Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Wesley v. Simona America Inc.

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

March 29, 2017

WILLIAM WESLEY, SR., Plaintiff,
v.
SIMONA AMERICA INC. t/d/b/a LAMINATIONS, INC. Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          Robert D. Mariani United States District Judge

         I. Introduction

         Presently before the Court is a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") (Doc. 54) by Magistrate Judge Martin Carlson, wherein the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 43) be granted with respect to all of the Plaintiffs claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq., and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act ("PHRA"), 43 Pa. C.S. § 951, et seq, Plaintiff filed Objections (Doc. 57) to the R&R pursuant to M.D. Pa. Local Rule 72.3 to which Defendant responded (Doc. 58). For the reasons that follow, upon de novo review of the R&R, the Court will adopt the pending R&R.

         II. Analysis

         The Plaintiff brought suit under the ADEA and PHRA alleging that he was discriminated against because of his age when he was told on June 11, 2014 by representatives of the Defendant that he was "not needed any more" and that he would be replaced. (Second Amended Complaint, Doc. 27). The Plaintiff further alleged that he was subjected to a hostile work environment and that on December 28, 2015, he was terminated because of unlawful age discrimination and in retaliation for his having brought the instant lawsuit. (Id., ¶¶ 26, 27, 34, 35).

         Plaintiff alleged that he was employed by Laminations, Inc., for 35 years, working as a scrap saw operator (Id. at ¶¶ 17, 19).

         Defendant Simona filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint on March 24, 2016 (Doc. 28), and, subsequently, Simona filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on August 26, 2016 (Doc. 43).

         These Motions were referred to United States Magistrate Judge Carlson for a Report and Recommendation in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636. The Magistrate Judge issued his Report and Recommendation (Doc. 54) on November 3, 2016. In the R&R, the Magistrate Judge addressed Plaintiffs claims of disparate treatment under the ADEA, Plaintiffs claim that he was subjected to a hostile work environment because of his age and the Plaintiffs claim that he was retaliated against because of his efforts to invoke his rights under the ADEA by filing a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC and by instituting the present action.

         This Court finds that the Magistrate Judge correctly applied the standard for determining whether summary judgment should be granted with respect to Plaintiffs claims. Further, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's analysis with respect to Plaintiffs claim of a hostile work environment based on his age as well as the Magistrate Judge's recommendation as to Plaintiffs claim of retaliation.

         With respect to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation that summary judgment be granted on the Plaintiffs claim of disparate treatment, while the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's recommendation and supporting analysis, it is nonetheless the Court's view that additional comment is necessary in light of the Plaintiffs 35 years of employment with Laminations, Inc. and the state of the record that was presented to the Magistrate Judge and now to this Court for consideration under the applicable law.

         When William Wesley received the June 3, 2014 letter from Laminations, Inc. President, Michael Lynch, (Doc. 43-8), notifying him that SIMONA AMERICA, INC. had acquired Laminations, Inc. and was combining Laminations, Inc.'s facility in Archbald, PA, with another facility in Hazleton, PA, which was to be closed, and that his position had been eliminated as part of this restructuring, he was 57 years old.

         The June 3, 2014 Notice informed the Plaintiff that "his last day of employment with Laminations, Inc. will be specified at a later date." (id.). Yet, as the Magistrate Judge's R&R notes, "Wesley continued working at Simona until May of 2015, when he passed out at work and suffered a head injury which left him unable to work for a period of months. (Doc. 43-6.)" (Doc. 54, at 6). The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on June 9, 2015 and it was not until December 28, 2015 when Defendant Simona notified the Plaintiff that it was terminating his position.

         Notwithstanding the passage of time between the June 3, 2014 notice that Plaintiffs job would be eliminated and his actual termination on December 28, 2015, it is this Court's view that the Defendant took an adverse employment action against the Plaintiff on June 3, 2014. Further, there is no evidence that Plaintiff was not qualified for the position he held, i.e., scrap saw operator. These facts present three of the four elements necessary for a finding of a prima facie case of age discrimination. See Anderson v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 297 F.3d 242, 249 (3d Cir. 2002).

         As to the fourth element of a prima facie case of age discrimination, the Court in C ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.