c. Sections 1985(1) and 1986.
The remaining causes of action in Count V and Count VI are equally without merit. By its terms, § 1985(1) applies only to conspiracies to interfere with officers of the United States, or those about to take such office. Plaintiff is not an officer of the United States, nor was she prevented from becoming one.
Relief under § 1986 is predicated upon plaintiff's successful averment of a cause of action under § 1985. Rogin v. Bensalem Tp., 616 F.2d 680, 696 (3d Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1029, 101 S. Ct. 1737, 68 L. Ed. 2d 223 (1981). Since plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action under § 1985, her § 1986 claims must also fail.
III. The Remainder Of Plaintiff's Complaint
Although the other defendants are specifically named in the remaining counts of the complaint, the PFT is not.
Even if plaintiff is given the benefit of the doubt and the remaining counts are construed, where possible, to implicate the PFT, none of them will survive the PFT's motion for summary judgment.
Counts I and II accuse plaintiff's employer of discriminating against her due to her race in a variety of terms and conditions of employment. To the extent that these averments implicate the PFT, they are identical, in substance, to the claims alleged in Counts IV and VI. For the reasons set forth above, the PFT is entitled to summary judgment on these counts.
Count III of the complaint only concerns plaintiff's employer and the Equitable Life Assurance Society. During oral argument, plaintiff conceded that Count IVA did not concern the PFT.
Count VII alleges that the defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by paying plaintiff less than white males with equivalent job responsibilities. Count IX alleges that the defendants violated state law by providing "unsworn falsification" at school board meetings regarding voluntary employee transfers. Count X alleges that plaintiff's supervisor sexually harassed her and retaliated against her for refusing his sexual advances. On their face, none of these counts specifically applies to the PFT and the plaintiff has supplied no basis for finding that the PFT was responsible for the acts complained of.
Count VIII alleges that the defendants violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This is inapplicable to the PFT, since its acts do not constitute state action. See Jackson, supra.
An appropriate order will be entered granting the PFT summary judgment as to all counts of plaintiff's complaint.