By: Ty Hyderally, Esq., Francine Foner, Esq.

Phyllis A. Johnson worked as a third-grade teacher for Pittsburgh Public Schools (“PPS”), at the Pittsburgh Weil Elementary School.  Ms. Johnson took Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) leave from September 2020 through the end of December 2020, and resigned from her position, effective January 2021. In January 2022, Ms. Johnson filed a pro se complaint against PPS alleging discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. Johnson v. Pittsburgh Pub. Sch., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 2521, 2024 WL 411708 (3^rd Cir. Feb. 1, 2024).

Ms. Johnson, born in 1965, alleged that prior to her going out on FMLA leave she had been treated less favorably than younger teachers who assumed Ms. Johnson’s duties during her medical leave. Ms. Johnson alleged that while she was required to teach all subjects in the classroom without any assistance, the younger teacher who filled in for Ms. Johnson during her medical leave was not required to teach all of the classroom subjects.  Instead, the replacement teacher received the assistance of “two additional teachers in the classroom” to help teach some of the subjects in the class. Thus Ms. Johnson alleged that she received a “less favorabl[e]” arrangement because of her age, since the replacement teacher and the two other teachers were all younger than her.” Id. at *2.  Ms. Johnson further alleged that prior to her going out on medical leave, she had twice requested someone to assist her in the classroom, and no additional teachers were assigned to help her.  Additionally, Ms. Johnson alleged that she was subjected to more formal observations than others and that the school’s principal took actions to disrupt her classroom during instruction.

PPS moved to dismiss Ms. Johnson’s claims, asserting that Ms. Johnson had not established a claim of age discrimination under the ADEA, because no adverse employment action had been taken against Ms. Johnson.  To state a prima facie case of age discrimination under the ADEA, “a plaintiff must allege that she (1) is at least forty years old; (2) suffered an adverse employment decision; (3) was qualified for the position in question; and (4) “was ultimately replaced by another employee who was sufficiently younger so as to support an inference of a discriminatory motive.”  Id. at *3-4, citing Willis v. UPMC Children’s Hosp. of Pittsburgh, 808 F.3d 638, 644 (3d Cir. 2015).

PPS asserted that Ms. Johnson had voluntarily resigned and there were no facts alleged which would support that Ms. Johnson had suffered the adverse employment action of “constructive discharge,” i.e., that the conditions of her workplace were “so unpleasant or intolerable that a reasonable employee would resign.” Gray v. York Newspapers, Inc., 957 F.2d 1070, 1079 (3d Cir. 1992). The District Court agreed and dismissed Ms. Johnson’s claims upon the grounds that she had not established that she was constructively discharged and thus had not suffered any adverse employment action. Ms. Johnson then appealed to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

On appeal, Ms. Johnson argued that her claim was not premised upon her having been constructively discharged, but rather that she had been subject to disparate treatment because of her age. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Ms. Johnson. As the Court opined: “A review of the amended complaint confirms that [Ms. Johnson] did not predicate her claim on a constructive discharge, but rather on disparate treatment; that is, she claims that, as compared to her younger replacement, she was given an unusually difficult teaching assignment that made her job significantly harder. Therefore, we conclude that the District Court erred in limiting its review of the amended complaint to an analysis of a constructive discharge.” The Third Circuit Court of Appeals therefore remanded the matter to the District Court “to assess this disparate-treatment claim in the first instance.” Id. at *4-5 (citation omitted).

If you believe that because of your age you have suffered an adverse employment action, you may want to contact Hyderally & Associates, P.C. today.

En nuestra firma hablamos español. This blog is for informational purposes only.  It does not constitute legal advice, and may not reasonably be relied upon as such.  If you face a legal issue, you should consult a qualified attorney for independent legal advice with regard to your particular set of facts.  This blog may constitute attorney advertising.  This blog is not intended to communicate with anyone in a state or other jurisdiction where such a blog may fail to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that state of jurisdiction.