources, he adds that though this selection process resulted in the hiring of Monroe, an African–American woman, it was nonetheless discriminatory in that at least one white applicant, Castrovinci, was videotaped during his interview while Hightower's interview was not videotaped. Pl.'s Facts ¶ 22 (citing Hightower Dep. at 157–58). Castrovinci is a white man. Id. ¶ 64 (citing Ex. 6 to Pl.'s Facts (“Castrovinci Dep.”) at 6). However, Hightower's contention that Castrovinci's interview was taped rests on inadmissible hearsay statements Castrovinci made to Hightower. Id. ¶ 22. Hightower further explains that though the District ultimately hired Monroe as Director of Human Resources in September of 2007, the EASD Board decided not to renew her contract a year later, in May of 2008. Id. ¶¶ 22 (citing Ex. 15 to Pl.'s Facts (“Myers Dep. II”) at 7), 65 (citing Ex. 3 to Pl.'s Facts (“Monroe Dep.”) at 9–10). Hightower suggests, relying on testimony from Kerry Myers—a member of the EASD Board, Pl.'s Facts ¶ 60—that the Board opted not to renew Monroe's contract because she exposed racism in the district.7 And when she exposed racism in the district, the immediate response of certain board members at that time was let's fire the person who did it. The minute they found out it was Joe Kish and Lou Coxe, they were like rabid animals, they turned against her.’ Pl.'s Facts ¶ 22 (quoting Myers Dep. II at 18). Since this statement is a subjective characterization of the motivations of third parties made without any grounding in concrete facts as to which Myers had personal knowledge, we will not consider it. Hightower also explains that after Monroe was released, the District named Castrovinci Interim Director of Human Resources, and later Director of Human Resources, without advertising the positions or giving Hightower the opportunity to interview for them.8 Pl.'s Facts ¶ 22 (citing Castrovinci Dep. at 41). Hightower suggests (again relying on Myers's testimony) that Castrovinci “had no qualifications to be a Director of Human Resources when he was appointed,” id. (citing Myers Dep. II at 18), but because Myers offered no factual basis for this broad statement and did not specify what he considered to be an appropriate qualification, we will not consider the statement.

Turning to Hightower's application for the position of Director of Support Programming in 2007, Hightower suggests that McGinley “received the position...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Thomas v. Pocono Mountain Sch. Dist.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • August 14, 2012
    ...to claims for punitive damages. Smith v. Borough of Dunmore, 633 F.3d 176,183 (3d Cir. 2011) (§ 1983); Hightower v. Easton Area Sch. Dist, 818 F. Supp. 2d 860 (E.D. Pa. 2011) (Title VII); Steward v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 312 F. Supp. 2d 719, 730 (E.D. Pa. 2004) (ADEA); Hoy v. Angelone, 720 A......
  • Duggins v. Appoquinimink Sch. Dist.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Delaware
    • February 5, 2013
    ...(b)(1), (precluding recovery for punitive damages from any government, government agency, or political subdivision for Title VII claims). 75.Hightower v. Easton Area School Dist., 818 F.Supp.2d 860, 888 (E.D.Pa.2011). 76.Hodge v. Caterpillar, Inc., C.A. 91–0717, 1992 WL 98415, *3 (E.D.Pa. A......
  • Elmarakaby v. Wyeth Pharms., Inc., CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-1784
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • March 30, 2015
    ...that the act is part of an ongoing practice or pattern of discrimination of the defendant . . . ." Hightower v. Easton Area Sch. Dist., 818 F. Supp. 2d 860, 880 (E.D. Pa. 2011) (quoting West v. Phila. Elec. Co., 45 F.3d 744, 754 (3d Cir. 1995)). To avail himself of this "continuing violatio......
  • Hoff v. Tavern
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • June 4, 2013
    ...a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee's work performance." Hightower v. Easton Area Sch. Dist., 818 F. Supp. 2d 860, 877 (E.D. Pa. 2011) (quoting Caver v. Trenton, 420 F.3d 243, 262-63 (3d Cir. 2005)). Plaintiff contends that Spring House Tavern......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT