PHILADELPHIA – A local media company denies allegations it unjustly terminated its former promotions and marketing director on the basis of her age and gender.
Lisa Harris of Norristown first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Aug. 2 versus Beasley Media Group, LLC and Beasley Mezzanine Holdings, LLC, of Bala Cynwyd.
“Plaintiff was employed by defendants and its predecessor from on or about Sept. 8, 2014 until on or about Oct. 31, 2019. Plaintiff consistently performed her job duties in a highly competent manner and received positive feedback. Plaintiff last held the position of Promotions Director and Marketing Director. On or about July 26, 2018, plaintiff began reporting to Joseph Bell (male), Vice President and Market Manager,” the suit said.
“On or about Oct. 31, 2019, defendants terminated plaintiff’s employment. Before the termination meeting, plaintiff had no indication that her job was in jeopardy. The stated reason for plaintiff’s termination was defendants’ reduction in force. During the termination meeting, Bell stated that plaintiff’s termination was not performance-based. During the terminating meeting, Bell stated that plaintiff’s termination had nothing to do with her age.”
Harris added she subsequently asked Gloria Wren, Corporate Human Resources Director, why Bell had stated that her termination had nothing to do with her age. Wren replied that the plaintiff should not have been told that, leading Harris to argue that the defendants’ “conduct and comments evidence a bias against older and/or female employees.”
“At the time of plaintiff’s termination, seven Director-level employees reported directly to Bell, including plaintiff. Plaintiff was the only female employee and, to plaintiff’s knowledge, amongst the oldest of such Director level employees. Plaintiff was Bell’s only direct report terminated effective Oct. 31, 2019. Defendants retained all other Director-level employees directly reporting to Bell and retained all of plaintiff’s direct reports, all of whom were younger and/or male. Defendants retained male and/or younger employees in positions for which plaintiff was more qualified,” per the suit.
“Defendants offered no explanation, including the selection criteria, as to why plaintiff was terminated and the younger and/or male employees were retained. Defendants replaced plaintiff with Donnie Black (male, approximate age 34). Following plaintiff’s termination, plaintiff’s job duties were additionally handled by Sean Hagan (male, approximate age 25) and Sean Burke (male, approximate age 34). Plaintiff’s combination of age and sex was a motivating and determinative factor in plaintiff’s termination of employment.”
UPDATE
In an Oct. 4 answer to the complaint, the defendants flatly denied the plaintiff’s allegations as conclusions of law to which no response was required. The defendants further asserted 21 separate affirmative defenses.
“Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff’s claims are not actionable because all employment decisions were justified by legitimate, non-discriminatory and non-pretextual business reasons. Defendants and their agents acted reasonably and in good faith at all times material herein based on all relevant facts and circumstances known by them at the time they so acted. Accordingly, plaintiff is barred from any recovery in this action. Plaintiff’s alleged damages are too speculative to form a basis for recovery,” per the defenses, in part.
“Plaintiff’s claims for relief are barred in whole or in part to the extent that she has failed to mitigate any of her alleged damages. Further, to the extent plaintiff claims back pay damages and/or damages relating to lost pay increases, bonuses, benefits, training, promotion, pension or seniority, any such damages awarded must be reduced by plaintiff’s actual earnings and/or amount plaintiff could have earned with reasonable diligence. Plaintiff is not entitled to all or some of the damages sought in plaintiff’s complaint. Defendants have acted in good faith and have not acted willfully, deliberately, intentionally, outrageously or with an extreme indifference to the rights of plaintiff, and, thus, plaintiff is not entitled to punitive damages on the law or the facts. Defendants’ actions were job-related and consistent with business necessity.”
In other defenses, the defendants disavow any liability for violating several federal laws the plaintiff accused them of not maintaining compliance with.
For counts of violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, the plaintiff is seeking a declaration that the acts and practices complained of herein were in violation of the aforementioned laws, all damages to make plaintiff whole for all lost earnings, earning capacity and benefits, past and future, which plaintiff has suffered or may suffer as a result of defendants’ unlawful conduct; back pay and front pay; compensatory damages to plaintiff for past and future pain and suffering, emotional upset, mental anguish, humiliation, and loss of life’s pleasures, punitive damages, liquidated damages, such other damages and relief as is appropriate under Title VII, the ADEA, and the PHRA; costs of suit, expert fees, and other disbursements; attorneys’ fees; and such other and further relief as this Court may deem just, proper, or equitable including other equitable and injunctive relief providing restitution for past violations and preventing future violations.
The plaintiff is represented by Lane Schiff of Console Mattiacci Law, in Philadelphia.
The defendants are represented by Heather Zalar Steele of Fisher & Phillips, also in Philadelphia.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:21-cv-03432
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com