Quantcast

Ex-Sam Adams warehouse worker update: Loses some counts from discrimination suit against company and its employees

PENNSYLVANIA RECORD

Sunday, November 24, 2024

Ex-Sam Adams warehouse worker update: Loses some counts from discrimination suit against company and its employees

Federal Court
Warehouse2 1000x667

ALLENTOWN – A federal judge has dismissed certain counts from the lawsuit filed by a former warehouse worker for the Sam Adams beer company who says he both experienced discrimination and harassment 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.

UPDATE

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Joseph F. Leeson Jr. ordered the dismissal of Lara’s hostile work environment claims against all defendants, and Lara’s race-based discrimination and retaliation claims against the seven individual defendants.

However, he retained Lara’s race-based discrimination and retaliation claims against Sam Adams and HTSS.

“From Lara’s allegations, the Court can draw an inference of – or at a minimum, reasonably expect that discovery will lead to evidence supporting – a causal connection between his multiple reports of perceived unlawful discrimination at Sam Adams and his ultimate termination,” Leeson said.

“In particular, a temporal connection exists between Lara’s reports and his termination – he states he was terminated approximately two weeks after making his first report of alleged discrimination, and only two hours after making his final report, to Lewis Mars. Moreover, as previously discussed in the context of Lara’s discrimination claim, of relevance is Lara’s complete denial of having ever worn ear buds – the purported justification for his termination.”

However, Leeson did not concur on the claims of a race-based, hostile work environment.

“The Court finds that Lara has failed to allege facts capable of making out a claim of race-based hostile work environment, for two primary reasons: (1) The conduct of which Lara complains is insufficiently severe or pervasive to support a hostile work environment claim; and (2) To the extent Lara alleges discriminatory conduct, such conduct constitutes discrete acts rather than a series of events capable of supporting a hostile work environment claim,” Leeson said.

“While Lara’s allegations – in particular, his allegations regarding his termination – are sufficient to state claims based upon discrete acts of discrimination and retaliation, they cannot, without more, provide the basis for a claim of hostile work environment.”

Leeson added the individual defendants beyond Sam Adams were not liable for Lara’s claims under Section 1981, but the staffing agency that placed him there HTTS, may be.

“Lara has failed to adequately plead facts that would implicate liability for any of the seven individual defendants. Even liberally construing the amended complaint with respect to these defendants, the allegations describe (1) A limited number of workplace interactions with which Lara was offended, and (2) A general failure of the individuals to whom he reported perceived discrimination to take action he thought appropriate and within a time frame he desired,” Leeson stated.

“In the Court’s view, the ultimate determination of whether HTTS and/or Sam Adams is properly considered Lara’s ‘employer’ under the common law of agency is better addressed on summary judgment or at trial after discovery has taken place.”

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

More News