Zielinski v. Whitehall Manor, Inc.
899 F. Supp. 2d 344
E.D. Pa.2012Background
- Plaintiff Gerald Zielinski, age 65, worked as Maintenance Director for Whitehall Manor, Inc. from Feb 2002 until July 2009.
- After knee surgery in March 2009, plaintiff was demoted to Personal Care Assistant, placed on overnight shift, and had his hourly pay cut four weeks later.
- Plaintiff alleges persistent harassment by the Supervisor beginning in mid-2009 and termination on July 16, 2009.
- On January 12, 2010, plaintiff mailed a letter to the EEOC requesting assistance to file a Charge of Retaliation for age discrimination, which the EEOC received January 14, 2010; he also sought cross-filing with the PHRC.
- On April 6, 2010, plaintiff filed a separate ADA discrimination and retaliation charge with the EEOC; both charges were given the same EEOC charge number; EEOC later issued a determination and rights notice related to the ADA claim.
- The court analyzes Counts III (ADEA retaliation) and IV (PHRA retaliation) and concludes the January 12, 2010 letter constitutes a timely, properly filed charge under both the ADEA and PHRA, exhausting administrative remedies and supporting retaliation claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the January 12, 2010 letter constitutes a valid ADEA/PHRA charge | Zielinski's letter seeks retaliation for age discrimination and meets charge requirements | The letter did not meet ADEA charge standards or timeliness | Yes; letter qualifies as a timely ADEA/PHRA charge and relates back |
| Whether administrative remedies were exhausted under the ADEA/PHRA | Holowecki allows filing before EEOC action; cross-filing supports exhaustion | Exhaustion not met due to ADA-focused charge | Exhaustion satisfied under Holowecki and related cross-filing rules |
| Whether dual filing with PHRC affects timeliness | PHRC dual filing deemed timely under work-sharing agreement | Unclear PHRC transmission timing undermines timeliness | Dual filing timely under the work-sharing agreement |
| Whether plaintiff stated a prima facie ADEA/PHRA retaliation claim | Protected activity, adverse action, and causal link established | Evidence insufficient to show causation | Prima facie retaliation established under both ADEA and PHRA |
Key Cases Cited
- Holowecki v. Intermediate, 552 U.S. 389, 552 U.S. 389 (Supreme Court, 2008) (requires reasonable construction as a request to take remedial action by EEOC)
- Twombly v. Bell Atlantic Corp.,, 550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007) (pleading standard: plausibility, not mere possibility)
- Iqbal v. Ashcroft, 556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009) (pleading standard: plausible claims require more than speculative)
- Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203 (3d Cir., 2009) (twombly/iqbal plausibility standard applied to pleadings)
- Barber v. CSX Distribution Services, 68 F.3d 694 (3d Cir., 1995) (content of complaint governs protected activity determination)
- Aman v. Cort Furniture Rental Corp., 85 F.3d 1074 (3d Cir., 1996) (good faith belief required for protected activity under ADEA)
- Woodson v. Scott Paper Co., 109 F.3d 913 (3d Cir., 1997) (ADEA/PHRA retaliation standards; administrative exhaustion context)
- Riseman v. Advanta Corp., 39 F. App'x 761 (3d Cir., 2002) (temporal proximity used to infer causation in retaliation)
- Griesbaum v. Aventis Pharms.,, 259 F. App'x 459 (3d Cir., 2007) (record-based inference of causation in retaliation)
- Vincent v. Fuller Co., 532 Pa. 547 (Pa. Supreme Ct., 1992) (PHRA filing deemed filed when EEOC transmits charge to PHRC)