HARRISBURG – Litigation from a temporary employee who took a Wisconsin staffing agency’s assignment to a Starbucks roasting plant in York, which alleged she faced a racially hostile work environment and termination, has been closed and potentially settled.
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.
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.”
UPDATE
A May 10 filing on the docket explained the case had been closed and dismissed, though it was not specified that the case had been settled.
“The parties, by and through their counsel, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and hereby agree and stipulate to the dismissal of this case with prejudice, with each party paying its own attorney’s fees, costs and expense,” read the joint stipulation from all parties.
The plaintiff was represented by Derrek William Cummings, Larry A. Weisberg and Steve Todd Mahan Jr. of Weisberg Cummings, in Harrisburg.
The defendants were represented by Vik C. Jaitly of Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart, plus Hannah Lindgren 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