PITTSBURGH – After more than one year, McDonald’s has answered a sexual harassment suit from one of its employees, who alleged she was repeatedly subjected to sexual harassment from her manager for months before being mandated to perform work duties in violation of a doctor’s order – which she claimed led to both her miscarriage and professional retaliation exacted upon her.
Brittany Strope first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on March 18, 2022 versus Park Family Enterprises, LLC.
“In February of 2019, defendant assigned a new manager as plaintiff’s immediate supervisor on the night shift. Immediately following this change, the new manager began sexually harassing the plaintiff. The new manager knew that plaintiff was in a relationship and recently engaged; however, he continued to make unwanted advances towards her,” the suit said.
“For example, the manager: Asked plaintiff how she would feel if he asked her out or messaged her via phone or Facebook; Made harassing comments towards the plaintiff, such as ‘You are thick, not fat’; and repeatedly asked the plaintiff out. These unwelcome advances made plaintiff extremely uncomfortable in the workplace. Plaintiff was unsure of who to turn to for help in this situation, so it continued. Eventually, plaintiff complained to the General Manager.”
Strope added that nothing was done to remedy the matter, and the manager continued to sexually harass the plaintiff and other women on the job, but that this was “not the end of her workplace issues.”
“On or about May 28, 2019, plaintiff was taken to the hospital for complications with her pregnancy. Plaintiff returned to work with a light-duty work restriction from her doctor. However, the manager made plaintiff mop the floor, even though mopping was not part of her light-duty work restriction. Ultimately, plaintiff suffered a miscarriage,” the suit stated.
“Eventually, plaintiff refused to work with this manager. This manager became belligerent with plaintiff and blamed her for not being able to work the night shift. Plaintiff continued to object to working with someone who harassed her and ignored her medical accommodations. Eventually, plaintiff was simply taken off the schedule and effectively terminated.”
Strope said she dual-filed her complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commissions and Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission as the discrimination was ongoing, which then issued a right-to-sue letter on March 18, 2020.
UPDATE
After just over a year since the filing of the complaint, the defendant answered it and uniformly denied the plaintiff’s version of events. McDonald’s also provided new matter in its own defense.
“The complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Any claims by plaintiff against defendant are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. At all times relevant to this action, defendant acted in a reasonable and prudent manner, and within all applicable industry standards. Plaintiff’s claims are limited to the extent the evidence shows she failed to take reasonable measures to mitigate her damages. Plaintiff’s alleged injuries and damages are the result of parties and/or entities and/or persons over whom defendant had no control and/or right of control,” the new matter stated.
“Plaintiff’s alleged injuries and damages are the result of superseding and/or intervening causes over which defendant had no control and/or right to control. Plaintiff has failed to establish that defendant took any adverse employment action against her, as outlined by the courts in Storey v. Burns Inter. Plaintiff has failed to show that she was subjected to a hostile work environment, as defined by the courts in Faragher v. City of Boca Raton. Plaintiff has failed to provide evidence that other similar employees (comparator employees) were treated in a manner which was different or more favorable than herself.”
For counts of sex discrimination, disability discrimination and retaliation under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages against defendant in excess of $50,000, as well as costs, interest and other relief the Court may deem appropriate under the circumstances.
The plaintiff is represented by Mark R. Natale of Malamut & Associates, in Cherry Hill, N.J.
The defendant is represented by Daniel R. Bentz and Sarah C. Boehme of Marks O’Neill O’Brien Doherty & Kelly, in Pittsburgh.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-22-002987
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com