During the past month, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has reached the opposite result in two cases involving claims of associational discrimination — claims where the plaintiff alleges that he was discriminated against because of his association with others of a different race. In Terry v. Yeadon Borough, No. 12-6205 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 13, 2013), the court concluded that the plaintiff’s claims could proceed. In Blasi v. Pen Argyl Area Sch. Dist., No. 5:12-cv-02810-LS (E.D. Pa Dec. 5, 2013), however, the court decided that the plaintiff failed to state a claim.
In Terry, a former Yeadon Borough police officer was instructed (in 2005) to add his now-wife to the Borough’s health insurance plan. Although the couple was not yet married, Terry was told that they qualified, under Pennsylvania law, for a common-law marriage. Terry did so, and in July 2010, Yeadon’s major saw photos on Facebook of Terry and his wife at their wedding ceremony. At this time, the mayor admonished Terry, telling him that partners could not be added to the insurance plan prior to a formal marriage and that if Terry did not resign and repay the Borough for the benefits received, he would be terminated.
Terry objected and was granted a hearing before the Borough Council, which voted to permit Terry to keep his job, but required him to repay the benefits. The Council met again a few days later, re-voted, and decided to terminate Terry. Two other Borough employee were permitted to repay the amount of overpaid benefits and were not terminated. Terry, the only Borough employee in an interracial marriage, alleged that he was fired because Yeadon Borough Council members disapproved of his relationship.
The court concluded that Terry stated a claim against the individual defendants. “Allegations of ‘departures from the normal procedural sequence,’ or disparate treatment of those otherwise ‘similarly situated’ may support an equal protection claim.” Terry’s allegations that he was terminated following a “secret re-vote” and that he was treated differently because of his interracial marriage was sufficient to state claims under the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment.
A week earlier, the same federal court decided Blasi v. Pen Argyl Area Sch. Dist. There, the plaintiff filed Title VII claims after a school district failed to hire him as a sports coach. Note that Blasi’s claims arise under Title VII while Terry’s claims were brought under the 14th Amendment.
Blasi, the plaintiff, is married to an “Asian ethnic Chinese woman” with whom he has seven mixed race children, some of whom attend schools in the school district. Blasi claimed that he was discriminated against when another coach was hired, when five assistant baseball coaches were hired in the spring of 2009, and when middle school basketball coach was hired in 2009. All of the other coaches hired were white males under 30. None was in a mixed-race relationship or from mixed race families.
Blasi’s discrimination claims under Title VII were dismissed because he based his claims on his family status. While it was possible that Blasi was treated differently because of his mixed race family, “discrimination based on family status alone is not actionable under Title VII” and, therefore, Blasi was not a member of a protected class.