ALLENTOWN – A former warehouse worker for the Sam Adams beer company says their amended complaint meets pre-discovery standards for federal court litigation.
The Sam Adams beer company and other defendants have wholeheartedly rejected claims that they engaged in discrimination and harassment against a former worker for being Hispanic and that the company fired him in retaliation for reporting the harassment.
Alexis Lara first filed a complaint on Jan. 29 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Samuel Adams Pennsylvania Brewery Co., LLC and others, alleging violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.
Lara began working for Samuel Adams in March 2018 as a warehouse packager. He alleges that he, other Hispanic workers and African-American workers at Samuel Adams faced “race-based” comments and other discriminatory actions.
One comment in particular was from a Caucasian female co-worker who said on Nov. 29, 2018, “I am tired of the company hiring all these blacks and Puerto Ricans”, and subsequently admitted to being racist to other co-workers who witnessed the remark, including the plaintiff.
Lara claimed when he complained of the discrimination and harassment – including filing a claim with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission – he was retaliated against and unlawfully terminated two weeks later, on Dec. 13, 2018.
On May 4, all 12 defendants filed a collective motion to dismiss the lawsuit primarily on the basis that it failed to state a claim against them.
“Each of the claims fail as a matter of law. Specifically, plaintiff has failed to plead any facts establishing that defendants engaged in intentional racial discrimination toward him at any time. Similarly, plaintiff has failed to plead any fact establishing that he was subjected to a racially hostile work environment. To the contrary, his claim is premised on a single remark that was not directed at him but to which he took offense”, per the defendants’ dismissal motion.
“Moreover, the Third Circuit makes it clear that a failure to establish an underlying Section 1981 discrimination or hostile work environment claim requires dismissal of a Section 1981 retaliation claim. Finally, plaintiff fails to plead any facts establishing that any of the seven individual defendants named in the complaint personally engaged in any type of discriminatory, harassing or retaliatory conduct toward plaintiff. As a result, plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed, with prejudice.”
After an amended complaint was filed on May 18, the same defendants filed yet another dismissal motion on June 1. Lara responded to the dismissal motion on June 15.
“Defendants’ motion is based upon misapplication of the law, misdirection and mischaracterization of plaintiff’s first amended complaint. Defendants’ motion asks the Court to ignore entire paragraphs of Plaintiff’s first amended complaint. Respectfully, plaintiff suggests the instant motion is a waste of the parties and Court’s valuable time and resources when presented with a clearly sufficient pleading to withstand a [Rule] 12(b)(6) motion,” according to the response.
“Plaintiff, Alexis Lara’s case is a response to the discrimination, harassment and retaliation to which plaintiff was subjected during his employment. Plaintiff’s complaint includes claims for disparate treatment, hostile work environment, retaliation and individual liability for aiding and abetting the discrimination and harassment alleged. Defendants’ motion is more akin to one of summary judgment as defendants suggest throughout that plaintiff, Alexis Lara should be required to satisfy prima facie elements at the pleading stage.”
Counsel for Lara argued that while the plaintiff’s amended complaint does in fact satisfy the prima facie elements for each cause of action, the new version of the suit cannot be held to such a heightened standard at this juncture and the litigation speaks for itself.
“A plaintiff cannot be required to satisfy this heighted standard prior to discovery. In conflating the standard applicable to a motion to dismiss versus one of summary judgment, defendants raise a litany of red herrings that either intentionally or unintentionally divert attention from the relevant issue: Whether plaintiff has pled enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of the necessary elements,” the motion response states.
For counts of discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation in violation of Section 1981 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against Sam Adams, HTSS and seven individual defendants, the plaintiff seeks trial by jury, monetary relief, interest and all other proper relief.
The plaintiff is represented by Seth D. Carson of The Derek Smith Law Group, in Philadelphia.
The defendants are represented by Lee C. Durivage of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, also in Philadelphia.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 5:20-cv-00498
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com