A Hostile Work Environment Can Give Rise to a Constructive Discharge and an Age Discrimination in Employment Act Claim
In the employment discharge and discrimination litigation case of Tilton v. Glaxo Smith Kline, PICS Case No. 14-1392 (E.D. Pa., August 21, 2014) the Honorable Norma L. Shapiro ruled that allegations that a hostile work environment forced a worker to resign can be sufficient to allege an adverse employment action. The defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to allege an adverse employment action was denied.
In February 2012, defendant Glaxo Smith Kline hired Gina Tilton, 53, as a marketing manager. Tilton alleged that when her manager, Greg Galiano, returned from a medical leave of absence, Galiano claimed that “at her age” Tilton should be “more careful with details,” asked if she was “brain dead” and disciplined Tilton based on pretext. Tilton alleged that her manager’s rude and belligerent conduct, as well as his comments about her age and intellect, led to a hostile-work environment that forced her to resign.
Tilton sued, alleging that Glaxo Smith Kline violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. 621, and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act. Glaxo Smith Kline moved to dismiss and claimed that Tilton voluntarily resigned and that her complaint failed to allege an adverse employment action, as required to prevail on age or gender discrimination.
To establish a prima facie case, Tilton had to prove: (1) she belonged to a protected class; (2) she was qualified; (3) she suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) she suffered an adverse employment action under circumstances that led to an inference of discrimination.
Allegations that a hostile-work environment forced a worker to resign can be sufficient to allege an adverse employment action, pursuant to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Burlington Indus v. Ellerth. Here the court denied Glaxo Smith Kline’s motion to dismiss for failure to allege an adverse employment action.
“Plaintiff,” wrote the court, “has alleged sufficient facts to raise a reasonable expectation discovery will lead to evidence of an adverse employment action and direct evidence of animus based on plaintiff’s age.”
Reference: Digest of Recent Opinions, Pennsylvania Law Weekly, 37PLW894 (September 16, 2014)
Filed Under: Employment Law; Hostile Work Environment, Constructive Discharge; Age Discrimination in Employment Act
Please visit our Employment Law website for more information on this topic. Contact Pozzuolo Rodden, P.C.Law Firm today, for further questions and concerns on this matter.