A former college dean and his wife can proceed with claims against Mount Aloysius College alleging they were fired for being witnesses in an unrelated racial discrimination lawsuit against the school that took place nearly 20 years ago.

U.S. District Judge Kim R. Gibson of the Western District of Pennsylvania denied the college's motion for summary judgment on the claims of former assistant dean Larry Brugh and Suzanne Brugh, who worked for school's athletic department as a basketball game clock operator.

The plaintiffs filed a two-count complaint against Mount Aloysius; in count one, they alleged that the college retaliated against them for participating in protected conduct, in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In their second count, the plaintiffs alleged that the school discriminated against them in violation of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.

Mount Aloysius argued the lawsuit should be tossed for failure to state a claim and expiration of the statute of limitations.

Gibson rejected both arguments.

“Plaintiffs' well-pleaded allegations give rise to a reasonable inference that they participated in protected activity,” Gibson wrote in his opinion. “Plaintiffs assert that Mr. Brugh's attorney sent Mount Aloysius a letter on Sept. 21, 2012, in which Mr. Brugh alleged that Mount Aloysius had unlawfully discriminated and retaliated against him because of his opposition to the alleged racial discrimination that occurred at Mount Aloysius in the early 1990s.”

He added, “Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that they suffered adverse employment actions. According to the complaint, Mount Aloysius demoted Mr. Brugh in August 2012, and then terminated him on Dec. 10, 2012. The complaint also alleges that Mount Aloysius terminated Ms. Brugh before the 2012-2013 basketball season began.”

Gibson said the Brughs also sufficiently alleged that their protected activity was the cause of the allegedly retaliatory firing.

As for the school's statute-of-limitations argument, which contended that the Brughs' claims are time-barred because they're based on events that happened 20 years ago, Gibson said it was “easily dismissed.”

“According to the complaint, plaintiffs suffered three retaliatory employment actions: (1) 'Mr. Brugh's demotion in August 2012'; (2) 'Mr. Brugh's termination on Dec. 10, 2012'; and (3) 'the termination of [Ms. Brugh's] position as game clock operator in 2012.' Thus, contrary to defendants' assertion, plaintiffs' retaliation claims accrued in 2012 and are not barred by the statute of limitations,” Gibson said.

James W. Carroll Jr. of Rothman Gordon in Pittsburgh represented the Brughs and said, “Judge Gibson's strong opinion confirms that the plaintiffs have presented 'well-pleaded allegations' which support the claims made by plaintiffs and that the arguments raised by the defendants have been properly denied.”

Steven W. Zoffer of Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote in Pittsburgh represented Mount Aloysius and said “We are confident that when the actual facts are developed and able to be considered by the court, this case will be properly disposed. “