ALLENTOWN – An openly gay man’s lawsuit detailing claims of discrimination and harassment he suffered while in the employ of Guess, Inc. will now be governed by arbitration, rather than a civil court proceeding.
Bryan Benedict of Philadelphia filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Sept. 17 versus Guess, Inc., Guess? Retail, Inc. and Guess Factory of Los Angeles, Calif.
(Benedict originally filed his case anonymously, but a federal judge later ruled in October he was not permitted to proceed under a pseudonym.)
Benedict’s lawsuit said he began working in the Guess outlet store in Bethlehem in July 2017 and was named assistant store manager there in December 2018, but staff did not warm to him.
“Benedict began to suffer ostracism, aversion, and isolation from the other male employees on account of Benedict being openly gay,” the suit said.
The male employees were subordinate employees whom Benedict was supposed to supervise as the Assistant Store Manager at the location in question.
“Benedict’s male subordinate employees turned the complete opposite direction or intentionally ignored Benedict, acting as if they were completely disgusted with Benedict, hated Benedict and never wanted to be associated with, let alone supervised by, a man known to be gay.”
One male employee allegedly set Benedict up to be fired. He allegedly accused Benedict of “sexual misconduct by digitally penetrating or ‘fingering’ the male employee in the anus, which is not only untrue, but revolting and utterly preposterous on its face.”
The defendants’ lies also constitute cruel and sadistic mistreatment of Benedict, the suit said. The false accusation, in and of itself, is a form of sexual harassment, and constitutes rank discrimination, according to the suit.
“Afterward, Benedict followed up and specifically denied the false accusation. Defendants then shifted the reasoning and stated to Benedict that Benedict was terminated for allegedly ‘breaking company policy,’ which Benedict denies.”
Guess filed to dismiss Benedict’s complaint on Nov. 16, arguing the arbitration clause contained in his employment agreement precluded his claims from being brought forward.
“Aligning with plaintiff’s allegation that he began employment in July 2017, he signed an agreement to arbitrate on July 26, 2017. The parties agree that, unless specified otherwise, ‘the Federal Arbitration Act shall govern all proceedings arising out of or relating to this agreement,” the defense’s dismissal motion stated.
“The agreement specifically encompasses any disputes arising out of termination of the employment relationship and claims for discrimination, retaliation, or harassment, based on sex. The agreement holds that any arbitration proceeding under the agreement will be conducted before a single neutral arbitrator and shall be conducted in accordance with the JAMS Employment Arbitration Rules.”
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Joseph F. Leeson Jr. ruled that Benedict’s claims fell within the provisions of the arbitration agreement.
Leeson that the first part of the Court’s inquiry – whether there is a valid and enforceable agreement to arbitrate – was already answered in the affirmative, and that there was “no doubt” that the second part of the inquiry – whether the underlying dispute between plaintiff and defendants falls within the scope of that agreement – would follow suit.
“Plaintiff’s complaint asserts claims for hostile work environment, wrongful termination, and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Pennsylvania Human Rights Act, and the City of Bethlehem Human Relations and Non-Discrimination Ordinance, based upon his sexual orientation,” Leeson said.
“These claims fall squarely within the arbitration agreement’s provision regarding ‘claims for unlawful discrimination, retaliation or harassment (including, but not limited to, claims based on race, sex, religion, national origin, age, marital status, or medical condition, handicap or disability).’ Plaintiff makes no argument, nor is there any argument available of which the Court is aware, supporting the position that plaintiff’s discrimination claims are not covered by the plain and unambiguous language of the parties’ valid and enforceable arbitration agreement.”
For multiple counts of harassment and hostile work environment tied to sexual orientation, wrongful termination and retaliatory discharge all in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act and the City of Bethlehem’s Human Relations and Non-Discrimination Ordinance, the plaintiff is seeking a long list of reliefs:
• Damages in excess of $150,000, which will fully and fairly compensate plaintiff for any and all back and front pay, overtime, benefits, bonuses, commissions, and promotions plaintiff would have received;
• Compensatory damages for pain and suffering, mental anguish, anxiety, depression, humiliation, embarrassment, severe emotional distress, and lasting emotional trauma;
• Punitive damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs of suit; and
• Equitable/injunctive relief requiring defendants to remove the false accusation of sexual misconduct from Benedict’s personnel file, for defendants to be required to provide a neutral employment reference for Benedict, and for defendants to provide an apology and a retraction to Benedict.
The plaintiff is represented by Justin F. Robinette of the Law Offices of Eric A. Shore, in Philadelphia.
The defendants are represented by John M. Nolan III of Jackson Lewis, also in Philadelphia.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 5:20-cv-04545
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com