WILLIAMSPORT – Penn State University has denied all allegations in a sexual harassment and retaliation action brought by a steward at the institution, who claimed she was raped by her direct supervisor.
Jane Doe of Bellefonte first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on Nov. 1 versus The Pennsylvania State University, of University Park.
“On April 29, 2019, Penn State’s Auxiliary and Business Services division hired plaintiff as a Steward (dishwasher) at the Nittany Lion Inn. Plaintiff began as a Steward at the Nittany Lion Inn with the goal of working her way up to a Chef position,” the suit said.
“James Roe is a Cook at the Nittany Lion Inn. At all relevant times, Roe was plaintiff’s direct supervisor. Jamison Steffan is Executive Sous Chef at the Nittany Lion Inn. At all relevant times, Steffan was Mr. Roe’s direct supervisor.”
The suit alleged that on Dec. 13, 2019, Roe sexually assaulted plaintiff at his residence and that as a result, Doe became pregnant, which she learned on Jan. 7, 2020.
“On or about Jan. 7, 2020, plaintiff informed Steffan that she pregnant because plaintiff was a high-risk pregnancy and was not allowed to lift more than 50 pounds at that time. On or about Jan. 7, 2020, plaintiff also informed Roe that she was pregnant,” the suit claimed.
“After learning that plaintiff was pregnant, Roe began harassing plaintiff. For example: (a) Roe told plaintiff that he wanted no involvement with the baby and that she should tell people at work that she had a one night stand and did not know whose baby she had and; (b) Roe told plaintiff to get an abortion.”
When she first consulted Steffan, Doe explained that Roe had already told Steffan that he was the father of her baby. In response, Steffan allegedly did not take Doe’s complaints seriously – rather, he was said to have told Doe that he was “disappointed” in both she and Roe.
The plaintiff also claimed Roe subsequently made her do “very physical work by herself, including lifting more than 50 pounds of hot dishes and glassware, which violated her pregnancy-related work restriction”, and engaged in continuous harassment towards her – which Steffan allegedly did not stop from happening or investigate, due to his friendship with Roe.
Doe added that on Feb. 10, 2020, she reported Roe’s harassment of her to Carol Eicher, Human Resources Consultant. Doe says she told Eicher that Roe sexually assaulted her on Dec. 13, 2019 and that Roe had been harassing her since he learned that she was pregnant.
Eicher allegedly told Doe that Penn State would address her complaint.
“Approximately one week after plaintiff reported Roe’s harassment of her to Eicher, Eicher telephoned plaintiff and stated that they spoke to Steffan and decided that they would move plaintiff to the Nittany Lion Inn’s housekeeping department. Plaintiff did not want to move to the housekeeping department because it was an entirely different job, which plaintiff was not interested in because she had a goal of working her way up to a chef position. The housekeeping position also required a pay cut,” the suit stated.
“Penn State did not investigate plaintiff’s complaints about Roe in violation of its own policies Further, Penn State retaliated against plaintiff by attempting to demote her to the housekeeping department. As a result of Roe’s unwelcome sexual harassment and Penn State’s retaliation, plaintiff was forced to constructively discharge her employment.”
UPDATE
Penn State University filed an answer to the complaint on Dec. 30, denying Doe’s claims in their entirety.
“Defendant reserves the right to raise any and all applicable defenses to plaintiff’s claims. Defendant has not yet obtained all necessary discovery from plaintiff or others in connection with this action, and, therefore, reserves the right to amend or otherwise supplement this pleading,” their answer stated.
Additionally, the school put forth a dozen affirmative defenses.
“Plaintiff has failed to articulate a prima facie claim in support of each and every cause of action set forth or purported to be set forth in her complaint and she will be unable to establish the necessary elements in support of each such cause of action at trial. All actions taken by defendant relative to plaintiff’s employment were based on lawful, legitimate, non-discriminatory and non-retaliatory business factors and were not based on the illegal factors alleged by plaintiff. Plaintiff was not subjected to unlawful discrimination or retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, or any other discrimination statute,” according to the defenses, in part.
“Any damages sustained by plaintiff were due to her own acts or omissions, not the acts or omissions of defendant. Plaintiff’s complaint fails to set forth any cause of action against defendant upon which damages and her respective prayers for relief may be awarded. Defendant acted in compliance with the law at all times with respect to plaintiff’s employment and upheld all statutory obligations imposed upon it, if any, with respect to plaintiff’s employment. Plaintiff has failed to allege facts sufficient to support a claim for compensatory, punitive or other damages. Plaintiff has failed to mitigate her damages and/or fails to allege facts sufficient to support a claim for damages.”
For multiple counts of sexual harassment and hostile work environment, constructive discharge and retaliation in violation of Title VII and Title IX, the plaintiff is seeking a judgment declaring that Penn State’s actions are unlawful and violate Title VII and Title IX, preliminary and permanent injunctions preventing the repeating of such conduct, an order compelling the Pennsylvania State University to provide training to all employees on harassment, discrimination, and retaliation prevention, to provide copies of the trial verdict and judgment to all employees, to report on ongoing compliance efforts related to any ruling, the reinstatement of the plaintiff, front pay, back pay, compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, such other and further legal and equitable relief and a trial by jury.
The plaintiff is represented by Stephanie J. Mensing of Mensing Law, in Philadelphia.
The defendant is represented by Jill M. Lashay of Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, in Harrisburg.
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania case 4:21-cv-01862
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com