Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—W.D. Pa.: School district denied summary judgment in case involving middle school student aide, (May 28, 2025)

By Cathleen Calhoun, J.D.

The court determined that a fact finder must decide if applications for clerical positions within the school district were rejected for business purposes or for discriminatory or retaliatory reasons.

A middle school student aide, who applied for and was turned down for multiple clerical jobs within a school district, can proceed with her claims of discrimination based on her age and race, and her claim of retaliation. In denying the school district’s motion for summary judgment, a federal district court in Pennsylvania found that the aide produced testimony and other evidence that the school district used two different and inconsistent assignment protocols to award clerk positions, as well as evidence on material fact questions regarding the timing and consistency of the school district’s preferencing of lateral applicants (Bentley v. Connellsville Area School District, No. 24-50 (W.D. Pa. May 27, 2025)).

Employed by the school district from 2010 to 2024, the employee applied for and was awarded the position of middle school “personal student aide” in 2019. In 2022, the aide, who is Korean and was over 50 years of age at the time of the alleged discrimination and retaliation, applied for multiple clerical positions within the school district.

“Unprecedented” interviews. According to the aide, the school district imposed “unprecedented” interviews and added subjective criteria to their transfer/promotion assignments for clerical positions to which she applied. She also argued that she would have otherwise been awarded the roles based on her seniority and clerical testing if such changes had not been implemented, that the school district did not apply the articulated practices consistently, and that their use was pretextual. The clerical positions were awarded to other applicants who were younger and Caucasian.

Retaliation. In addition to the discrimination claims, the aide contended that the school district retaliated against her for engaging in protected activities. Specifically, she argued that she was retaliated against for her complaints of discrimination and prior retaliation to the school board, the Pennsylvania Human Rights Commission (PHRC), and to the courts with the filing of her complaint on January 12, 2024. The retaliation allegedly occurred through false and retributive disciplinary actions and further denials of her applications for clerical openings.

The school district countered that the clerical positions were awarded to more qualified candidates and that the denials were based on other reasons, including interview scores, extended disciplinary history of personal conflict, disregard of designated channels for employment-related communication, the creation of workplace discord, and attendance records.

Pretext? First, the court found that the evidentiary record presented in support of the school district’s motion for summary judgment did not support unambiguously or with unquestionable credibility the school district’s stated non-discriminatory reasons for their adverse employment actions. According to the court, “while it is certainly conceivable that those actions were motivated by legitimate business causes, it is also reasonably conceivable that the proffered reasons for denying Plaintiff’s applications for other positions were not the true ones.”

Objections raised. The court also allowed the retaliation claim to proceed since evidence was presented that the aide objected to multiple specific instances of alleged discriminatory and prior retaliatory treatment through complaints to the School Board, the PHRC and the court, for which she claimed she was subjected to retributive disciplinary actions and denials of promotions.

However, in denying summary judgment to the school district, the court expressed its doubts as to the likelihood of the aide ultimately prevailing: “Although this Court may entertain doubts as to Plaintiff's ability to ultimately carry her burden of persuasion on her discrimination and/or retaliation claims, she raises - as to those claims - material fact and credibility questions which are in the sole province of the jury.”

The case is No. 24-50.

Judge: Fischer, N.

Attorneys: Thomas B. Anderson (Bordas & Bordas Attorneys) for Sonia Bentley. Joseph L. Luvara (Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote) for Connellsville Area School District.

Companies: Connellsville Area School District

Cases: Discrimination AgeDiscrimination NationalOrigin RaceDiscrimination PublicEmployees Retaliation PennsylvaniaNews