A federal judge from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has dismissed the claim of a prospective coach, who claimed that a school district discriminated against him when it decided not to hire him as a middle school sports coach in violation of Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).
This was not the first suit that William Blasi, a pro se litigant, had brought against the school district. In early 2013, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of a district court, finding that the Pen Argyl Area School District (PAASD) was within its rights to ban him from attending a home game because he violated the district’s guidelines “by using incendiary language denigrating coaches and young players.”
In the latest suit, Blasi claimed that in April of 2008 he spoke on the phone with the school district’s Athletic Director Dwight Repsher about his interest in being hired as the middle school boys’ basketball coach. However, he was not interviewed or hired for the position.
He claimed in a lawsuit that the school district discriminated against him because of his marriage to an Asian woman and his age, on three separate occasions: 1) when the defendant hired Jovanni “Geo” Pagan for the middle school boys basketball position in the fall of 2008; 2) when the defendant hired five assistant baseball coaches in the spring of 2009; and 3) when the defendant hired Matt Young as the middle school boys basketball coach in the fall of 2009. According to the plaintiff, this alleged discrimination was a “conscious course of conduct to discriminate against families with children of mixed race white and Far East Asian Heritage.”
The plaintiff claimed that he was never advised that these positions were open, though he had expressed an interest in employment. The defendant’s hiring practice for all non-head coaching positions was to advertise via word of mouth or by community communications. These positions were not advertised in print media, on television, or online. The plaintiff claims this practice is intended to ensure that members of mixed race families, specifically members of white/Far East Asian families, will not be employed in these positions.
Blasi claimed he was more qualified than the other applicants because of his life experience, understanding of the development of middle school-aged males, basketball experience, education, and teaching experience.
The plaintiff filed charges with the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (EEOC) and received his right to sue letters on February 21, 2012 and June 12, 2012. He commenced this suit shortly thereafter.
The school district moved to dismiss, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), leading to the instant opinion.
Title VII makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an individual “with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment” based on the person’s race, color, religion, sex, or ethnicity. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2. To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under Title VII, a plaintiff must allege that: 1) he is a member of a protected class; 2) he is qualified for the position; 3) he applied and was rejected for the position; and 4) that employer filled the position with a similarly situated person from a different class. Barber v. CSX Distribution Services, 68 F.3d 694, 698 (3d Cir. 1995).
The plaintiff alleges both acts of direct discrimination under Title VII and acts of retaliation under Title VII. I will address both potential claims in turn.
The Title VII claims and ADEA claims are analyzed under the same rubric. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S. Ct. 1817, 36 L. Ed. 2d 668 (1973); To make out a prima facie case of age discrimination under the ADEA, the plaintiff must allege: 1) he is a member of the protected class (i.e. is at least 40 years of age); 2) he applied for a position for which he is qualified; 3) he has suffered an adverse employment action; and 4) a sufficiently younger employee was hired as to permit a reasonable inference of age discrimination. Barber v. CSX Distribution Servs., 68 F.3d 694, 698 (3d Cir. 1995).
The court noted that it is clear that Blasi is part of a protected class and that the coaches hired for the coaching positions were in their 20s. “What is unclear is whether the plaintiff actually applied for the positions in question,” wrote the court.
“The failure to formally apply to a job opening will not bar a Title VII plaintiff from establishing a prima facie claim of discrimination. However, the plaintiff must show that he made every reasonable attempt to convey his interest in the job to the employer. Lula v. Network Appliance, Inc., 245 F. App’x 149, 152 (3d Cir. 2007). See also Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) v. Metal Service Company, 892 F.2d 341, 348 (3d Cir. 1990); Menta v. Community College of Beaver County, 428 F.Supp.2d 365, 376-77 (W.D.Pa. 2006) (holding that a prima facie claim could not be made when the employer was not aware the plaintiff had an interest in the position).
“The plaintiff indicates that he expressed an interest in being the middle school boys basketball coach to the defendant’s Athletic Director during a phone conversation six months prior (to the district’s hiring of a coach). He did not again express an interest in the position to the defendant. The plaintiff also does not indicate in his complaint that he applied for or even expressed an interest in the assistant boys baseball coaching position to anyone. From the facts pled, the plaintiff has failed to establish that he has made every reasonable attempt to convey his interest in the coaching positions as required. Mr. Blasi is unable to make out a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADEA, and I will, therefore, dismiss his claims.”
William Blasi v. Pen Argyl Area School District; E.D. Pa.; CIVIL ACTION No. 12-2810, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172173; 12/5/13
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiff) Pro se, Pen Argyl, PA. (for defendant) Ellis H. Katz, Esq., Jonathan P. Riba, Esq., Sweet, Stevens, Katz & Williams, New Britain, PA.
