A federal judge from the Western District of Pennsylvania has granted a request from Waynesburg University to dismiss a racial discrimination claim brought against the school by a part-time wrestling coach, who sued after he was fired.
In so ruling, the court found, among other things, that plaintiff Charlie T. Heard failed to demonstrate that the school’s stated reasons for firing him – assaulting a student athlete — were pretext for a discriminatory reason.
The aforementioned assault occurred on January 28, 2008, when he was overseeing the wrestling team’s practice. After an 18-year old freshman performed a wrestling move during live drills, the plaintiff suggest that the move was “comical,” stating “make sure you don’t do that in a match, because it ain’t going to work.” The wrestler, Z.B., jumped up from the mat and walked quickly toward him “in a raging manner, swearing and a mean look on his face.” Heard defended himself, striking the wrestler.
The plaintiff was fired, and subsequently sued, alleging claims of racial discrimination. Count I alleged that Defendant discriminated against him because of his race and because of his attempts to recruit African American students, and that it fired or constructively discharged him in retaliation for his opposition to racial discrimination, in violation of § 1981. Count II alleged that Defendant discriminated against him on the basis of his race and treated him differently than other coaches with respect to the amount of pay he received, and that it fired or constructively discharged him because of his race, in violation of Title VII. Count III alleged that Defendant discriminated against him based on his race and created a racially hostile work environment, in violation of the Pennsylvania Human Rights Act (PHRA).
Reviewing the Title VII/§ 1981/PHRA racial discrimination claims first, the court turned to McDonnell Douglas v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802, 93 S. Ct. 1817, 36 L. Ed. 2d 668 (1973) and the shifting burden analysis it set forth.
The latter case provides that if the employee presents a prima facie case of discrimination, the employer must “articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the [adverse employment action].” Further, “if the employer specifies a reason for its action, the employee must have an opportunity to prove the employer’s reason for the adverse employment action was a pretext for unlawful discrimination.”
In the instant case, the plaintiff “has stated a prima facie case of racial discrimination. Nevertheless, Defendant has pointed to a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the plaintiff’s termination, namely the incident in which he struck Z.B.. Waynesburg explains that it investigated this incident and concluded that it presented sufficient cause for the plaintiff’s dismissal. It has thus satisfied its relatively light burden of production. Krouse v. American Sterilizer Co., 126 F.3d 494, 500-01 (3d Cir. 1997).
“The burden then shifts back to the plaintiff to proffer evidence from which the trier of fact could conclude that the defendant’s reason is a pretext for unlawful racial discrimination.”
The court continued that the plaintiff “has failed to point to such weaknesses, implausibilities, inconsistencies, incoherencies, or contradictions in the employer’s proffered legitimate reasons for its action that a reasonable factfinder could rationally find them ‘unworthy of credence,’ and hence infer ‘that the employer did not act for [the asserted] non-discriminatory reasons.”
Turning to the hostile work environment claim, the court wrote that the plaintiff “has cited no specific incidents of discrimination, other than his termination,” leading the court to grant that part of the defendant’s motion for summary as well.
As for the retaliation claim, the court found that the plaintiff “has not even cited any protected activity that he engaged in. Therefore, he has not stated a prima facie case of retaliation discrimination. Moreover, as discussed above, the defendant has pointed to a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for terminating his employment, namely the incident in which he struck Z.B., and Plaintiff has not presented evidence that this reason is a pretext for unlawful retaliation discrimination. Therefore, with respect to this claim, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment will be granted.”
Charlie T. Heard v. The Waynesburg University; W.D. Pa.; Civil Action No. 09-1315, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112034; 10/21/10
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiff) Richard C. Angino, LEAD ATTORNEY, Daryl E. Christopher, Angino & Rovner, P.C., Harrisburg, PA. (for defendant) W. Scott Hardy, LEAD ATTORNEY, Mariah L Passarelli, Philip K. Kontul, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Pittsburgh, PA.
