ALLENTOWN – A longtime machine operator and materials handler has settled several claims of racial discrimination and harassment lodged against his employer, an Adamstown hat factory.
Gregory Nelson of Mohnton first filed a complaint on Jan. 18, 2022 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania versus Bollman Hat Factory of Adamstown.
According to his complaint, Nelson began working for Bollman as a machine operator on Jan. 3, 2003. He alleged that in 2010, he began to face racial discrimination including being called “Dark Vader,” and having co-workers use the N-word and other racial slurs around him. He further alleged that a photo of himself was posted with a written caption that read “$.50 reward for anyone who catches this person.”
Nelson further claimed that in August 2020, he took video of co-workers who were taking copper and other scrap materials out of dumpsters against company policy. Nelson claimed his report of the co-workers was not kept confidential and that he faced harassment and other intimidation until his termination on Feb. 9, 2021.
The defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted on April 7.
“Here, plaintiff’s amended complaint generally alleges that ‘racial slurs and discriminatory acts began in approximately 2010 and continued until Nelson’s termination on Feb. 9, 2021. Plaintiff, however, makes no effort even to address the elements necessary to support a hostile work environment claim – let alone allege facts sufficient to address those elements,” per the motion.
“Notwithstanding the fact plaintiff failed to mention the purported racial language referenced in his EEOC Charge of Discrimination and these events would be time-barred for failing to file a complaint with the EEOC within 300 days of the purported harassment, plaintiff’s allegations fall far short of what is required to sustain a hostile work environment claim. Plaintiff’s amended complaint is devoid of any facts that would support a finding of ‘severe’ or ‘pervasive’ conduct at all and plaintiff fails to plead facts that any alleged conduct amounted to a change in the terms or conditions of his employment.”
Moreover, the factory’s counsel claimed that the plaintiff “failed to identify any statements or actions by his supervisor, Meredith Miller, or any person bearing responsibility for the decision to terminate his employment that might suggest a racially discriminatory animus.”
“Rather, plaintiff’s only factual allegations attributable to Ms. Miller are that she confronted him about his use of inappropriate language, advised him of an issue with his work performance, and asked him to perform a job task which he refused,” the dismissal motion stated.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge John M. Gallagher denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss, in a memorandum opinion issued on July 18.
“First, plaintiff has plausibly alleged the discrimination he faced was intentional and based on his race. Plaintiff is an African American man and racial slurs were used against him multiple times. For example, he was repeatedly referred to as ‘Dark Vader,’ called ‘n–––r,’ and subjected to comments such as ‘I can’t believe your black ass is still here.’ He also found a racially threatening image of himself posted on a manager’s office door. Second, plaintiff has plausibly alleged the abuse was ‘sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of…employment and create an abusive working environment,’ by detailing the offensive nature of the discrimination and that the discrimination involved multiple employees and persisted over multiple years,” Gallagher said.
“Third, plaintiff reported the discrimination detrimentally affected him to such a degree he had to see a therapist to deal with his anxiety. Fourth, the Court finds that a reasonable person in plaintiff’s circumstance would be detrimentally affected by the repeated use of racial slurs, nicknames and other racially motivated behavior by fellow employees and management. Finally, plaintiff has plausibly alleged that respondeat superior liability exists. An employer ‘may be liable for either a supervisor’s or a co-worker’s discriminatory acts.’ To be liable for a co-worker’s actions, the employer must have either failed to provide a reasonable avenue for complaint or the employer knew or should have known of the harassment or failed to take prompt and appropriate remedial action. Here, plaintiff plausibly factually alleges that he informed Human Resources, the CEO, and the President multiple times of discriminatory incidents and they failed to adequately address them. Accordingly, defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim will be denied.”
While the defendant holds that the plaintiff pled insufficient facts to give rise to an inference that his termination was due to unlawful discrimination, the Court again stated its disagreement.
“Plaintiff’s alleged facts, taken as true as required at the pleading stage, raise a reasonable expectation that discovery could reveal evidence of racial animus. Plaintiff adequately factually alleged multiple detailed instances of discrimination, including his meeting, during which management personnel muttered discriminatory comments, the timing of his termination three weeks after that meeting, his prior complaints ‘disappearing’ from his Human Resources file and his termination for reasons that plaintiff alleged never occurred. Accordingly, defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s wrongful termination claim will be denied,” Gallagher said.
UPDATE
The company answered the complaint on Aug. 1 and denied any wrongdoing.
“Plaintiff has failed to state a claim pursuant to Title VII. Plaintiff’s claims are barred and/or limited by his failure to fully exhaust his administrative remedies. Defendant had legitimate, non-discriminatory business reasons for all actions taken with respect to plaintiff. Plaintiff was not discriminated against, harassed, retaliated against or treated less favorably than any other employee because of his race or any other protected classification. Plaintiff did not suffer any adverse employment action due to his race or any other protected classification,” the answer’s new matter stated, in part.
“Defendant is committed to maintaining a work place where all employees are treated fairly; harassment, retaliation or discrimination of any kind is absolutely prohibited. Defendant has a complaint procedure for employees who believe that they have been harassed, discriminated against, retaliated against or treated unlawfully on the basis of their race or for any other reason protected by federal and state laws. Employees are advised to report any incidents of discrimination, harassment or retaliation to defendant. Plaintiff unreasonably failed to take advantage of the complaint procedure provided by defendant or to otherwise avoid harm in a prompt and timely manner with respect to any concerns of discrimination or retaliation that he now alleges. Plaintiff’s claims are barred or limited based upon plaintiff’s own actions.”
On Jan. 18, the Court indicated that the case had been settled, though terms of the settlement were not disclosed.
“It having been reported that the issues between the parties in the above action have been settled and upon Order of the Court pursuant to the provisions of Rule 41.1(b) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure of this Court, it is ordered that the above action is dismissed with prejudice, pursuant to the agreement of counsel without costs,” the order from Gallagher’s Deputy Clerk, Brian R. Dixon, stated.
The plaintiff was represented by Larry Miller Jr. of The Miller Law Group, in West Lawn.
The defendant was represented by Lee C. Durivage and Michael Curry Burke of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, in Philadelphia.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 5:22-cv-00228
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com