Hollinghead v. City of York
| Decision Date | 31 March 2014 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 1:12–CV–0260. |
| Citation | 11 F.Supp.3d 450 |
| Parties | James HOLLINGHEAD and Mark Simpson, Plaintiffs v. CITY OF YORK, PENNSYLVANIA ; York Sewer Authority; and, Monocacy Valley Electric, Inc., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania |
Ira H. Weinstock, Ira H. Weinstock, P.C., Harrisburg, PA, for Plaintiffs.
Donald B. Hoyt, Assistant City Solicitor, York, PA, Frank J. Lavery, Jr., Gary H. Dadamo, Lavery Faherty Patterson, Harrisburg, PA, Christopher J. Conrad, Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman and Goggin, Camp Hill, PA, for Defendants.
AND NOW, this 31st day of March, 2014, upon consideration of the report and recommendation (Doc. 83) of Chief Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson, recommending the court grant the motions for summary judgment (Docs. 55, 59) filed by the City of York (“City”) and York Sewer Authority (“the Authority”), wherein Judge Carlson concludes that plaintiffs have failed to establish that the Authority was their employer for purposes of their employment discrimination and retaliation claims, (Doc. 83 at 21–35), and have failed to prove discrimination or retaliation against the City, (id. at 36–49), and, after an independent review of the record, and noting that plaintiffs filed objections1 (Doc. 84) to the report on March 7, 2014, and the court finding Judge Carlson's analysis to be comprehensive, well-reasoned, and fully supported by the record, and further finding plaintiffs' objections to be without merit2 and squarely addressed by Judge Carlson's thorough report, it is hereby ORDERED that:
In this case, two African–American plaintiffs, James Hollinghead and Mark Simpson, have brought claims under federal and state law alleging that the City of York and the York Sewer Authority discriminated against them on the basis of race, and retaliated against them after they complained of a specific instance of perceived workplace intimidation and racial discrimination. Specifically, these claims arose out of an incident that occurred in July 2010, when James Hollinghead discovered what he believed to be a noose hanging within a building at the York Wastewater Treatment Plant in York, Pennsylvania that was undergoing substantial construction activity, including extensive electrical work being performed by Monacacy Valley Electric, Inc. Although he lacked any direct proof, Hollinghead was convinced that one or more unidentified employees of Monacacy must have placed the noose in order to harass or intimidate him and other African–American employees.
Hollinghead informed his union steward, Mark Simpson, about the matter, and Simpson in turn brought it to the attention of officials with the City of York—including the Mayor. These officials then promptly investigated the incident, and the City of York's Mayor, C. Kim Bracey, directed the police department to undertake a criminal investigation into the matter to determine whether a hate crime may have occurred. Ultimately, these investigations—which involved multiple interviews with witnesses, conducted by multiple parties—were inconclusive, and it was determined that it was just as likely that the rope Hollinghead observed may have been used in connection with the movement of conduit or other construction materials within the building. It was also never determined who placed the rope in the location where Hollinghead first saw it, and, therefore, no one was ever accused of wrongdoing in connection with this incident. Ultimately, the investigations into Hollinghead's and Simpson's claims were inconclusive.
In this case, Hollinghead and Simpson claim that in addition to responding inadequately to the perceived instance of intimidation and racial discrimination, their employer subsequently retaliated against each of them by directing them to undertake dangerous work assignments that resulted in each man sustaining injuries. Hollinghead and Simpson pursued administrative relief before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and subsequently brought this federal lawsuit alleging claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged First Amendment retaliation and 14th Amendment violations, and under 43 Pa. Cons.Stat. Ann. § 951 et seq. (the “PHRA”).
This action now comes before the Court on two motions for summary judgment filed by the remaining two defendants, the City of York and the York Sewer Authority. The motions remained dormant for a period of time while the parties engaged in what were partially successful efforts to mediate a settlement of the plaintiffs' claims.1 The motions are now fully briefed and ripe for disposition. For the reasons that follow, it is recommended that the motions be granted in their entirety, because there is insufficient evidence to support the plaintiffs' claims under any legal theory in this case.
James Hollinghead is employed by the City of York as a wastewater treatment plant operator. (Doc. 61, City of York Statement of Facts (“City SMF”) ¶¶ 1–2) Mark Simpson is also an employee of the City of York, and has worked at the Wastewater Treatment Plant for more than 13 years, and during the time relevant to this action was employed as a filter dryer operator. (Doc. 56, York Sewer Authority Statement of Facts (“Authority SMF”) ¶¶ 51–52; Doc. 75–1, Aff. of Mark Simpson, ¶ 2) Simpson was a union steward at the time of the incidents alleged in this case.
During 2010 and 2011, the York City Wastewater Treatment Plant was undergoing construction work. During this time, at least four contractors were working in a building known as the Ostara Building, which is part of the Wastewater Treatment Plant. The record is somewhat in dispute as to which of the contractors may have been working within the Ostara Building in July 2010, but it is undisputed that one of these contractors was Monacacy Valley Electric, Inc. (“Monacacy”). Monacacy employees were performing electrical wiring and related work within the Ostara Building pursuant to a contract with the Authority, including the installation of new breakers and running new conduit throughout the building. (City SMF ¶¶ 9, 13.)
In July 2010, Simpson was working in a building at the Wastewater Treatment Plant known as the Solids Handling Building, which is connected to the Ostara Building. (Id. ¶¶ 14, 15.) Simpson did not work in the Ostara Building, but would nevertheless use a bathroom and locker room in that facility from time to time. (Id. ¶ 14.) During that time, Simpson complained to Chad Arnold, the Process Control Manager at the Wastewater Treatment Plant about the condition of the shower in the Ostara Building. (Id. ¶ 15.) Apparently, Simpson complained that workmen had been standing in the shower with muddy boots on and had left the shower in a muddy condition. (Id. ) Simpson first brought his complaint to the foreman from Monacacy, but he did not care about the matter, and refused to do anything about it. (Id. ) Arnold told Simpson to put a lock on the bathroom door, which Simpson did. (Id. ¶¶ 15–16.) However, someone from Monacacy approached Arnold and informed him that the electricians needed access to the bathroom in order to complete their wiring work, and the bathroom was thereafter unlocked. (Id. ¶ 16.)
On July 16, 2010, Hollinghead discovered what he believed to be a noose hanging two to three feet above his head, dangling from a beam in the ceiling near the bathroom in question. (City SMF ¶ 21.) Two days later, Hollinghead brought this discovery to Simpson's attention. Simpson, the union shop steward, informed Chad Arnold about the matter on July 19, 2010, a Monday. Two days later, Simpson reported the matter to Steve Douglas, the Plant Manager. (Authority SMF ¶¶ 23–24.) Hollinghead did not actually see anyone hanging the rope, but he is nevertheless certain that it was placed by someone employed by Monacacy. (Id. ¶¶ 25–26.) On August 26, 2010, Hollinghead submitted a formal grievance about the matter with the City of York. (City SMF ¶ 19.) This grievance alleged that there has been “racial intimidation by outside contractor.” (Id. ¶ 20.) This grievance appears to have inspired the City of York to initiate a substantial inquiry in the matter, including the following:
To continue reading
Request your trial