Employee’s Discharge After Complaints About Alleged Explicit Sexual Harassing Comments Can Suggest a Casual Connection for Purpose of Retaliation
In the federal employment, retaliation lawsuit of Jodlowska vs. Soar Corp., PICS Case 15-0346, (E.D. Pa., Feb. 20, 2015) the Honorable Harvey Bartle ruled that an interval of just a few weeks between an employee’s protected activity of complaining about alleged harassment and the employer’s decision to discharge the employee can suggest a casual connection for purposes of retaliation. Employer’s motion for a new trial, after jury awarded worker $85,000, denied.
Plaintiff, an immigrant from Poland who worked as a drug counselor, alleged that Robert Stringer, the executive director of defendant Soar Corp., commented how lucky her husband was to be able to make love to her; took her face in his hands and asked why she was so pretty; and claimed he would include wearing a skirt or dress as a job requirement. Plaintiff allegedly made it clear to Stringer his conduct was not welcome, and Stringer allegedly informed her he could hire and fire anyone.
Just weeks after plaintiff complained about harassment to a new supervisor in November 2011, plaintiff allegedly was accused of planning to steal confidential client information. Plaintiff denied the accusations. On Dec. 12, 2011, a regional director, Mark Besden, met with plaintiff and Stringer and allegedly fired plaintiff after Stringer asked, “Why prolong the pain?”
Plaintiff sued Soar Corp. and alleged race discrimination, gender discrimination, hostile-work environment and retaliation, in violation of Title VII and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act. Previously, the court granted defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on race discrimination. A jury awarded plaintiff $35,000 in back pay and $50,000 in compensatory damages on plaintiff’s hostile-work environment and retaliation counts. Defendant moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial.
To prevail on sexual harassment, a plaintiff must prove harassment that was so severe or pervasive that it altered conditions of employment and created an abusive environment.
Plaintiff alleged that Stringer’s sexually suggestive conduct took place almost daily for a four- to- six week period and had a severely detrimental effect. A jury reasonably could have found that plaintiff was subjected to severe or pervasive sexual harassment that created a hostile-work environment, in violation of Title VII and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act. The court rejected defendant’s argument that plaintiff failed to take advantage of workplace procedures to complain about sexual harassment and hostile-work environment. The court observed that the individual in human resources to whom plaintiff allegedly could have complained was Stringer’s child.
Plaintiff’s evidence was adequate to prove retaliation. Plaintiff engaged in protected activity when she complained, and plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action when she was discharged. Plaintiff established a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse employment action. “The short interval of just a few weeks between the protected activity and adverse actions that occurred,” wrote the court, “is ‘unusually suggestive’ of the necessary causal connection.” Motions denied.
Reference: Digest of Recent Opinions, Pennsylvania Law Weekly, 38 PLW 234 (March 10, 2015)
Filed Under: Hostile Work Environment, Retaliation
Kindly visit our Employment Law & Business Litigation websites for more information on this topic.