HARRISBURG – A federal magistrate judge has denied a food corporation’s motion for summary judgment and ruled that a nine-year employee has put forward a legitimate case that he was the subject of a hostile work environment and sexual harassment, related to the perception of his gender identity.
On April 1, U.S. Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson denied such a motion from defendants Hanover Foods Corporation, Robert Smoyer Jr. and Page Gaddis.
Plaintiff Tyler Bonson was employed by Hanover from 2008 until he was terminated in 2017, holding positions such as Inspector and Freezer Operator. Defendant Gaddis was one of Bonson’s supervisors, as well as Hanover’s Human Resources representative.
According to Bonson, during his employment with Hanover, Gaddis harassed him by regularly calling him derogatory names such as “queer,” “fag,” and “fairy,” due to the way Bonson kept himself in comparison to the other employees at Hanover. Gaddis also told other employees that the plaintiff was gay and told Bonson that his car looked like “something a queer would drive.”
According to the complaint, though Bonson never made a formal complaint to Human Resources, given that Gaddis was that department’s representative, he did tell Gaddis on numerous occasions to stop calling him names and to leave him alone. He also testified that one of his supervisors, defendant Smoyer, called him these names as well, and that he felt he couldn’t report the behavior because these individuals were his supervisors.
The defendants steadfastly denied all of the harassment allegations.
After Bonson did not report for what he said were “discretionary” work hours on Sept. 4, 2017, Gaddis terminated Bonson’s employment the following day, Sept. 5. Gaddis claimed that the termination was warranted under Hanover’s one-time, no call/no show absence policy, wherein an employee could be terminated for “failing to show up for work on one occasion without calling and informing a supervisor of their absence.”
In response to the plaintiff’s lawsuit, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing Bonson cannot show that he was part of a protected class, and thus cannot prevail on his Title VII and Pennsylvania Human Relations Act claims – and that even if Bonson was part of a protected class, he “cannot show that his termination was for a discriminatory reason, rather than a violation of company policy.”
Carlson disagreed, calling the case “replete with factual disputes concerning all of the plaintiff’s claims.”
“The circumstances permit an inference of discrimination because of Bonson’s sex or failure to adhere to gender stereotypes. Bonson testified that on the day Gaddis terminated his employment, as well as three weeks prior to his termination, Gaddis had continued to call him derogatory names based upon a stereotypical view of his perceived sexuality,” Carlson said.
“Moreover, both Bonson and James Laing testified that other employees who were ‘no call/no shows’ were not terminated after one absence. Thus, while Gaddis disputes this and contends that he never called Bonson derogatory names or treated him differently, we find that the evidence in the record, when viewed in a light most favorable to Bonson, could permit a factfinder to conclude that Gaddis discriminated against Bonson and terminated him because of Bonson’s failure to adhere to Gaddis’ idea of gender stereotypes.”
Per Carlson, Bonson set forth evidence from which a jury could conclude that reason was a pretext for discrimination and denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the retaliation claim.
The plaintiff is represented by Christopher J. DelGaizo of Derek Smith Law Group, in Philadelphia.
The defendant is represented by Adam Lawrence Santucci and Langdon T. Ramsburg of McNees Wallace & Nurick, in Harrisburg.
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania case 1:19-cv-00054
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com