Hoy v. Borough of Cochranton

• Decision Date: 18 October 2016
• Docket Number: No. 1005 C.D. 2015,1005 C.D. 2015
• Parties: William R. Hoy, Appellant v. Borough of Cochranton
• Court: Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court

William R. Hoy, Appellant v. Borough of Cochranton

No. 1005 C.D. 2015

COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Argued: September 15, 2016

October 18, 2016

BEFORE: HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge HONORABLE JOSEPH M. COSGROVE, Judge HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE McCULLOUGH

William Hoy (Hoy) appeals from the March 9, 2015 order of the Court of Common Pleas of Crawford County (trial court) granting summary judgment in favor of the Borough of Cochranton (Borough) on his claims of gender and age discrimination. We affirm.

Facts/Procedural History

The background of this case, viewed in the light most favorable to Hoy as the non-moving party, may be summarized as follows. Hoy is a retired Pennsylvania State Trooper with twenty-five years of experience. At first, Hoy worked as a Patrol Trooper and was thereafter promoted to Corporal in 1993, the latest position of which he worked during the last fourteen years of his employment. On a temporary basis, Hoy also served as acting Sergeant when a Sergeant retired. Hoy's work experience with the Pennsylvania State Police includes responding to incidents of a serious nature; supervising patrol officers; evaluating patrol troopers' performance; and maintaining positive public relations with municipal police in the Meadville and surrounding area. (Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 204a-13a.)

The Borough's then Police Chief, Michael Phillips, announced at a Borough Council meeting on May 14, 2012, that he would retire, effective July 6, 2012. At this meeting, former Police Chief Phillips recommended that his subordinate, Sergeant Heather Beachy, be promoted to Chief of Police. The Borough Council declined this recommendation at that time, and approved a motion to advertise the vacancy, and an advertisement appeared in a local newspaper on May 17, 2012. Hoy applied for the position via letter and resume dated May 14, 2012, and became MPOETC (Municipal Police Officers' Education & Training Commission) certified after the position was advertised. Hoy, a male, was fifty-nine years old when he applied for the position of Police Chief. (R.R. at 224a-29a, 279a-81a.)

Beachy, a thirty-three-year-old female at the time of the application process, attended Mercyhurst Police Academy for six months, graduating on July 15, 2005, and then worked as a part-time police officer for the Borough, sixteen hours per week, until she became a full-time officer and Sergeant on July 1, 2009. Beachy's job duties as a police officer included street patrol, traffic stops, and handling various domestic disturbance calls. Since 2009, Beachy and former Police Chief Phillips were the only full-time officers working for the Borough. As Sergeant, Beachy supervised two to four other part-time officers and observed former Police Chief Phillips perform his particular job duties. Beachy also served temporarily as the acting Chief of Police when former Police Chief Phillips was out on medical leave.Once he decided that he was going to retire, former Police Chief Phillips trained Beachy with administrative tasks, budgeting, crime reports, and other matters associated with the role of Chief of Police. (R.R. at 268a-91a, 317a-18a; Trial court op. at 7.)

On June 19, 2012, during an executive session, the Borough Council narrowed the list to four candidates. Of the four, only Beachy and Hoy were residents of the Borough, and the other two were eliminated from consideration on that basis. On July 2, 2012, the Borough Council held a meeting open to the public and a motion was made to promote Beachy to the position of Police Chief; the motion was passed by unanimous vote. During the selection process, the Borough Council did not conduct any interviews. The Borough Council subsequently sent a rejection letter dated (or misdated) June 27, 2012 to all the unsuccessful applicants, which, including Hoy, consisted of twenty-six males. (R.R. at 382a-97a; Trial court op. at 1-2.)

On September 4, 2013, Hoy filed the instant suit against the Borough, alleging gender and age discrimination in the hiring of Beachy as Police Chief, in violation of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA).¹

Thereafter, the parties conducted discovery, gathering documentary evidence and memorializing testimonial statements. William Shorts, President of the Borough Council, testified that he was aware of Hoy's credentials, but was adverse to hiring Hoy because he did not like Hoy's demeanor and felt that Hoy was not friendly or had any budgeting experience. Other Council members stated that they were generally familiar with Hoy because he resided in the Borough since 1996, had beena football coach at the local high school for at least thirteen years, attended Council meetings, and visited the Borough's office. They further offered uncontradicted testimony that the decision to hire Beachy was not made until the July 2, 2012 meeting and that the rejection letters reflecting a date of June 27, 2012, contained a typographic error. (R.R. at 135a-36a, 214a, 244a, 289a-92a.)

Bart Waite, the Mayor of the Borough, stated that he and the Borough's Council decided not to interview Hoy because they did not think he was the best person for the position. Waite stated that he never told a news reporter that it would be beneficial to the community to have a female as the Chief of Police, but noted that the article stated that Beachy was the first female to assume that position within Crawford County. According to Waite, he was not aware that Beachy was the first female Chief of Police in the county until he read the article. Waite added that he did not think Hoy would be good at orchestrating community relations based upon his knowledge of complaints involving Hoy in his role as the high school football coach. (R.R. at 304a-11a, 393a; see Trial court op. at 5 n.4.)

The Borough's witnesses also explained that the Borough received several unsolicited recommendations from residents of the Borough in favor of hiring Beachy, while Hoy did not have any. (R.R. at 92a, 128a, 131a.) Ultimately, the Borough Council stated that it voted to hire Beachy for nine reasons; specifically, because she: (1) performed admirably in her role as Sergeant; (2) was active in the community with regard to school and neighborhood watch programs; (3) had a positive attitude; (4) received several unsolicited recommendations from Borough citizens; (5) had experience handling police business in a small borough, particularly enforcing the Borough's local ordinances; (6) had experience handling the Borough's Police Department's budget; (7) was known to be dependable and exceeded theexpectations of the Borough Council; (8) was mentored by former Chief of Police Phillips, who recommended that she replace him upon his retirement; and (9) had successfully filled in as the acting Chief of Police when former Chief of Police Phillips was out on medical leave. (R.R. at 112a, 152a-53a; Trial court op. at 7.)

In addition, the Borough submitted a document detailing the general statement of duties, typical examples of work, and desirable qualifications for the Chief of Police position. In his deposition, Hoy testified that he met all of the requirements for the position as outlined in this document. However, Hoy also testified that he never prepared a budget for a police department; did not have experience working with a mayor and/or council of a small borough; did not specifically deal with MPOETC regulations while working for the Pennsylvania State Police; and never had to patrol or visit the Borough for police-related business. Nevertheless, Hoy proffered testimony from Borough residents who stated, in general, that Hoy enjoys a good reputation in the community and expressed their belief that he was more qualified for the position of Chief of Police than Beachy. (R.R. at 94a-97a, 174a-75a, 234a-35a, 255a, 366a-69a.)

At the close of discovery, on August 7, 2014, the Borough filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that Hoy failed to adduce sufficient evidence to make out a case for gender and/or age discrimination. By memorandum and order dated March 9, 2015, the trial court granted the Borough's motion.

In its memorandum, the trial court first concluded that under the burden-shifting paradigm for employment discrimination cases, Hoy failed to carry his initial burden of establishing a prima facie case. In reaching this conclusion, the trial court determined that, when compared, Hoy and Beachy were not "similarly situated persons." (Trial court op. at 4.) The trial court determined that, unlike Hoy, Beachywas an internal candidate that was already employed by the Borough and previously served as its acting Chief of Police. Id. at 3-6.

Next, the trial court concluded that even if Hoy established a prima facie case of discrimination, the Borough offered nine legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for selecting Beachy over Hoy. In doing so, the trial court stated:

Promoting from within a department rather than hiring from outside is certainly lawful. The [Borough] Council's decision to advertise the position and plumb the universe of qualified candidates, rather than simply adopting [former] Chief Phillip's recommendation, should not open the Borough to charges of discrimination by any rejected applicant whose gender, age, race, etc., differed from Beachy's.

* * *

The only hiring reason which Hoy maintains lacks credulity is Beachy having been already employed by the Borough and having acted during Chief Phillip's leave of absence as police chief, which he contends is "highly inconsistent" with advertising the position. On the contrary, the [Borough] may have advertised for the sake of appearances, thereby hiding its lawful predisposition to promote Sergeant Beachy . . . . [Hoy] challenges each other reason with only his qualifications for the job, from which, he asserts, discriminatory motivation can be inferred. Equal or even superior qualifications do not

...