Rodriguez v. CP Development, Inc.
| Decision Date | 19 July 2021 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 20-1672 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
| Parties | JUAN RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. CP DEVELOPMENT, INC., JIM POLANSKY and JIM LYNCH, Defendants. |
Plaintiff Juan Rodriguez (“Rodriguez”) brings this action under a variety of civil rights statutes, alleging that he was discriminated against based on his race, national origin age and disability and in retaliation for filing a charge of discrimination, culminating in the termination of his employment. Named as Defendants are his former employer, CP Development, Inc. (“CP Development”) and his former supervisors, Jim Polansky and Jim Lynch.
Pending before the Court is Defendants' motion to dismiss. For the reasons that follow, their motion will be granted with prejudice with respect to Count Six and without prejudice with leave to amend as to Counts One, Four and Five. As to Count Seven, Rodriguez's claim against Defendant Lynch based upon the first charge of discrimination will be denied with prejudice. Defendants' motion to dismiss the remaining claims in Count Seven is granted without prejudice and with leave to amend. Defendants' motion to dismiss Counts Two and Three will be denied.
Rodriguez commenced this action on November 2, 2020. Federal question jurisdiction is based upon the federal civil rights claims asserted in the Complaint, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343, and supplemental jurisdiction is asserted over the state law claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). (Compl. ¶ 1.)[1] Rodriguez alleges claims of race discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Count One); national origin discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (Title VII) (Count Two); retaliation under Title VII (Count Three); age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-34 (“ADEA”) (Count Four); disability discrimination in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12117 (“ADA”) (Count Five); the Older Workers Benefits Protection Act (“OWBPA”) (Count Six); and national origin discrimination pursuant to the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, 43 P.S. §§ 951-63 (“PHRA”) (Count Seven).
Defendants' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 8) has been fully briefed (ECF Nos. 9, 15, 18).
CP Development owns and manages apartments and houses for rent in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. It offers 24-hour maintenance, seven days a week, with additional snow and ice removal, rubbish removal, and landscaping services. Rodriguez was hired by CP Development on February 23, 2015 after responding to an internet advertisement that CP Development was seeking a “Maintenance/Remodeler.” Rodriguez was 63 years old at the time.
CP Development's employees are initially placed on a probationary period during which the employee is placed with a previously hired employee and assigned tasks to determine if the new employee can perform these tasks. Later, based upon need, these employees are assigned new or additional tasks within the gamut of maintenance needs. CP Development generally does not hire individuals based upon a specific skill set or require its maintenance workers to possess any training, certificates, or education in a maintenance field. (Compl. ¶¶ 9-12.)[2]
During his probationary period, Rodriguez was paired with several co-workers. Rodriguez completed his probationary period and was given full-time employment. (Id. ¶ 18.)
All maintenance employees/technicians are governed by the same job requirements no matter which specific job an individual performs. CP Development does not maintain any analytic tool by which to judge different rules for each employment job task. (Id. ¶¶ 13-14.)
From the beginning of his employment until he was terminated, Rodriguez performed job duties in each of CP Development's work needs list, including plumbing, electrician, HVAC, and maintenance duties. Rodriguez perfected utilized other maintenance and building skills that were highly beneficial to the successful operation of CP Development. (Id. ¶¶ 15-16.)
Many of the maintenance tasks required more sophisticated skills than the routine skills mentioned in CP Development's job advertisement. Over time, Rodriguez and a co-worker were the only two “go to guys” on staff with sufficient skills and experience to work across all trades. A “go to guy” fills in when a job must be done immediately and the designated electrician, plumber/HVAC technicians, glazier and carpenter are not available. Rodriguez estimates that he completed between 75 and 85% of those jobs with no helper. (Id. ¶¶ 18-19.)
Rodriguez was the lowest paid employee on the maintenance staff. Despite his skill level, he was never paid at the same rate as similarly situated Caucasian co-workers or younger employees who performed substantially equivalent work. Rodriguez raised the issue of unfair pay with Jim Polansky in December 2018.[3] Shortly thereafter, Rodriguez received a very positive performance review. While his hourly wages were increased, Caucasian co-workers continued to be paid at higher hourly rates. Rodriguez later became aware of pay inequalities between himself and two white males and again spoke with Polansky. When he did not receive a response, Rodriguez requested a formal explanation for the pay disparity from Polansky. (Id. ¶¶ 20-21.)
In August 2019, Rodriguez received a second evaluation from Polansky and “Sekar B, ” another supervisor, and was offered a raise to $19.09/hour. He declined this pay increase because he would still receive less than comparable non-protected co-workers. In September 2019, CP Development unilaterally increased Rodriguez's hourly rate to $20.50. This was still less than that received by non-protected co-workers despite his job seniority, years of experience, and the fact that all workers performed the same or similar work. This disparity continued throughout Rodriguez's employment. (Id. ¶¶ 22-24.)
On or about September 3, 2019, Rodriguez filed a charge of discrimination against CP Development both with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (“PHRC”).[4] In connection with efforts to resolve this charge, CP Development demanded that Rodriguez resign from his employment but he declined to do so. CP Development then engaged in actions to force a resolution of the pending charge and Rodriguez's resignation. Beginning on October 16, 2019, Rodriguez's work was heavily scrutinized and questioned by Charlie Patterson, the owner of CP Development, as well as Lynch and Polansky. His work was often questioned about the amount of time taken to complete each job. These actions continued until he was terminated in July 2020. (Id. ¶¶ 25-28.)
Rodriguez's immediate supervisor during most of his employment was “Sekar B.” In the winter of 2019-2020, Lynch and Polansky also became his supervisors. They established a newly created position, “Basement Improvement Works, ” which they assigned to Rodriguez. This position required Rodriguez to work full-time in isolation during the winter in an unhealthy basement environment. Under the supervision of Lynch and Polansky, Rodriguez was informed that he would not have any assistance in completing tasks that involved heavy lifting even though they had been routinely assigned to two-person teams. Although he requested help with some of this work, Sekar B. informed him that management directed that he was required to complete all tasks on his own. (Id. ¶¶ 29-31.) However, management had acknowledged throughout his employment that certain job duties required more than a single person to accomplish. (Id. ¶ 38.)
After Rodriguez contacted Polansky, a meeting with Sekar B., Polansky and an outside HR consultant took place. At this meeting, Sekar B. confirmed that management's direction that Rodriguez would not receive any assistance. Rodriguez “had no recourse but to officially request accommodations under the ADA.” On February 20, 2020, he provided CP Development with a doctor's note regarding his requested accommodations, which included a limitation on lifting. The same day, CP Development falsely accused Rodriguez of insubordination with respect to the “Basement Works” assignment and issued a written warning to him. (Id. ¶¶ 32, 33, 35.)
Rodriguez was then given a list of the “essential functions” of his job to provide to his doctor. The list did not exist prior to that time and was created by the company under the direction of its newly hired human resources consultant. (Id. ¶¶ 36-37.)
Throughout the first half of 2020, CP Development continued to request that Rodriguez resign or retire in order to settle the pending EEOC charge. On June 22, 2020, Rodriguez rejected a “final” demand for his resignation. Two days later, Rodriguez was assigned to power wash/stain a wooden fire escape. When Rodriguez expressed concerns about the safety of this structure, Sekar B. informed Rodriguez that the tenant was also concerned about its condition and he should proceed with the necessary repairs. Rodriguez did so and kept Sekar B. and Polansky informed of his progress. After Patterson was informed that Rodriguez had completed the repair, he came to the worksite to inspect the job on July 2, 2020. Rodriguez alleges that “without provocation, ” Patterson then “launched into a diatribe on the low quality of [Rodriguez's] work and lack of construction knowledge.”
On July 9, 2020 Rodriguez was informed that he was terminated as of July 8, 2020. (Id. ¶¶ 39-43.)[5]
“Under Rule 12(b)(6), a motion to dismiss may be granted only if accepting...
To continue reading
Request your trial