WILLIAMSPORT – Penn State University has motioned for summary judgment 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, 2021 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.”
Penn State University filed an answer to the complaint on Dec. 30, 2021, 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.”
UPDATE
After an extended discovery process, Penn State filed a motion for summary judgment on May 31, seeking the complaint to be dismissed in its entirety, with prejudice.
“To prove a prima facie case of a hostile work environment under Title VII, a plaintiff must establish five elements: (1) She suffered intentional discrimination/harassment because of her gender; (2) The discrimination/harassment was severe or pervasive; (3) It detrimentally affected her; (4) It would detrimentally affect a reasonable person in like circumstances; and (5) there is a basis for employer liability. In this matter, even if this Honorable Court accepts plaintiff’s allegations as true, she cannot prove that the alleged harassment was motivated by her gender, that it was severe or pervasive, that it detrimentally affected her or that it would detrimentally affect a reasonable person in like circumstances. Further, taking all material facts in evidence as undisputed, plaintiff cannot prove there is a basis for Penn State’s liability,” the motion argued.
“In cases of co-worker harassment under Title VII, the employer is liable only for its own negligence, i.e., where ‘it knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take prompt remedial action.’ All facts in evidence support a finding that Penn State did, in fact, take action to investigate plaintiff’s complaint of harassment and to remedy the alleged situation. Plaintiff admits that she initially reported harassment to her supervisor, and, in response, her supervisor scheduled her for different shifts than her alleged harasser.”
The motion continues that the plaintiff admitted that she later reported harassment to Penn State’s Human Resources Consultant, and, in response, the same HR Consultant investigated the plaintiff’s claims, worked in accordance with Penn State’s applicable policies to promptly report the matter for more detailed investigation to Penn State’s Affirmative Action Office and moved quickly to address the possibility of the plaintiff’s transfer to a different department to accommodate the plaintiff’s request not to work with her alleged harasser – but received no cooperation from the plaintiff.
“Plaintiff admits that Penn State’s HR, Housekeeping Department, and AAO all reached out to her and that she intentionally refused to respond to any calls, emails, or letters. Therefore, plaintiff cannot demonstrate that Penn State failed to take prompt and remedial action to her alleged complaints and her hostile work environment claim under Title VII should be dismissed. Plaintiff also raises a claim of alleged constructive discharge in violation of Title VII. A plaintiff claiming hostile-environment constructive discharge must show working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable person would have felt compelled to resign. Factors frequently considered in making the above determination include threats of termination or suggested resignation, demotions, reductions in pay and benefits, transfer to less desirable positions, alteration of job responsibilities, and/or poor performance evaluations,” the motion added.
“Plaintiff has not alleged any threats of termination or suggested resignation, demotions, alteration of job responsibilities, or poor performance evaluations. Plaintiff merely alleges that Penn State was going to transfer her to a lower-paying job in housekeeping; however, Plaintiff presents no evidence showing that a transfer to housekeeping would have been a less desirable or lower-paying position. Plaintiff also fails to present any evidence that she was being forced to move into a housekeeping position. All evidence of record shows only that Penn State was looking into a possible transfer to housekeeping (a job plaintiff unsuccessfully applied for several times) in response to plaintiff’s request to move away from working with her alleged harasser; plaintiff never allowed Penn State to even complete its discussion with her about this possibility. Given the undisputed facts of records, plaintiff’s constructive discharge claim must be dismissed as lacking any merit.”
The motion went on to say that the plaintiff “cannot establish a claim of retaliatory hostile work environment by her coworker where she does not allege that her coworker was aware that she made a complaint” and “cannot establish that Penn State took any adverse action against her in response to her complaint to HR where it investigated her complaint, worked with the AAO, and looked into a potential transfer to a different department so that the plaintiff would no longer need to work with her alleged harasser.”
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 Alyssa Lynn Kuhl and 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