A former University of Pennsylvania police officer who claimed he was discriminated against for avoiding shaving because of a skin condition common among black men can move forward with his discrimination lawsuit against the university.

U.S. District Judge Gene E.K. Pratter of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania allowed half of plaintiff Joseph Lewis Jr.'s claims to move forward while granting summary judgment on the rest in favor of Penn. The surviving claims include Title VII disparate treatment, Americans with Disabilities Act discrimination and retaliation, hostile work environment and related claims under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act and the Pennsylvania Fair Practices Ordinance.

The university's police department requires officers to be clean-shaven, but Lewis claimed shaving irritated his face due to pseudofolliculitis barbae, commonly known as razor bumps. Lewis claimed he was subjected to discriminatory treatment by supervisors and colleagues, who mocked him for not adhering to the department's grooming policy.

Lewis claimed he was taken off his normal beat and denied vacation time. Additionally, he alleged he was retaliated against for requesting a disability accommodation to not shave. Ultimately, he was placed on paid leave.

In her opinion, Pratter said that when looked at as a whole, Lewis' allegations could overcome summary judgment.

“Most of these actions fall into the category of petty slights or minor annoyances and do not qualify as adverse employment actions on their own,” Pratter said of Lewis' ADA claims. “However, for the same reasons as in the discrimination claim, the court finds that a reasonable jury could conclude that Mr. Lewis suffered an adverse employment action when all of the actions are viewed together.”

That was especially so when considering his reassignment, Pratter said.

The department claimed “they were simply moving him to a 'regular beat and schedule that matched most of the other UPPD officers,' which was entirely within their discretion,” Pratter said. “However, courts have found that reassignment can be materially adverse and support a retaliation claim even when there is no reduction in pay.”

Lewis' Title VII disparate impact claim was tossed because he failed to show how the grooming policy acutely affected black officers, according to Pratter.

“While Mr. Lewis claims that three African-American men were burdened by Directive 45 [the grooming standard] and that the reason they were burdened by the policy was a skin condition that predominately affects African-American men, he has not carried his burden in proving that this policy had a disparate impact based on race,” Pratter said.

However, Lewis' disparate treatment claim was allowed to move forward because the department did not directly challenge it.

Lewis' attorney, Timothy Creech of Creech & Creech, called the lawsuit “an egregious case of discrimination.”

Penn is represented by Joe Tucker of the Tucker Law Group,

“We are pleased with Judge Pratter's well-reasoned opinion wherein she dismissed Plaintiff's wrongful discharge claim. We look forward to trial where we will demonstrate that Plaintiff's other claims are equally without merit,” Tucker said.