Jones v. Amerihealth Caritas
95 F. Supp. 3d 807
E.D. Pa.2015Background
- Jones, an African-American male, was hired as a Claims Examiner at Amerihealth Caritas in 2011 and alleges discriminatory treatment by his supervisor Gray.
- Jones alleges race and sex discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, including being passed over for promotions and pay disparities favoring white female coworkers.
- Jones complained internally in 2012 about pay disparity and discrimination, and alleges ongoing adverse actions after complaints.
- Jones filed a First Charge with the EEOC/PHRC on June 28, 2013 and a Second Charge on November 3, 2013; amended charge followed; a right-to-sue letter issued on May 19, 2014 for the First Charge.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of administrative exhaustion and failure to state claims under §1981, EPA, and FLSA; the court denied the motion at the preliminary stage.
- The FAC includes PHRA counts; Jones seeks punitive and emotional-distress damages under EPA/FLSA and a jury trial on PHRA claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exhaustion scope of EEOC/PHRA claims | First Charge covers race/sex discrimination and retaliation; harassment/wage disparity within scope | No exhaustion for race/sex harassment and PHRA claims; lack of right-to-sue letter attached | Claims within scope of first EEOC charge exhausted; right-to-sue letter not required; PHRA exhaustion cured by amended complaint |
| viability of §1981 claim | At-will employee has contractual relationship supporting §1981 claim | Plaintiff failed to allege discrimination concerning enforcement of a contract | Plaintiff sufficiently alleged discrimination relating to the enforcement of the employment contract under §1981 |
| EPA claim sufficiency | Paid less than similarly situated women for equal work; intentional discrimination | Insufficient evidence at this stage; need for more specifics | Plaintiff pleads a prima facie EPA claim; discovery may develop the record |
| FLSA retaliation damages (punitive and emotional distress) | Punitive damages and emotional distress damages may be recoverable under FLSA §216(b) | Punitive damages not available under FLSA; emotional distress damages not recoverable at this stage | Punitive damages available under §216(b); emotional distress damages potentially recoverable at this stage |
| Right to jury trial on PHRA retaliation claims | Seventh Amendment right to jury on compensatory PHRA damages in federal court | PHRA claims do not permit jury trials | Seventh Amendment provides the right to a jury trial for PHRA retaliation claims seeking compensatory damages in federal court |
Key Cases Cited
- Weems v. Kehe Food Distribs., Inc., 804 F.Supp.2d 339 (E.D. Pa. 2011) (liberal scope given to EEOC charge to cover related harassment claims)
- Ostapowicz v. Johnson Bronze Co., 541 F.2d 394 (3d Cir. 1976) (scope of EEOC charges should be liberally construed)
- Marra v. Philadelphia Housing Auth., 497 F.3d 286 (3d Cir. 2007) (right to jury trial for PHRA claims in federal court; compensatory relief analyzed)
- Travis v. Gary Cmty. Mental Health Ctr., Inc., 921 F.2d 108 (7th Cir. 1990) (punitive damages available under FLSA §216(b) for retaliation claims (Seventh Circuit))
- Snapp v. Unlimited Concepts, Inc., 208 F.3d 928 (11th Cir. 2000) (rejects broad punitive damages under FLSA §216(b))
- Pergine v. Penmark Mgmt. Co., 314 F.Supp.2d 486 (E.D. Pa. 2004) (amended complaint can cure exhaustion gaps under PHRA)