PITTSBURGH – A Pittsburgh woman who formerly worked at a law firm in that city settled litigation which alleged she was singled out for her work attire by a senior male colleague and later fired, but not officially reprimanded for the perceived “dress code violation.”
Mia Marie Vecchio first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on June 1, 2020 versus McGuire Woods. All parties are of Pittsburgh.
“Vecchio was hired by defendant on Nov. 13, 2017, was formerly employed as a paralegal in the Financial Services Litigation department and, at all relevant times, her supervisor was Kristopher Issac deVyver. During her employment, Vecchio always received positive performance reviews and she was never reprimanded or disciplined by defendant for work performance,” the lawsuit stated.
On Oct. 11, 2018, Vecchio said she was called to a meeting by John Beck, even though Beck was not her supervisor and had no responsibilities with defendant for meeting and communicating with her. Beck closed the door, brought up the subject of the firm’s dress code policy to Vecchio and asked if she read it, she said.
“Beck then began telling Ms. Vecchio that two days prior – on Oct. 9, 2018 – Vecchio had worn leggings that were too tight and in violation of the dress code policy. Vecchio informed Beck that she was not wearing leggings, that they were in fact dress pants, and that she was wearing the same pants at that time,” the suit stated.
“Vecchio also informed Beck that she had several pairs of the same pants and that she had worn them at least two days per week since beginning her employment with defendant nearly a year prior. Vecchio further informed Beck that most of defendant’s female staff wore the same pants (or at least a similar-style pant) to work every day.”
After leaving Beck’s office, Vecchio contacted a McGuire Woods human resources officer, Kate Mitchell, and reported the incident, the suit said. After being granted permission to do so, Vecchio chose to work from home the following day and, when she returned to work, she said no one from the Financial Services Litigation department would speak to her, including her supervisor, deVyver.
After returning to work, Vecchio claimed she began to receive less work from the Financial Services Litigation department and most of her emails went unanswered. But on Oct. 15, 2018, Mitchell told Vecchio that the “situation” with Beck had been resolved and that “no further action would be taken nor was it necessary,” the suit said.
Later that day, Mitchell was said to have stopped responding to Vecchio and as a result, Vecchio forwarded an email she wrote about the incident to Stacy Reyan, McGuire Woods’s Chief Human Resources Officer.
The next day, Oct. 16, 2018, deVyver called Vecchio and told her she was being removed from the Financial Services Litigation department and transferred to another one, before quickly hanging up without attempting to answer Vecchio’s questions on the transfer, the suit said.
Vecchio was moved to the Mortgages and Portfolio department, which she said is notorious among employees for having the worst hours and being the most difficult job and work environment for McGuire Woods.
“Vecchio was never told what her new position would entail with the Mortgages and Portfolio department and defendant permitted Beck to continue his interactions with Vecchio. Defendant failed to provide Vecchio with training appropriate for assuming a new position with which she had never worked,” according to the suit.
“Vecchio was terminated on Nov. 12, 2018. Vecchio was never disciplined or reprimanded for any alleged dress code policy violation. Defendant provided Ms. Vecchio with no reason for her termination.”
Vecchio added she was never disciplined or reprimanded for any alleged dress code violation and never provided a reason for her termination. When she was fired, Mitchell and colleague Steve Goodworth told Vecchio to leave the office immediately and that her personal belongings would be mailed to her, she said.
McGuire Woods then took possession of Vecchio’s phone, she said, and removed all information related to the firm, such as email and server information, and Mitchell and Goodworth began forcibly removing Vecchio’s personal belongings from her office and threatening her. All the threatening conduct of Mitchell and Goodworth was done in the open and in full view of other employees from McGuire Woods, she said.
McGuire Woods filed an answer to Vecchio’s complaint on Aug. 10, 2020, denying the plaintiff’s allegations made against it and asserting five separate affirmative defenses.
“Vecchio fails to state a claim, in whole or in part, upon which relief can be granted. To the extent Vecchio’s purported PHRA cause of action concerns events alleged to have occurred more than 180 days before the dual-filing of her Charge of Discrimination with the PHRC, her PHRA claims are barred as untimely,” the firm’s answer states.
“McGuire Woods’ actions were based on legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons. McGuire Woods engaged in good faith efforts to comply with Title VII and the PHRA. Vecchio’s claims for back pay and/or front pay are barred, in whole or in part, to the extent she has failed to mitigate her damages, if any.”
UPDATE
A stipulation of dismissal filed on June 22 showed that the litigation had been settled, with terms of that settlement not revealed.
“The parties to this civil action, by their undersigned counsel and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(ii), hereby stipulate to the dismissal of this civil action with prejudice,” the stipulation read.
The plaintiff was represented by Alexander B. Wright and Margaret Schuetz Coleman of the Law Offices of Timothy P. O’Brien, in Pittsburgh.
The defendant was represented by Terrence H. Murphy and Taylor N. Brailey of Littler Mendelson, also in Pittsburgh.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:20-cv-00798
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com