HARRISBURG – A Wisconsin-based employment staffing company says it is not responsible for damages suffered by a temp employee placed in a Starbucks roasting plant in York, who alleged she was subjected to a racially hostile work environment and then terminated unlawfully.
Laurica Haynes of Dauphin County first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on Oct. 9 versus Starbucks Corp. (doing business as “Starbucks Coffee Company”) of Seattle, Wash. and Manpower US, Inc. of Milwaukee, Wis.
Haynes was placed for employment in defendant Starbucks’ roasting plant in York by its co-defendant, Manpower US, a temp/staffing/employment agency.
“On or about Oct. 17, 2019, Haynes was placed by defendant Manpower as a picker at defendant Starbucks’ roasting plant in York, Pennsylvania. In or about mid-November of 2019, Haynes began experiencing problems with another picker, Russell (last name unknown) (Caucasian), who was also a recent hire,” the suit said.
“Among other things, Russell would be very disrespectful to Haynes and would regularly order her about as though he were her supervisor. Russell would only treat Ms. Haynes in this manner, and would not similarly treat other Caucasian pickers.”
Allegations of a racist and hostile work environment continued in the coming weeks, the suit said.
“In or around the week of Nov. 18, 2019, Haynes complained to their supervisor, Chris Rupus (spelling approximated), of Russell’s behavior. Rupus advised Haynes to avoid Russell, which she thereafter attempted to do. On or about Nov. 23, 2019, Russell again targeted Haynes and began giving her a hard time, though she tried to ignore him. Russell’s behavior culminated with him brushing roughly past Haynes and whispering, ‘F—ing n—r,’ in her ear,” per the suit.
“Haynes proceeded to confront Russell about the racial slur and his discriminatory treatment and the two of them complained to Rupus; Haynes about the ongoing racial discrimination and Russell about Haynes’s reaction to his racial slur. During this report, Haynes informed Rupus of the racial slur, which clearly indicated that Russell’s continuous targeted harassment of her had been based solely on her race. Mr. Rupus disregarded Ms. Haynes’ complaint and instructed her to leave work for the day.”
On Nov. 25, 2019, Haynes received a text from a representative of Manpower, who informed her that she had been terminated from her placement with Starbucks. Thereafter, Haynes contacted Manpower and informed it of the racial discrimination and that her coworker, Russell, calling her a “f—ing n—r.”
However, defendant Manpower responded by affirming defendant Starbucks’s discriminatory and retaliatory termination of Haynes, leading the plaintiff to argue that the defendants’ true reason for terminating Haynes was to retaliate against her repeated reports of racial discrimination.
UPDATE
Manpower responded with an answer to the complaint on Dec. 8, denying Haynes’s allegations in their entirety and asserting a number of affirmative defenses.
“Haynes fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Manpower’s actions regarding Haynes were at all times taken for legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons. Manpower at all times acted reasonably and in good faith. Manpower maintains and enforces policies that prohibit unlawful discrimination, and provide a mechanism by which employees may seek redress where unlawful workplace discrimination is alleged,” the answer read, in part.
“Ms. Haynes unreasonably failed to avail herself of the complaint mechanism provided by Manpower to address alleged unlawful workplace discrimination. Upon information and belief, plaintiff’s assignment with Starbucks ended solely because of her violation of Starbucks policy regarding the maintenance of a respectful workplace. Haynes’s alleged damages were caused by her own conduct. Haynes failed to mitigate her damages, if any, and to the extent of any mitigation, Manpower is entitled to an offset.”
Manpower added that to the extent Haynes seeks recovery for mental and emotional distress, including the recovery of medical expenses thereby incurred, such claims are barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act.
For counts of civil rights violations related to race discrimination, retaliation, the plaintiff is seeking a long list of reliefs:
• Defendants are to be permanently enjoined from discriminating or retaliating against plaintiff on the basis of her African-American race and/or any basis prohibited under applicable federal and state law;
• Defendants are to be prohibited from continuing to maintain their illegal policy, practice, or custom of discriminating or retaliating against employees based on their race and/or national origin and are to be ordered to promulgate an effective policy against such discrimination and retaliation and to adhere thereto;
• Defendants are to compensate plaintiff, reimburse plaintiff, and to make plaintiff whole for any and all pay and benefits plaintiff would have received had it not been for defendants’ illegal actions, including but not limited to back pay, front pay, salary, pay increases, bonuses, medical and other benefits, training, promotions, pension and seniority. Plaintiff should be accorded those benefits illegally withheld from the date she first suffered discrimination at the hands of defendants until the date of verdict;
• Plaintiff is to be awarded actual damages, as well as damages for the pain, suffering, and humiliation caused to her by defendants’ actions;
• Punitive damages as provided for under 42 U.S.C. Section 1981;
• Plaintiff is to be accorded any and all other equitable and legal relief as the Court deems just, proper, and appropriate;
• Plaintiff is to be awarded the costs and expenses of this action and reasonable legal fees as provided by applicable federal and state law;
• Any verdict in favor of plaintiff is to be molded by the Court to maximize the financial recovery available to plaintiff in light of the caps on certain damages set forth in applicable federal and state law;
• Plaintiff is to be granted such additional injunctive or other relief as she may request during the pendency of this action in an effort to ensure defendant does not engage – or ceases engaging – in illegal retaliation against plaintiff or other witnesses to this action and;
• The Court is to maintain jurisdiction of this action after verdict to ensure compliance with its orders therein.
The plaintiff is represented by Derrek William Cummings, Larry A. Weisberg and Steve Todd Mahan Jr. of Weisberg Cummings, in Harrisburg.
The defendants are represented by Jaitly C. Vik of Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart and Sarah Bryan Fask of Littler Mendelson, both in Philadelphia.
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania case 1:20-cv-01865
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com