2:11-cv-00880
W.D. Pa.Mar 11, 2013Background
- Slaughter, a Sergeant at Allegheny County Jail, sues the County, Jail, and four officials (Rustin, McCall, Donis, Emerick) alleging Title VII/PHRA race discrimination and retaliation; counts 1-2 assert these claims, counts 3-6 are §1983 supervisory claims; the gravamen is a hostile work environment and a 2010 reassignment from asst. unit manager on Level 5 to Floater with unchanged pay/rank.
- Defendants filed a late-formatted 12(b)(6) motion disguised as summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, with a two-paragraph CSMF; discovery is complete and pretrial statements filed.
- The court finds Defendants’ CSMF inadequate and unresolved issues remain; Eleventh Amendment immunity is deemed meritless for counties, but the motion is denied without prejudice due to procedural defects.
- The court questions the scope of claims, exhaustion of EEOC/PHRA charges, and the timeliness of incidents; it requires Plaintiff to identify precise claims and Defendants for a potential summary judgment and warns that some claims may be unsuitable or time-barred.
- The court proposes Rule 56(f) relief to guide the potential summary judgment process and to potentially trim or resolve issues before trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of claims and defendants for summary judgment | Slaughter pursues Title VII/PHRA claims; possibly §1983 claims against individuals | Defendants seek dismissal on 12(b)(6)/summary-judgment grounds | Not resolved; court denies without prejudice and requires identification of claims |
| Exhaustion and scope of EEOC/PHRA charges | Charges from 2007 and 2010 cover alleged discrimination and retaliation | Administrative remedies may not cover all alleged actions | Needs further briefing to determine which charges survive summary judgment |
| Whether adverse actions are actionable under Title VII/PHRA and causation | Reassignment and other actions constitute adverse employment actions and are causally linked to protected activity | Proving adverse actions and causation is difficult; some actions may be non-actionable | To be addressed in subsequent proceedings; not granted here |
| Individual liability under Title VII/PHRA and supervisory liability under §1983 | Individual defendants may bear liability under supervisory theory | No individual liability under Title VII/PHRA; supervisory liability under §1983 is hard to prove | Court notes potential merit but requires identification and briefing; not decided here |
Key Cases Cited
- Bolden v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transp. Authority, 953 F.2d 807 (3d Cir. 1991) (political subdivisions are not “States” under the Eleventh Amendment)
- Sheridan v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 100 F.3d 1061 (3d Cir. 1996) (no individual liability under Title VII or PHRA; high burden for supervisor liability)
- Mandel v. M & O Packaging Corp., 706 F.3d 157 (3d Cir. 2013) (scope of administrative exhaustion; continuing violation vs discrete acts)
- Price v. Delaware Dept. of Correction, 40 F. Supp.2d 544 (D. Del. 1999) (retaliation/discrimination claims boundaries under federal law)