Roland Stucke v. City of Philadelphia
685 F. App'x 150
3rd Cir.2017Background
- Plaintiff Ronald Stucke, a white PhilaCor industry shop supervisor, served as Acting Assistant Director from June 2009 after his supervisor died; he lacked a high-school diploma or college degree.
- The Assistant Director position listed a bachelor’s degree (or equivalent experience) as a minimum qualification; Stucke had not reviewed the job description and later resigned from the acting post after being told the degree requirement would be enforced. Steven Brooks, an African-American, became Acting Assistant Director.
- After returning to his prior supervisor role under Brooks, Stucke alleged several adverse acts: removal of his office computer, surprise inspections, discipline after an altercation with Brooks, denial of shift transfer requests, and reassignment to a different shop.
- Stucke filed administrative complaints with the PHRC/EEOC (2011), then sued the City of Philadelphia asserting: hostile work environment (Title VII & PHRA), disparate treatment (Title VII), PHRA claims, and retaliation. The district court granted summary judgment for the City; Stucke appealed.
- The parties stipulated there were no derogatory racial remarks directed to Stucke; the record contains one hearsay comment attributed to a deputy commissioner and no other evidence of racial animus.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hostile work environment (race) | Stucke argued cumulative conduct (computer removal, inspections, discipline, shift denials, reassignment) created a racially hostile workplace | City argued incidents were isolated workplace frictions, no racial animus or derogatory remarks, and not severe/pervasive | Affirmed for City — acts not severe or pervasive, no evidence of racial discrimination; single hearsay comment insufficient |
| Disparate treatment / Constructive discharge (resignation from Acting AD) | Stucke contends he was constructively discharged when told degree requirement would bar him from permanent Assistant Director | City argues conversation related only to eligibility for the permanent post; acting position was intact and not made unbearable | Affirmed for City — no constructive discharge; resignation stemmed from his voluntary decision and lack of intent to obtain qualifications |
| Disparate discipline (post-resignation) | Stucke alleged he was disciplined more harshly than similarly situated employees | City argued discipline was justified by misconduct; district court found the claim waived or not pressed on appeal | District Court erred to treat as waived, but claim not pursued on appeal and thus not remanded |
| Retaliation (threat to sue, PHRC filing, shift denials, transfer) | Stucke claimed retaliation for threatening to sue and later PHRC complaint, linking that to shift denials and reassignment | City argued the threat was not protected activity (no mention of discrimination); later PHRC filing was protected but City offered legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for employment decisions (disciplinary record, reputation) | Affirmed for City — threat to sue insufficiently specific; for PHRC filing, plaintiff failed to show pretext as to City’s legitimate reasons |
Key Cases Cited
- Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) (Title VII is not a general civility code; ordinary workplace tribulations insufficient for hostile work environment)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (framework for proving disparate treatment and shifting burdens)
- Colwell v. Rite Aid Corp., 602 F.3d 495 (3d Cir. 2010) (factors relevant to constructive discharge)
- Carver v. City of Trenton, 420 F.3d 243 (3d Cir. 2005) (elements required for hostile work environment claim)
- Moore v. City of Philadelphia, 461 F.3d 331 (3d Cir. 2006) (what constitutes protected activity for Title VII retaliation)