PITTSBURGH – A steel fabrication company has categorically denied claims from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that one of its former female welders suffered numerous incidents of sex-based discrimination and retaliation, including termination.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of Washington, D.C. first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on June 16 versus Moore & Morford, Inc., of Westmoreland County.
Amelia Thompson worked as a welder in the structural division of the defendant’s steel fabrication plants in Westmoreland County from January 2018 to February 2019, and said she was the only female welder on the job.
While in the defendants’ employ, Thompson contended she was regularly degraded by fitter Ronald Gerda and foreman William Weiner, the latter of whom was her supervisor.
Thompson was the recipient of sexually-specific insults and epithets such as, “c—t”, “dumb b—h”, “fat f—ing whore” and “motherf—r”, offensive hand gestures and was further allegedly targeted by Gerda through his creation of an unsafe work environment for her.
She was also allegedly told, “Women don’t belong on the floor”, “Women shouldn’t be on the line” and “Women shouldn’t be welding” – in addition to being reassigned to work in the paint yard by Weiner, despite his knowledge that she had just returned from sick leave and was still recovering from pneumonia, and a male co-worker spreading human waste in her restroom and on her belongings.
At no time during her employment did defendant ever investigate or discipline any employee for engaging in the aforementioned harassing conduct, Thompson said.
On Feb. 5, 2019, Thompson contacted and communicated with the EEOC, thereby initiating the process for filing an EEOC Charge of Discrimination regarding sex harassment/discrimination and retaliation.
“Two days later, on Feb. 7, 2019, Thompson met with Richard Morford and James Morford. During this meeting, Thompson complained about Weiner’s and Gerda’s harassment and also informed the Morfords that she had already contacted EEOC about the harassment and had begun the process of filing an EEOC Charge. Approximately four days later, on Feb. 11, 2019, defendant informed Thompson that she was discharged, effective Feb. 8, 2019,” the suit said.
UPDATE
Moore & Morford, Inc. filed an answer to the complaint on Aug. 12, denying the EEOC’s claims and asserting 13 separate affirmative defenses against the events in question contained in the lawsuit. Some of them included:
• Some or all of plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the applicable statutes of limitations;
• All of defendant’s actions were taken for legitimate, non-discriminatory and non-retaliatory business reasons;
• Plaintiff’s retaliation claims fail because she has not engaged in any of the protected conduct described in the applicable statutes;
• Plaintiff’s claims fail in whole or part because defendant has made good-faith efforts to prevent discrimination and retaliation in its workplace and, thus, cannot be held liable for the decisions of its agents, to the extent the challenged employment decisions were contrary to its efforts to comply with the discrimination laws;
• Defendant has acted in good faith and has not acted willfully, deliberately, intentionally, outrageously, or with an extreme indifference to the rights of plaintiff and, thus, plaintiff is not entitled to punitive damages on the law or the facts.
For counts of hostile work environment based on sex and retaliation for engaging in protected activity, the plaintiff is seeking extensive relief including: Injunctions and the institution of policies and programs to prevent any similar conduct from happening in the future, back pay with pre-judgment interest, compensation for past and future pecuniary losses, punitive damages, costs and such further relief that the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest.
The plaintiff is represented by Catherine N. Sellers of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, in Baltimore, Md.
The defendant is represented by David A. Young of Bunker & Ray, in Pittsburgh.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:20-cv-00892
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com