PITTSBURGH – An Allegheny County woman who alleged she was given a profane note by the manager on duty and discriminated against on the basis of her sex when she brought her vehicle in for its regular inspection to a local Midas auto shop, has maintained her claims in the face of the defendants’ denials.
Thomasina Deveraux first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on Nov. 9 versus Midas Auto Experts, 401 Monroevile Auto Center, Ltd. (doing business as “Midas Auto Service Experts”) and Christopher Ireland, of Monroeville.
“On or about Jan. 29, 2022, Deveraux took her vehicle to Midas for her yearly inspection. Deveraux encountered Ireland, the service manager at Midas, who was unprofessional and rude. After some time, Ireland called Deveraux to the counter, and gave her the receipt. On the receipt were the words, ‘Big f—ing hurry c—t b—ch.’ Deveraux was embarrassed and appalled,” the suit said.
“Deveraux is a member of a Pennsylvania Human Relations Act-protected class, female. Defendants are ‘people’ as defined by the PHRA. Defendants created a severely harassing environment on the basis of sex. Deveraux was subjectively offended by defendants’ conduct. Any reasonable woman in Deveraux’s position would have been objectively offended by defendants’ conduct. As a direct and proximate result of defendants’ conduct, Deveraux was injured, and suffered damages including emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life and embarrassment.”
The suit added Midas should have known that its employee would have discriminated against female customers, and attempts to hold the company accountable.
“A reasonable and prudent employer would have discovered its employees’ unfitness to be hired, and not hired them. Midas breached its duty and responsibility of care to use reasonable care to train its employees to ensure that they were fit to perform their duties for Midas, to include appropriately interacting with customers. A reasonable and prudent employer would have learned of its employees’ unfitness to start working and trained them. Midas breached its duty and responsibility of care when it failed to train its employees to suppress or otherwise eliminate their propensities to engage in sex discrimination,” the suit stated.
UPDATE
On Jan. 31, the defendants issued a denial of the plaintiff’s sex discrimination and negligence claims.
Additionally, while the defense admitted that the plaintiff interacted with defendant Ireland at some point during her visit, it denied that Ireland was ever rude or unprofessional in his interactions with plaintiff.
“The complaint fails to set forth any claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part due to the applicable statute of limitations. The complaint, as far as it seeks equitable relief, is barred or limited because plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law. To the extent shown in discovery, plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of laches, waiver, estoppel, and unclean hands. Each cause of action alleged in the complaint is barred in whole or in part on the basis that defendants substantially complied with their legal requirements. Plaintiff’s claims are barred insofar as one stray remark is insufficient to show a harassing environment. Plaintiff’s claims are barred and recovery is precluded because plaintiff has suffered no damages as a result of the allegations set forth in the complaint. Plaintiff’s claims against defendant Ireland are barred as she has not shown that he engaged in any conduct that would violate the law,” per the defendants’ new matter.
“Plaintiff’s claims are barred and recovery is precluded because she has not shown that any action or conduct on the part of defendants was because of her sex. Plaintiff’s claims are barred and recovery is precluded because she cannot show that defendant Midas or its employees harbored any animosity or bias toward women. Plaintiff’s claims are barred and recovery is precluded because she cannot show that defendant Midas failed to properly train its employees with respect to its policy, procedures, and practices when dealing with customers. Any action of any non-supervisory employee cannot be attributed to defendant Midas or its supervisors because it was not directed or approved by defendants and fell outside of the scope of a non-manager’s job responsibility. There is no basis for awarding attorneys’ fees on the facts pled in the complaint. Defendants did not have the specific intent to harm plaintiff. Defendants hereby give notice that they intend to rely upon such other and further defenses as may become available or apparent through pre-trial proceedings in this case and hereby reserve all rights to assert such defenses.”
The same day, plaintiff counsel replied with a filing countering that the defendants’ new matter was denied as conclusions of law and demanding strict proof at trial.
For counts of sex discrimination and negligence, the plaintiff is seeking, jointly and severally where appropriate, damages in excess of $50,000, for non-economic compensatory damages to include emotional damages, humiliation, embarrassment, punitive damages, attorney’s fees and costs of suit.
The plaintiff is represented by Martell Harris of The Trial Law Firm, in Pittsburgh.
The defendants are represented by Marla N. Presley and Emily E. Town of Jackson Lewis, also in Pittsburgh.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-22-013742
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com