PANKEY v. PHILADELPHIA Hous. Dev. Corp.
| Decision Date | 29 March 2011 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-3943 |
| Parties | VERONICA M. PANKEY, Plaintiff, v. PHILADELPHIA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
m e m o r a n d u m
I. INTRODUCTION
In this case, plaintiff Veronica Pankey alleges that her employer, defendant Philadelphia Housing Development Corporation ("PHDC"), (1) subjected her to a hostile work environment, (2) disciplined her unfairly because of her race and gender and (3) retaliated against her for filing discrimination claims. Presently before the Court is PHDC's motion for summary judgment. For the reasons that follow, the motion is granted.
II. BACKGROUND1
Plaintiff is an African-American woman who began work in 1988 for the PHDC, a nonprofit corporation that provides housing-related services to low- and moderate-income Philadelphia residents. (Def.'s & Pl.'s Statements of Undisputed Facts ("SUF") ¶¶ 1, 4.) Overthe years, she worked her way up from Account Clerk to her current position of Accountant II. (Id, ¶¶ 4-5.)
In or about 1990, Pankey joined Local 1971 of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees ("Local 1971"), the union that represents most non-managerial employees in PHDC. (Id. ¶¶ 10, 13.) The union also represents employees of two other employers: the City of Philadelphia's Office of Housing and Community Development ("OHCD") and the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia ("RDA"). (Id. ¶ 11.) The employees in each of the three organizations are separate bargaining units and negotiate separate collective bargaining agreements with their respective employers. (Id.. ¶ 12.) Pankey was elected president of Local 1971 in August 2004, (id. ¶ 16), and served in that capacity until January 2010. (Pankey Dep. at 229.)
From about the time she started work at the PHDC, Pankey performed the same routine each morning she went to work: she exited her car outside of the downtown Philadelphia building that houses PHDC's offices, walked to her desk, dropped off her belongings, clocked in, returned to her car, drove until she found a permanent parking space and then walked back to the office. (Id. at 80-81.) As of 2007, she worked on the 17th floor of the building, meaning her routine included riding the elevator down 17 flights and then up again after clocking in but before she settled in to do her work. (Id. at 85-88.) Pankey's superiors allege that the routine led to her starting work 20 to 45 minutes after she clocked in, (See Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. K at PHDC 0114), although Pankey states that "the times could vary." (Pankey Dep. at 82.)
In spring 2007, Pankey's supervisor, James Quinn, instructed her to cease her practice ofclocking in and then leaving to look for a parking space. (SUF ¶ 35.) Thereafter, Quinn would observe Pankey in the morning to see if she was following his instructions. (SUF ¶ 22.) Pankey asserts that Quinn would make a face at or comment to her when he observed her engaging in her morning parking routine. (Pankey Dep. at 78.)
Later that year, on August 9, 2007, another employee in Pankey's department, Roslyn McCall, complained to Pankey about being assigned work she believed should have been assigned to another department. (Pankey Dep. at 97-98.) Pankey approached Quinn in his office to discuss the assignment. (Id. at 103.)
During the conversation, Pankey spoke in a "tone of firmness and aggressiveness," (id. at 102), and stated, inter alia, that "the other fiscal department staff who have been spending extra hours to complete assignments are jackasses for doing so." (Id. at 109.) At least two PHDC employees not in Quinn's office heard Pankey utter a profanity. (Perez Decl. ¶ 10; Hinkle Decl. ¶ 7.)
The next day, PHDC issued Pankey a one-day suspension. (SUF ¶ 46.) She served the suspension on August 14, 2007. (Id. ¶ 62.) The same day, Pankey filed complaints with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission ("PHRC"), alleging discrimination and harassment stemming from the suspension and the comments about her parking practices. (Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. K at PHRC 0453-58.)
In May 2008, Pankey amended her EEOC and PHRC complaints to include a charge thatthe PHDC retaliated against her for filing the original complaint. (Id. at 0131-37.) Specifically, Pankey alleged that shortly after she filed the original complaint, the PHDC changed its longstanding policy of allowing union presidents who were actively working to take "no charge" paid leave during work hours for union functions related to the OHCD and RDA, in addition to the PHDC. (Pankey Dep. at 224-35.) "No charge" paid leave is time an employee is excused from work and receives pay without having to use her personal paid leave. (SUF ^ 98.) The PHDC maintains that its policy was to grant "no charge" leave only for PHDC-related union activities. (See, e.g., Yurkow Dep. at 50-51.) Otherwise, employees had to use their paid leave time or take leave without pay.
Plaintiff initiated the present action on August 28, 2009, filed an Amended Complaint on January 8, 2010 and a Second Amended Complaint on January 22, 2010. On September 1, 2010, defendant moved for summary judgment. The motion was fully briefed on October 22, 2010 and is thus ripe for review.
iii. legal standard
In considering a motion for summary judgment, "the court is required to examine the evidence of record in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment, and resolve all reasonable inferences in that party's favor." Wishkin v. Potter, 476 F.3d 180, 184 (3d Cir. 2007). The party opposing the motion, however, cannot "rely merely upon bare assertions, conclusory allegations or suspicions" to support its claim. Fireman's Ins. Co. v. DuFresne, 676 F.2d 965, 969 (3d Cir. 1982). After examining the evidence of record, a court should grant summary judgment if the moving party "shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any materialfact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); accord Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986).
A factual dispute is material when it "might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law," and genuine when "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). "Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no 'genuine issue for trial.'" Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986) (citation omitted).
IV. DISCUSSION
Pankey asserts that (1) Quinn's behavior surrounding her parking practices created a hostile work environment, (2) the one-day suspension amounted to race- and gender-based discrimination and (3) the PHDC changed its union leave policy in retaliation for her filing complaints with the EEOC and PHRC. The Court addresses each claim in turn.
Pankey first alleges that Quinn's reprimand for double parking her car - and his subsequent monitoring of her to see if she was complying with his orders - amounted to harassment based on her race and/or gender. She alleges that this harassment created a hostile work environment, in violation of 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. Cons. St. § 951 et seq. The Court concludes that Pankey has failed to adduce evidence sufficient to survive summary judgment on this claim.
The analysis of plaintiff's claim is the same under Title VII and the PHRA. Weston v.Pennsylvania, 251 F.3d 420, 426 n.3 (3d Cir. 2001) () Under both statutes, there are five elements that must be satisfied to prove the existence of a hostile work environment: (1) the employee suffered intentional discrimination because of her protected status; (2) the discrimination was severe or pervasive; (3) the discrimination detrimentally affected the plaintiff; (4) the discrimination would detrimentally affect a reasonable person of the same status in the same position; and (5) the employer is liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior. Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993); Huston v. Proctor & Gamble Paper Prods. Corp., 568 F.3d 100, 104 (3d Cir. 2009).
In this case, plaintiff has produced no evidence from which a reasonable jury could infer that Quinn's behavior regarding Pankey's double parking was motivated by race- or gender-based animus. Pankey contends that other employees were allowed to get breakfast or take a cigarette break while on work time but were not reprimanded. Even assuming, arguendo, that Pankey and her co-workers were "similarly situated" because of their behavior - a dubious premise - three of the six "similarly situated" employees were African-American women. Given the absence of direct evidence that Quinn's behavior was motivated by race- or gender-based animus, no reasonable jury could infer that Quinn chose to reprimand Pankey - but not other African-American women - because Pankey is an African-American woman.
Plaintiff also has failed to adduce sufficient evidence of the second, third and fourth factors to survive summary judgment. First, the actions in this case were neither "severe" nor "pervasive." Conduct that is both far more frequent and far more offensive has been held insufficient to allow a hostile-work-environment plaintiff to survive a motion for summaryjudgment. See, e.g., Kraus v. Howroyd-Wright Empm't Agency, Inc., No. 06-975, 2008 WL 90325, at *13 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 8, 2008) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial