Keister v. PPL Corp.

• Decision Date: 06 October 2015
• Docket Number: No. 4:13-cv-00118.,4:13-cv-00118.
• Citation: 253 F.Supp.3d 760
• Parties: Ernest KEISTER, Plaintiff, v. PPL CORPORATION, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1600, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania

253 F.Supp.3d 760

Ernest KEISTER, Plaintiff,

v.PPL CORPORATION, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1600, Defendants.

No. 4:13-cv-00118.

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania.

Signed October 6, 2015

Donald P. Russo, Donald P. Russo, Attorney at Law, Bethlehem, PA, for Plaintiff.

Edward J. Easterly, Tallman, Hudders & Sorrentino, Allentown, PA, Steven E. Hoffman, Norris McLaughlin & Marcus, P.A., Allentown, PA, Quintes D. Taglioli, Markowitz & Richman, Allentown, PA, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM

Matthew W. Brann, United States District Judge

This decision evaluates dual Motions for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants PPL Corporation and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1600 Union, as well as a Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions filed solely by PPL. Because the Court finds that there are no genuine issues of material fact precluding summary judgment on any of Plaintiff's claims, Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment are both granted in full. In addition, PPL's Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions is held in abeyance pending a hearing before this Court.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Plaintiff's Employment and Bargaining History with Defendants

Plaintiff Ernest Keister was born on December 23, 1947. ECF No. 27 at 5. He has resided at 11 Laurel Park Lane, Millmont, Union County, Pennsylvania uninterrupted for at least the past twenty years. Id. at 1; ECF No. 40, Ex. 3 at 1; ECF No. 50 at 1. Plaintiff first became an employee of Defendant PPL in 1978.¹ ECF No. 27 at 2; ECF No. 40 at 1. Plaintiff worked for PPL for more than thirty-four (34) years. ECF No. 27 at 2. He began his employment with PPL as a handyman working in operations at its Sunbury, Northumberland County, Pennsylvania plant. ECF No. 27 at 2; ECF No. 42 at 7; ECF No. 4, Ex. 4 at 8. After working in that capacity, Plaintiff bid on and was awarded a technical assistant position in PPL's Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, located adjacent to the Susquehanna River in Berwick, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania. ECF No. 40, Ex. 4 at 8. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was also a member of Defendant International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1600 ("Union"). Id.

During his employment with PPL, Plaintiff held the titles of "Technical Assistant Susquehanna," "Senior Technical Assistant Susquehanna," and "Nuclear Information Services Technician." ECF No. 27 at 2. Plaintiff was a contact for computer services at PPL since December of 1981, during which time he designed, implemented, and maintained the IBM Mainframe, the Token Ring, and the Ethernet. Id. Plaintiff also managed the initial installations and the technological changes that occurred in the various buildings over the years. Id. Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint further outlines a number of managerial tasks he would routinely perform at the Susquehanna plant, all of which Plaintiff suggests fell outside the scope of his official job description. Id. at 3. Thus, Plaintiff's core allegations are that "[his] job description and his pay grade do not reflect his actual job duties, and he is not being paid for what he is actually doing," and that "Defendants has [sic] not been serious in its [sic] efforts to remedy the pay disparity and job classification issue." Id. at 3–4.

B. The Collective Bargaining Agreement, Plaintiff's Reevaluation Requests, and Plaintiff's Communication with the Union

Plaintiff, as a Union member, was party to a Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA") with PPL. ECF 40, Ex. 3 at 5; ECF 50 at 30. That CBA includes a specific process to request a job reevaluation and the recourse available to employees who are dissatisfied with the results of such a request. ECF 40, Ex. 3 at 5; ECF 50 at 30. In this regard, if a job reevaluation request is not approved, a bargaining unit employee, such as Plaintiff, may appeal the decision. If the Union and PPL still disagree, any bargaining unit employee could proceed by initiating the grievance process. ECF 40, Ex. 3 at 5; ECF 50 at 30.

Specifically, Article VI, Section 1 of the CBA provides in pertinent part that:

The Company will prepare new or eliminate old job titles and descriptions or otherwise revise or modify them when necessary to meet changed conditions. Requests for new jobs and requests for re-evaluation for existing jobs will be handled in accordance with Exhibit N.

ECF No. 40, Ex. 4 at 66 (underlining in original). Under the heading "Existing Jobs," Exhibit N provides in pertinent part that:

1. A request to re-evaluate an existing job description may be initiated by an incumbent employee or appropriate supervisor.

...

5. If the request is not approved by the Company, Bargaining Unit employees may appeal the decision to the IBEW Local 1600 office.

6. Disagreements between the Company and Local 1600 regarding whether to submit an existing position for re-evaluation shall be resolved through the grievance procedure.

ECF No. 40, Ex. 4 at 67–68.

On or about June 13, 1986, Plaintiff requested a job reevaluation due to his work with the computers and related infrastructure. ECF 40, Ex. 3 at 4; ECF 50 at 30. Plaintiff was thirty-nine (39) years-old at the time he made that request. ECF 40, Ex. 3 at 4; ECF 50 at 30. PPL took no action on Plaintiff's request, and Plaintiff never filed a formal complaint, charge, or grievance with the Union contesting this determination. ECF 40, Ex. 3 at 4; ECF 50 at 30.

Plaintiff subsequently submitted another request for job reevaluation on or about July 31, 2000. ECF 40, Ex. 3 at 5; ECF 50 at 30. After that request, Plaintiff was provided with a new job title, a new pay rate, and back pay. ECF No. 40, Ex. 4 at 24. The July 2000 request was Plaintiff's last formal job reevaluation request until the May 2011 request at issue in this dispute. Id. at 24–26.²

On May 4, 2011, Plaintiff contacted Richard John Sopko, Chief Steward for the Union at the Susquehanna plant. ECF No. 50 at 39. Sopko told Plaintiff:

The union has no interest in giving up a [bargaining unit] position. If the company wants to create a new management job and put you in it, that can be at their discretion.... If your intent is to turn your current position into a management job, I can't help you with that. Sorry.

Id.

Sopko, in a follow-up email sent two minutes after the initial correspondence, wrote:

The union will still support a job re-eval to determine if the position is paid correctly. You know I believe it is too low.

Id.

Plaintiff then submitted a job reevaluation request to PPL on or about May 4, 2011. ECF No. 40, Ex. 3 at 9; ECF No 50 at 33. PPL took no action on the May 2011 request. ECF No. 40, Ex. 3 at 9; ECF No 50 at 33.

On March 20, 2012 Plaintiff received a similar response during a phone conversation with Daniel Zerbe, a Business Representative for the Union. ECF No. 50 at 33. During that conversation, Zerbe told Plaintiff that:

[H]e should stop his efforts and that Local 1600 would not support moving his job out of the bargaining unit.

Id. at 34, 41–45. Zerbe explained that he also told Plaintiff:

I told him he should file a Request for Job Evaluation/Reevaluation.... I told him to speak to Sopko to file a grievance.

Id. at 44.

Both Sopko and Zerbe pointed Plaintiff toward the appropriate channels for initiating a formal grievance, but Plaintiff never filed a grievance or requested that a grievance be filed on his behalf in regard to his May 4, 2011 job reevaluation request. ECF No. 40, Ex. 3 at 10; ECF No 50 at 33.

C. Procedural Posture

Plaintiff filed his United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") Charge alleging age discrimination on June 28, 2011, ECF No. 40, Ex. 4 at 44. On August 30, 2012, the EEOC mailed Plaintiff a "Dismissal and Notice of Rights," stating that any subsequent lawsuit Plaintiff sought to initiate "must be filed WITHIN 90 DAYS of [his] receipt of this notice." ECF No. 40, Ex. 4 at 49 (capitalization and underlining in original). That right-to-sue letter was addressed to "Ernest Keister" at "11 Laurel Park Lane, Millmont, PA 17845." Id. According to Plaintiff, he had previously received "multiple correspondences from the EEOC, which were all addressed to him" at the same record address used in the right-to-sue letter. ECF No. 40, Ex. 3 at 1–2; ECF No. 50 at 1. According to Plaintiff, the right-to-sue letter was erroneously addressed to his Counsel's old office. ECF No. 40, Ex. 4 at 50. Plaintiff's Counsel did not contact the EEOC regarding his non-receipt of the letter until December 21, 2012. Id.

On January 17, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Complaint (ECF No. 1) setting forth two claims of discrimination on the basis of age—one under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et seq. ("ADEA") and a second under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, 43 P.S. §§ 951 et seq. ("PHRA")—as well as a third claim alleging a violation of § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C. § 185(a) ("LMRA").

Plaintiff asserted all three claims against both Defendants.

On March 14, 2013, PPL moved to dismiss the Complaint. ECF No. 8. Plaintiff responded by filing an Amended Complaint on April 15, 2013. ECF No. 14. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint contained the same three claims, each alleged against both defendants, but included additional averments. On May 1, 2013, PPL moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint. ECF No. 16. The Union moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint on June 11, 2013. ECF No. 20.

On June 24, 2013, Plaintiff moved for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. ECF No. 21, which this Court granted on June 13, 2014. ECF No. 25. The Second Amended Complaint included the same three causes of action, but named PPL as the only defendant on the ADEA and PHRA claims. ECF No. 27. Plaintiff maintained that both Defendants violated § 301 of the LMRA. Id. The Second Amended Complaint also supplemented various averments in support of Plaintiff's theories. Id.

Further clarification of the exact evidence on which Plaintiff's claims are based was largely stymied by...