(CN) - A woman who says the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey unfairly demoted her can pursue sex-discrimination claims, a federal judge ruled. Carol Maresca worked for Port Authority for nearly 25 years, earning more than $165,000 and the use of an agency vehicle after several promotions. In 2009, officials met to consider the performance of the Public Safety Department, which Maresca had headed as deputy director for nearly two years. Maresca was then reassigned to a newly created deputy director position in the Technology Services Department. But Maresca says the transfer required her to move to a small office previously reserved for lower management, and that she had to return her agency vehicle. After protesting the assignment, Maresca took extended medical leave. She said Port Authority then transferred Arthur Cifelli to her last position but paid him $209,768, about $38,000 more than it paid her in that role. Maresca filed a charge for sex discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in September 2009. After Cifelli resigned in September 2010, Port Authority gave his job to Gerald Speziale at a salary of $198,510, still $27,000 more than Maresca had earned there. Maresca then sued Port Authority and several personnel in March 2010, asserting violations of the U.S. Constitution and the Equal Pay Act of 1963. In a motion for summary judgment, the defendants attributed Maresca's transfer to her failures in overtime control and other budgetary matters. U.S. District Judge Esther Salas partly denied the motion in an unpublished opinion Thursday. Port Authority cannot get summary judgment as to Maresca's equal protection claim since reorganization of the Public Safety Department in January 2011 changed the job duties for Cifelli as deputy director. "Although both plaintiff and Cifelli occupied the same dual title, the organizational chart under Cifelli has been restructured and eliminates certain responsibilities," Salas wrote. Maresca's salary did not change in her new position, but she has cited testimony from a supervisor portraying Technology Services as a "less desirable" assignment because it was "less demanding," a "smaller department," and had a "smaller budget," according to the 22-page opinion. Salas gave summary judgment as a matter of law to two defendants whom Maresca said had violated her rights under Section 1983 of the civil rights act. Since neither Mary Lee Hannell and Anthony Coscia attended the 2009 meeting that led to Maresca's transfer, there is no evidence of their personal involvement in the decision, according t othe ruling. "Plaintiff merely states that Hannell (1) was asked to create a job description for plaintiff, (2) was 'aware' of the transfer, (3) was responsible for 'administering the salary policy,' and (4) had plaintiff's 2009 merit increase on her desk. A factfinder cannot reasonably find from these facts, alone, that Hannell was personally involved with the intent to discriminate against plaintiff. As to defendant Coscia, plaintiff has not provided this court with any evidence of his personal involvement in any action against plaintiff," the judge wrote. The claims still stand against Paul Blanco, Ernesto Butcher, Christopher Ward, Susan Bass Levin and Louis LaCapra, who did attend the meeting. Blanco had not joined in the motion for summary judgment.
↧
