JOHNSTOWN – Convenience store chain Sheetz argues that a former store supervisor who claimed she was discriminated against and fired because of her sexual orientation, was actually let go for non-discriminatory reasons and therefore, failed to state such a claim against it.
Kathy Eutzy of Cumberland County filed a complaint on Jan. 3 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against Sheetz Inc. of Altoona, alleging sexual discrimination, harassment and retaliation.
Eutzy, who is a lesbian, served as a shift supervisor at Sheetz store in Shippensburg. She alleged that in November of 2018, she made a complaint about a co-worker who called a customer a derogatory term that the plaintiff found offensive and inappropriate.
Eutzy further alleged after she filed a complaint to human resources about the co-worker’s comment, the co-worker created a hostile work environment and her supervisor began to treat her differently.
She alleged she was fired on Jan. 14, 2019, in retaliation for reporting the harassment based on her sexual orientation. Eutzy then received a right to sue letter from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Agency on Nov. 5.
On March 6, Sheetz responded to Eutzy’s complaint, alleging the plaintiff failed to state a claim and did not show evidence of discriminatory conduct on its part.
“Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Defendant’s actions regarding plaintiff were at all times taken for legitimate, non-discriminatory and non-retaliatory reasons. Even if defendant’s actions had been motivated by plaintiff’s gender, sexual orientation, or alleged protected activity, which defendant denies, defendant would have taken all of the same actions with respect to plaintiff,” Sheetz’s answer read, in part.
“Any alleged unlawful acts by defendant’s managing agents would have been contrary to defendant’s good faith efforts to comply with the law. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, to the extent that the complaint seeks relief for any alleged unlawful conduct that occurred outside the applicable statutes of limitations periods. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, to the extent plaintiff had an obligation to exhaust administrative remedies and failed to do so.”
Additionally, Sheetz asserted that it is entitled to offset any damages to which Eutzy may be entitled by actual income she has received and/or to the extent she has otherwise failed to mitigate her damages, that the company took reasonable steps to comply with the anti-discrimination laws and currently maintains effective anti-discrimination policies and practices.
The plaintiff seeks back and front pay, compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, while Sheetz seeks dismissal of the case with prejudice.
The plaintiff is represented by Larry A. Weisberg, Derrek W. Cummings and Steve T. Mahan of Weisberg Cummings, in Harrisburg.
The defendant is represented by Allison R. Brown and Robert W. Cameron of Littler Mendelson, in Pittsburgh.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 3:20-cv-00002
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com