University Times

A long-term Pitt employee who has named University officials in an employee discrimination lawsuit has until Oct. 23 to file further briefs. In response to the allegations, lawyers for the Pitt officials entered a motion to dismiss all charges against them.

Chiquita Lanier filed suit against the University and several Pitt officials in U.S. District Court for Western Pennsylvania last spring, charging Pitt with racial, age and appearance-related discrimination in its hiring and promotion practices.

Lanier, employed at Pitt since 1980 in the division of Facilities Management, alleges that officials in her department repeatedly passed her over for promotion, denied her requests for training, maintained a pay disparity based on race and favored, in promotion and hiring decisions, younger, white employees with less experience. She further alleges a pattern of racial and age discrimination in the Facilities Management division.

In addition to the University, the suit names as defendants: Pitt Board of Trustees chairman J. Wray Connolly; Chancellor Mark A. Nordenberg; Executive Vice Chancellor Jerome Cochran; Provost James V. Maher; Human Resources Associate Vice Chancellor Ronald Frisch and Assistant Vice Chancellor John Greeno; and Facilities Management Associate Vice Chancellor Ana M. Guzman and department directors Joseph W. Fink, John A. Sopcisak and Lewis H. Brower.

Officials in Pitt's Office of General Counsel declined comment on the lawsuit, referring the University Times to Ken Service, director of News and Information. Service said, "The University itself has not been served with any complaint. General Counsel has filed a motion to dismiss the case on behalf of all the individuals who are named."

The 51 year-old Lanier, who is black, alleges in her civil suit that Pitt officials have disregarded policies governing discrimination resulting in "undeserved demotions, undesirable reassignments … refusal to promote, [and] unequal pay [causing] an extremely hostile and stressful working environment."

She claims the University is in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the PA Human Relations Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Lanier was hired by Facilities Management (then called Physical Plant) in April 1980 as an administrative aide. Her job titles included staff specialist II and administrative secretary to the director of operations and maintenance. Her current title is administrative support staff III to the division's senior coordinator of work control.

According to Federal Court documents, Lanier filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in March 1999. The EEOC issued a "right to sue" letter in March 2000.

Lanier filed the lawsuit in federal court last May. In August, she filed an amended complaint with the court providing a chronology of alleged discriminatory incidents dating back to 1981.

This September, University attorneys filed the motion to dismiss all charges against the individuals in response to the amended complaint.

In that motion, Pitt maintains the suit should be dismissed "on a multitude of grounds, including the inability to state a claim as against individual defendants, the failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and defective service of process to non-officer individual defendants."

Pitt further contends that Lanier's amended complaint contains allegations not previously raised in her May 2000 legal filing, that it attempts to assert claims on behalf of other individuals she does not represent and that it fails to comply with applicable rules of pleading in a civil suit.

Lanier has filed the civil suit "pro se" (without a representing attorney) and has requested a jury trial. She seeks compensatory and punitive damages to be determined by the Federal Court.

According to a U.S. District Court official, Lanier has until Oct. 23 to file documents in response to Pitt's motion to dismiss. The federal civil division magistrate, Judge Kenneth Benson, will rule on the University's dismissal motion after the Oct. 23 deadline, the court official said.

–Peter Hart