Mathis v. Christian Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc.

• Decision Date: 25 January 2016
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-3740
• Citation: 158 F.Supp.3d 317
• Parties: Paul Mathis, Plaintiff, v. Christian Heating and Air Conditioning, Inc., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

158 F.Supp.3d 317

Paul Mathis, Plaintiff,

v.Christian Heating and Air Conditioning, Inc., Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-3740

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

Signed January 25, 2016

Filed January 26, 2016

Adam C. Lease, Ari Risson Karpf, Karpf, Karpf & Cerutti, P.C., Bensalem, PA, for Plaintiff.

Frederick T. Lachat, Jr., Philadelphia, PA, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM

Dubois

, District Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

This case arises from the termination of plaintiff Paul Mathis's employment as an installation mechanic with defendant Christian Heating and Air Conditioning, Inc. (“Christian HVAC”). Plaintiff alleges that his employment was terminated on the basis of religious discrimination and in retaliation for the exercise of his religious beliefs as an atheist. Specifically, plaintiff was fired for covering defendant's religious mission statement on the back of his employee I.D. badge.

In the Complaint, plaintiff asserts claims for unlawful termination, unlawful retaliation, and denial of a reasonable accommodation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq.

(“Title VII”), and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, 43 Pa. Stat. §§ 951 et seq. (“PHRA”). Defendant contends, inter alia , that plaintiff was not subject to discrimination on the basis of his religious beliefs. Defendant also argues that accommodating plaintiff would substantially burden defendant's sincerely held religious beliefs in violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb et seq. (“RFRA”).

Presently before the Court are Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment to Dismiss Defendant's Twenty-Eighth Affirmative Defense and the Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendant Christian Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. as to all claims. For the following reasons, the Court grants plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and denies defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Facts¹

Defendant Christian HVAC is a for-profit corporation. Def.'s Mot. for Summary Judgment, Statement of Uncontested Facts, ¶ 3 (“Def.'s Mot. SOF”); Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s Statement of Uncontested Facts, ¶ 3 (“Pl.'s Resp. SOF”). Christian HVAC installs and services heating and air conditioning equipment. Pl.'s Resp., Ex. B at 71:17-21 (“Peppelman Dep.”). David Peppelman is the owner, president, and general manager of Christian HVAC. Def.'s Mot. SOF at ¶ 4. Peppelman is a “born again” Christian, and he named his company “Christian Heating & Air Conditioning” “because it was dedicated to the Lord.” Def.'s Mot. SOF at ¶ 5; Pl.'s Resp. SOF at ¶ 5; Peppelman Dep. at 8:17-18, 56:6-13 (quoting from Christian HVAC employee handbook). Christian HVAC employees drive red trucks with a dove logo, which symbolizes the Holy Spirit. Pl.'s Resp., Ex. A at 21:5-16 (“Mathis Dep.”); Peppelman Dep. at 56:4-5. Peppelman believes that born again Christians have a duty to spread the word of God and encourage others to convert to Christianity. Peppelman Dep. at 12:4-24. In Peppelman's words, “people know I'm a Christian at work.” Id. at 13:2-3.

All mechanics employed by Christian HVAC are required to wear an I.D. badge that displays their name and a photograph on the front, and a portion of Christian HVAC's mission statement on the back. Def.'s Mot. SOF at ¶ 6; Pl.'s Resp. SOF at ¶ 6; Peppelman Dep. at 57:6-58:2. The portion of the mission statement displayed on the back of the I.D. badges reads:

This company is not only a business, it is a ministry. It is set on standards that are higher than man's own. Our goal is to run this company in a way most pleasing to the Lord.

Treating employees and customers as we would want to be treated along with running a business as if we are all part of one big family is our plan.

Def.'s Mot. SOF at ¶ 7; Pl.'s Resp. SOF at ¶ 7. Peppelman testified that the purpose of the mission statement is to communicate “what we believe and how we want to be perceived by the public” and by customers. Peppelman Dep. at 74:5-9.

Plaintiff Paul Mathis was employed as a heating and air conditioning installation mechanic by Christian HVAC from April 26, 2010 until January 23 or 24, 2012. Def.'s Mot. SOF at ¶¶ 1-2; Pl.'s Resp. SOF at ¶¶ 1-2; Pl.'s Mot. for Partial Summary Judgment, Statement of Uncontested Facts, ¶ 4 (“Pl.'s Mot. SOF”). Mathis identifies as an atheist. Pl.'s Mot. SOF at ¶ 4. Mathis testified that he does not have any religious beliefs, and that he has been an atheist since before he reached adulthood. Mathis Dep. at 81:23-83:12. Mathis was not asked about his religious beliefs during his interview with Christian HVAC, but during his employment Mathis spoke to other Christian HVAC employees about the fact that he is an atheist. Id. at 83:13-17, 84:3-21. Mathis did not recall specifically informing anyone involved in the management of Christian HVAC, including Peppelman, that he was an atheist. Id. at 85:4-14.

Mathis testified that Peppelman often told him that he should attend church or implied that Mathis would not have various problems if he attended church with Peppelman. Id. at 29:22-23, 39:16-22, 40:1-12, 59:6-22. Peppelman had these types of conversations with many of his employees, not just Mathis. Id. at 49:14-24; Pl.'s Resp. Ex. D at 12:5-23, 23:15-24:3 (“Miller Dep.”); Pl.'s Resp. Ex. E at 13:24-14:15, 16:22-17:17 (“McNulty Dep.”); Pl.'s Resp. Ex. F. at 12:15-13:11, 29:6-30:3 (“O'Brien Dep.”); Pl.'s Resp. Ex. G at 11:10-21 (“Smith Dep.”). When Peppelman initiated these conversations, Mathis would respond that he did not “appreciate you talking to me like this. I don't appreciate you trying to push your religion,” and Mathis would walk away. Mathis Dep. at 41:12-19, 84:23-85:3; Smith Dep. at 9:8-10:24. Mathis told Peppelman “that I didn't appreciate it, that it was unwanted and unneeded, but” Mathis “didn't really know that I needed to tell him I was an atheist for him to understand that that was inappropriate behavior.” Id. at 89:18-23. Mathis spoke to other employees and his immediate supervisor, Rick Hoffman, about what he considered to be Peppelman's harassment. Mathis Dep. at 44:2-44:8, 64:9-21. Mathis feared that he would be retaliated against if he advertised his beliefs. Id. at 95:1-11.

At some point during his employment with Christian HVAC, Mathis placed a piece of tape over the back of his I.D. badge in order to cover up the mission statement. Id. at 57:9-58:7. Toward the end of his employment, Mathis received a new I.D. badge and also applied tape to cover up the mission statement. Id. at 57:17-20. Mathis covered the mission statement because, as an atheist, he did not agree with what he perceived to be its religious message. Pl.'s Mot. SOF at ¶ 8; Def.'s Resp. SOF at ¶ 8; see also Mathis Dep. at 90:14-17, 91:14-17; O'Brien Dep. at 21:22-22:3. No one involved in the management of Christian HVAC had ever noticed that Mathis had covered the mission statement on either of his badges until his last day of work, January 23, 2012. Pl.'s Mot. SOF at ¶ 9; Def.'s Resp. SOF at ¶ 9. Mathis did tell other employees—Ed McNulty, Gary O'Brien, Jr., Brandon Miller, and possibly his supervisor, Rick Hoffman—that he had covered the mission statement because he did not agree with it and felt that employees should not “have to wear a religious statement because of somebody else's religion.” Mathis Dep. at 90:24-91:20. Mathis did not object to working for a company named “Christian,” and did not object to driving a truck with a dove logo. Id. at 32:24-33:12.

On the morning of January 23, 2012, Peppelman overheard Mathis complaining to his partner, McNulty, that he was having trouble with the heater in a rental property that he owned. Mathis Dep. at 58:14-15, 59:6-18. Peppelman interjected that Mathis “wouldn't have all those problems in [his] life if [he] went to church with” Peppelman. Id. at 59:17-22. Mathis responded that he had repeatedly asked Peppelman not to “push[ ] [his] religion” and insisted that his “issue with a rental property ha[d] absolutely nothing to do with [his] belief in God or not.” Id. at 59:23-60:6. Mathis then ended the conversation and walked away. Id. at 60:6-7.

A few minutes later, while standing on a loading dock about four feet above Mathis, Peppelman noticed that something was on the back of Mathis's I.D. badge. Pl.'s Mot. SOF at ¶ 10; Def.'s Resp. SOF at ¶ 10; Mathis Dep. at 60:8-16. Peppelman asked to examine the badge. Pl.'s Mot. SOF at ¶ 10; Def.'s Resp. SOF at ¶ 10; Mathis Dep. at 60:17. Mathis showed him the badge, and Peppelman asked what was on the back. Mathis Dep. at 60:18-19. Mathis responded that he had covered the back of the I.D. badge with tape because he did not agree with the mission statement. Id. at 60:19-22; Pl.'s Mot. SOF at ¶ 11. In response, Peppelman told Mathis, “You're going to wear it or you're done.” Mathis Dep. at 60:23-24; Peppelman Dep. at 37:9-38:2.

Mathis again told Peppelman that he disagreed with him “trying to push [his] religion on” him. Peppelman Dep. at 37:9-11; McNulty Dep. at 23:15-20; Smith Dep. at 15:8-19. Mathis offered to wear the badge with the tape on the back, which he believed complied with company policy of wearing the badge. Mathis Dep. at 62:7-9. Peppelman then reiterated that if Mathis did not want to wear the badge with both sides uncovered, then he was “done,” and told Mathis that, by refusing to wear the badge as required by Christian HVAC company policy, Mathis had “quit” his employment with Christian HVAC. Peppelman Dep. at 34:15-24 (transcription of video used at deposition); Mathis Dep. at 61:2-5, 61:20-24. Mathis repeatedly said that he “disagreed” that he was quitting. Peppelman Dep. at 34:15-19 (transcription of video used at deposition), 35:9-14, 36:23-37:7; Mathis Dep. at 61:3-7, 64:5-8. According to Mathis, Peppelman took the badge from Mathis before Mathis could decide whether to remove the tape. Mathis Dep. 63:1-4. Mathis's employment was then terminated. At that point, Mathis was driven home by another...