any further violations of the rules of employment.
On January 5, 1983, plaintiff and another employee were given an order to do inspection work on trolley cars, work which supervisors testified should take three hours. Plaintiff did not return to his supervisors for another whole assignment after the inspections. Plaintiff apparently claimed the inspection work was more difficult than expected, as the cars being inspected were in poor condition. Plaintiff did not turn in any completed work orders for that shift. Although plaintiff was discharged for this apparent failure, the discharge was rescinded at the second level hearing because the charge made against plaintiff, failure to follow a directive, was technically incorrect.
Finally, on March 18, 1983, plaintiff was discharged for "conduct unbecoming a SEPTA employee." Plaintiff claims that, while he was speaking with another employee (Harry Miller) before his shift began, Niall Nestor ordered Miller away and threatened plaintiff with discharge. Nestor testified that he spoke to Miller to order him back to work. Plaintiff then began to shout at him and demanded a grievance form, followed him to the office, and stood in the office, still shouting, for five minutes after plaintiff's shift had begun. Nestor told plaintiff to get a grievance form from the union officer on the premises. This testimony was corroborated by Kane and by a clerical employee, Susan Sheridan Felix, who was in the office on that date. Nestor suspended plaintiff pending discharge because of his disruptive conduct. That discharge was upheld through three levels of hearing and arbitration.
Plaintiff testified on his own behalf; all other testimony in plaintiff's case was that of defendant's employees. Defendant called these same employees as well as others; in all, six SEPTA employees testified. The Court finds all six to be credible. Their testimony established that plaintiff's behavior on the date of discharge was disruptive and threatening, and that plaintiff had a poor disciplinary record in the months immediately preceding his discharge.
The Court concludes that plaintiff's discipline and discharge were not motivated by racial considerations. Defendant's supervisory employees behaved in good faith and each disciplinary step, including the final discharge, was a proper response to plaintiff's conduct while at work. Plaintiff has not persuaded the Court that defendant's legitimate explanation for the discharge is pretextual. Therefore, the Court will not grant the relief requested.
AND NOW, this 19th day of November, 1984, judgment is hereby ENTERED in favor of defendant and against plaintiff.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.