McGinty because it believed they were more qualified than Mr. King.
Although the Hospital has articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for not hiring Mr. King into a full-time position, the EEOC has shown such weaknesses, inconsistencies, and contradictions in the proffered reasons that a reasonable factfinder could find them unworthy of credence. In particular, the EEOC has presented evidence (1) that Mr. Mongan's personnel file contained a written warning for absenteeism on the date he was hired for the full-time position, but that no written warnings had been placed in Mr. King's file, (Pl.'s Ex. 3, Ryan Dep. at 90-99); (2) that Ms. Caterisano was on the verge of being terminated from her position as a secretary when she was transferred to a full-time security guard position, (Pl.'s Ex. 13, Guzewski Dep. at 102-05); and (3) that Mr. Devery had less experience as a security guard than Mr. King, and Mr. McGinty had no recent experience as a security guard, (Pl.'s Exs. 18, 49). Therefore, the court will deny the motion for summary judgment as to the federal civil rights claims asserted by and on behalf of Mr. King.
2. Class Members
The EEOC has met its initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination with respect to the eleven class members by submitting evidence showing (1) that each class member belongs to a racial minority, (2) that each class member applied and was qualified for a job as a full-time security guard at the Hospital, (3) that each class member was rejected despite his qualifications, and (4) that the Hospital continued to seek other applicants with the same qualifications. McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802; see also Ezold v. Wolf, Block, Schorr & Solis-Cohen, 983 F.2d 509, 522 (3d Cir. 1992), cert. denied, U.S. , 114 S. Ct. 88 (1993).
The Hospital argues that it is entitled to summary judgment with respect to the six class members who were never interviewed for full-time security guard positions because its procedure for deciding which applicants to interview was color blind. (Def.'s Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. at 33.) As to the five class members who were interviewed, the Hospital argues that William Ryan, its Director of Security, placed great weight on Philadelphia Police Department experience when making his hiring decisions, and that none of the five had such experience. (Def.'s Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. at 34-35.)
The court will deny the motion for summary judgment as to the class members because the EEOC has submitted evidence that discredits the Hospital's explanations to such an extent that a factfinder could reasonably conclude that the explanations are unworthy of credence. In particular, the EEOC presented evidence that the Hospital was aware that the six class members it did not interview were black. Four of them filled out their applications at the Hospital's personnel office; a fifth submitted her application through her uncle, a black Hospital employee. (Pl.'s Ex. 35, Anderson Dep. at 59; Pl.'s Ex. 45, Coleman Dep. at 69; Pl.'s Ex 43, Henry Dep. at 33-34; Pl.'s Ex. 50, Price Dep. at 66; Pl.'s Ex. 42, Bobo-Peden Dep. at 40.) The application of the sixth indicated that he lived in a primarily black neighborhood and had attended a primarily black college. (Pl.'s Ex. 40, Cottman Dep. at 45-46.)
Moreover, the EEOC submitted evidence that three of the six class members who were never even interviewed each had approximately 20 years of Philadelphia Police Department experience. (Pl.'s Exs. 34, 39, 46.) This evidence makes the Hospital's assertion that Philadelphia police experience was an important factor in its hiring decisions subject to doubt.
C. Breach of Contract Claim
The Hospital argues that it is entitled to summary judgment on Mr. King's claim for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing because (1) Mr. King is an employee at will, and (2) his civil rights claims provide an adequate remedy for his alleged injuries. Both arguments are without merit.
Pennsylvania has adopted the Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 205, which imposes a duty of good faith and fair dealing in the performance of a contract. Somers v. Somers, 418 Pa. Super. 131, 136, 613 A.2d 1211 (1992); contra Rutherfoord v. Presbyterian-University Hosp., 417 Pa. Super. 316, 330 n. 6, 612 A.2d 500 (1992). The Superior Court has observed that this duty "does not evaporate merely because the contract is an employment contract, and the employee has been held to be an employee at will." Somers, 418 Pa. Super. at 137.
Mr. King's federal civil rights claims will not necessarily provide an adequate remedy for the injuries he claims to have suffered. Based on the evidence submitted by the EEOC on Mr. King's behalf, it would be possible to find that the Hospital's failure to move Mr. King into a full-time security guard position in 1991-1992 was not motivated by a discriminatory animus, but did involve a breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing.
D. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Claim
The Hospital's motion for summary judgment is granted as to Count IV of Mr. King's complaint in intervention, which purports to state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. "It is extremely rare to find conduct in the employment context that will rise to the level of outrageousness necessary to provide a basis for recovery for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress." Cox v. Keystone Carbon Co., 861 F.2d 390, 395 (3d Cir. 1988). Mr. King admits that his intentional infliction of emotional distress claim is based entirely on the same incidents that underlie his racial discrimination claims. (Def.'s Ex. 1, King Dep. at 225-26.) As this court has noted, "racial discrimination alone . . . does not state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress." Nichols v. Acme Markets, Inc., 712 F. Supp. 488 (E.D. Pa. 1989), aff'd, 902 F.2d 1561 (3d Cir. 1990); cf. Cox, 861 F.2d at 396 n.9; Bowersox v. P.H. Glatfelter Co., 677 F. Supp. 307, 311 (M.D. Pa. 1988).
BY THE COURT:
MARVIN KATZ, J.