Wilkins v. ABF Freight Systems, Inc. - ED Pa. September 15, 2005
http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/05D1142P.pdf
Seventy year-old African-American man, a former truck driver, brought various claims against his former corporate employer and individual supervisors. One supervisor made overt racial slurs. The next supervisor did as well. They also denied him the chance to earn overtime and encouraged him to retire. After going through the required administrative process, plaintiff sued in federal court. Defendants moved to dismiss most claims.
individual liability - Claims against the supervisors in their individual capacities were dismissed. Neither Title VII, 42 USC 2000e-1 et seq., nor the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 USC 621 et seq., provides for individual liability, as plaintiff ultimately conceded.
racial discrimination - Some of plaintiff's claims were found to be untimely under the 300-day administrative filing requirement. Plaintiff's claim of continuing violations was rejected, because the acts of the supervisors did not appear to be part of the company's standard operating procedures, but rather separate courses of action of two men, each not responsible for the conduct of the other.
age discrimination - Defendants challenged plaintiff's claim that he was constructively discharged due to numerous instances of age discrimination -- denying him overtime and giving it to younger drivers. The standard for such a claim is an objective one, requiring a finding that an employer knowingly permitted conditions of discrimination in employment so intolerable that a reasonable person subject to them would resign. Held, Plaintiff's allegations, e.g., that supervisor often suggested that he retire sufficiently pleaded facts sufficient to support this claim
administrative exhaustion -- Defendants claimed that plaintiff did not allege all of the same facts in the admin. process that he alleged in court. The court rejected this, holding that the relevant inquiry on exhaustion is whether the acts alleged in the subsequent suit are fairly within the scope of the prior EEOC complaint, or the investigation arising therefrom. The plaintiff is not required to specifically plead each instance of discrimination to meet the exhaustion requirement. The allegations need only put the agency on notice that he was alleging both race and age discrimination.
breach of duty of fair representation by union - Plaintiff made only conclusory statements that the union breached its duty of fair representation in his case. The court said that would not suffice. The union has broad discretion about whether and how to pursue an employee's grievance against an employer. The employee must prove that the union's failure to pursue his grievance was arbitrary and so far outside a wide range of reasonableness as to be irrational.
intentional infliction of emotional distress - The court rejected the argument that the racial slurs --both supervisors calling him nigger -- supported a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress under state tort law. The court said that the slurs were not so outrageous, so extreme, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency... atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized society....the most egregious conduct. Such a finding is "extremely rare." The court said that these comments were inappropriate and unacceptable but not the kind of "utterly deplorable actions cognizable under Pennsylvania law." In addition, the court held that such claims must be brought under the state workmen's compensation law, which provides the sole remedy for injuries allegedly sustained during the course of employment.
Donald Marritz, staff attorney
MidPenn Legal Services - Gettysburg
Monday, September 19, 2005
employment - race/age discrim. - union duty of fair representation
SSI - treating M.D. - credibility - subjective complaints - duty of ALJ to develop record
Rodriguez v. Barnhart - ED Pa. - September ___ 2005
Summary judgment for SSA. Claimant alleged disability based on "depression and bad nerves."
Many instances of inconsistency between psychotherapy evidence and psychiatric evidence. Court upheld ALJ's decision to give little weight to opinion of treating physician (TP), because it was not supported by objective clinical, diagnostic or laboratory findings, but rather by the allegations of the claimant herself. The TP's opinion was of limited value because it largely relied only on claimant's subjective symptoms, rather than objective evidence, such as a treatment regimen.
The court also upheld the ALJ's assessment of the claimant's allegations as exaggerated and her credibility as only fair, primarily because activities of daily living -- including being primary caretaker for 6 children -- were inconsistent with her claims of the extent of her disability. The evidence also showed a "stable psychiatric condition." Credibility was evaluated under 20 CFR 4161.929 (b), (c) and (e)
The court rejected the argument that, if the treating physician's opinion was inadequate, the ALJ should have sought more information from the TP. The "ALJ correctly found that there was sufficient evidence in the record to reach a disability determination, which satisfied his duty under the regulations," 20 CFR 416.912(e).
Donald Marritz, staff attorney
MidPenn Legal Services - Gettysburg
age/disability discrimination - state employer - 11th amendment
Bullock v. Pa. Human Relations Commission -- ED Pa. Septemb er 14, 2005
Plaintiff's pro se age (ADEA, 29 USC 621 et seq) and disability discrimination (ADA, 42 USC 12101 et seq.) suit in federal court against her former employer, a state agency, dismissed on 11th Amendment grounds.
Congress has not abrogated state immunity under either the ADEA or ADA, and Pennsylvania has not consented to be sued under the ADEA or the ADA. Board of Trustees v. Garrett, 531 US 356 (2001); Kimmel v. Board of Regents, 528 US 62, 91 (2000).
The Commonwealth has waived its immunity for suits in state court for age/disability discrimination under the Pa. Human Relations Act, but it has specifically retained its 11th Amendment immunity for suits in federal court. Dennison v. Dept. of Corrections, 268 F.Supp2d 387, 405 (MD Pa. 2003)
Donald Marritz, staff attorney
MidPenn Legal Services- Gettysburg
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)