Washington v. Se. Pa. Transp. Auth.

• Decision Date: 28 June 2021
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-4213
• Parties: FREDERICK WASHINGTON, Plaintiff, v. SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

FREDERICK WASHINGTON, Plaintiff, v. SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, et al., Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-4213

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

June 28, 2021

OPINION

Slomsky, J.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1

II. BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................................... 3

A. Plaintiff's Employment with SEPTA ............................................................................... 3

1. Conflict Between Plaintiff and Defendant Drayton in 2017 ....................................... 3

2. Defendant Singleton Becomes Involved in the C Tour Conflict ................................. 5

3. Conflict Between Plaintiff, Drayton, and Singleton Continues in 2018 ..................... 7

4. Defendant Jakira Jones Becomes Involved in the C Tour Conflict ............................ 11

5. Resulting Discipline .................................................................................................. 13

6. Plaintiff Files Formal Complaint Followed by New Allegations of Wrongdoing by Drayton ........................................................................................ 15

7. Plaintiff Serves His One-Day Suspension, Resigns, and Files Complaint with the EEOC and PHRC ........................................................................................ 18

B. The Instant Case ............................................................................................................. 20

1. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment ............................................................ 22 2. Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to the Motion ..................................................... 26

3. Defendants' Reply ..................................................................................................... 27

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW .................................................................................................. 28

IV. ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................ 28

A. Race Discrimination under Title VII and the PHRA ...................................................... 29

1. Denial of Training ..................................................................................................... 32

2. Administrative Warnings ........................................................................................... 33

3. Suspension Without Pay ............................................................................................ 35

4. Denial of a Transfer ................................................................................................... 38

5. Constructive Discharge ............................................................................................. 39

B. Hostile Work Environment under Title VII .................................................................... 43

1. Severity ...................................................................................................................... 45

2. Pervasiveness ............................................................................................................. 46

C. Retaliation under Title VII and the PHRA ...................................................................... 49

1. Protected Activities .................................................................................................... 52

2. Causal Connection Between Protected Activity and Adverse Action ....................... 55

D. Aiding and Abetting under the PHRA ............................................................................ 58

E. Claims under Section 1981 ............................................................................................. 62

1. Defendants SEPTA, Drayton, Singleton, and Jakira Jones Are Not Liable under Section 1981 .................................................................................................... 62

2. Defendants Boring, Gritsko, and Captain Jones Did Not Violate Section 1981 ....... 65

V. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................... 67

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Frederick Washington is a mixed-race individual who worked as a Transit Police Dispatcher for the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority ("SEPTA") from August 2017 to June 2019. Throughout his employment, Plaintiff complained numerous times to his supervisors about the conduct of three African American coworkers that he believed was racially discriminatory and created a hostile work environment. In the myriad of complaints, however, race-related conduct only was implicated when Plaintiff complained about things he overheard, specifically: (1) two coworkers using the word "mulatto" in conversation, (2) a coworker muttering "light skin privilege" under her breath, (3) a coworker using the N-word in conversation, (4) coworkers talking about their dating preferences based on skin tone, and (5) coworkers telling jokes Plaintiff felt were discriminatory and offensive. Otherwise, Plaintiff's complaints concerned work-related altercations and disagreements with the three coworkers, some of which included vague, conclusory allegations of race discrimination.

Notably, the same coworkers Plaintiff complained about also complained to supervisors about Plaintiff. One coworker filed two complaints—in one he wrote that Plaintiff called him the N-word during an altercation, and in another he described Plaintiff's attitude as "uncooperative," and that Plaintiff loudly stated he worked with "pieces of sh*t." Another coworker wrote that she criticized Plaintiff for not doing his job and recounted the conflict that ensued when she confronted him about it.

Each time a supervisor received an informal complaint from Plaintiff or his coworkers, SEPTA launched an internal investigation of the allegations to determine whether anyone involved violated SEPTA policy. In December 2018, after a third incident where SEPTA found Plaintiff engaged in inappropriate workplace behavior, SEPTA's independent Police Board of Inquiry issued Plaintiff a one-day suspension without pay pursuant to its Progressive Discipline Scale.Plaintiff disputed the suspension through various grievance hearings. In March 2019, while the suspension dispute was ongoing, Plaintiff filed a formal complaint with SEPTA's Equal Employment Opportunity ("EEO") Department, alleging that he was discriminated against and subjected to a hostile work environment by the three coworkers. In May 2019, Plaintiff's suspension was upheld, and in June 2019, Plaintiff resigned. At the time of his resignation, SEPTA had not yet completed its investigation into his EEO complaint.

In September 2019, Plaintiff initiated this case against SEPTA, his three supervisors—Michael Boring, Michael Gritsko, and Captain Daryl Jones—and the three coworkers—Richard Drayton, Denise Singleton, and Jakira Jones. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that coworkers Drayton, Singleton, and Jakira Jones discriminated against him on the basis of his mixed race and their conduct created a hostile work environment. He further avers that when he complained to supervisors Boring, Gritsko, and Captain Jones, they did not investigate his discrimination allegations; rather, he received a one-day suspension without pay for complaining.

In December 2020, Defendants filed the Motion for Summary Judgment that is presently before the Court. (Doc. No. 27.) In the Motion, Defendants assert that Plaintiff's claims fail as a matter of law because they either lack evidentiary support or are made against parties who cannot be held liable. They characterize Plaintiff's allegations as interpersonal bickering and workplace squabbles that had nothing to do with race, and maintain that Plaintiff was suspended for violating SEPTA policy by engaging in inappropriate workplace behavior. As such, they ask that summary judgment be granted in their favor on the ground that the entire case is baseless, lacks evidentiary support, and there are no triable issues. In Plaintiff's Response in Opposition, he maintains that a review of the entire record shows that he was subjected to race discrimination, a racially hostile work environment, and retaliation.

For the reasons discussed infra, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 27) will be granted.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Plaintiff's Employment with SEPTA

On July 27, 2017, SEPTA offered Plaintiff Washington employment as a Transit Police Dispatcher¹ with the SEPTA Police Department, which Plaintiff accepted. (See Doc. No. 28, Ex. 1.) Plaintiff, who is African American, Hispanic, and Caucasian, and identifies himself as "mixed race,"² began his employment in August 2017 and soon after was assigned to work the "C Tour"³ shift alongside dispatchers Richard Drayton, Denise Singleton, and Jakira Jones, who are all African American. (See Doc. Nos. 27 at 11; 27-1 ¶ 2; 28, Ex. 2 at 123:23; 32-2 ¶ 2; 33, Ex. A at 40:2-8.) The C Tour shift was from either 2 to 10 p.m. or 3 to 11 p.m. and was considered by many to be the least desirable shift. (See Doc. No. 33, Exs. A at 40:21-41:4; H at 29:9-18; J at 11:7-8.) Supervisor Michael Gritsko described C Tour as "[a] different kind of stress. . . . The people on C Tour . . . were overworked, they [had] a lot of stuff to do and it was very stressful." (Id., Ex. J at 12:1-9.)

1. Conflict Between Plaintiff and Defendant Drayton in 2017

On October 22, 2017, Plaintiff and Drayton engaged in a verbal argument over data entry in the police dispatch system. (See Doc. Nos. 28, Ex. 2 at 133:3-7; 33, Ex. A at 28:9-31:2.) Asthe exchange lessened, Drayton accused Plaintiff of calling him "derogatory names" including the N-word. (Doc. No. 33, Ex. A at...