170 F. Supp. 3d 801
W.D. Pa.2016Background
- Bumbarger, hired seasonally in 2005 and full-time in 2009 as a laborer/flagger, worked under crew superintendent Gregory Stamm and resigned June 17, 2014.
- She alleges Stamm used frequent profanity, called her gendered epithets (e.g., “b‑h,” “c‑t”), once mooned her (2010–2011), and on a few occasions touched her (shoulder, grabbed after a paint can incident).
- She reported concerns informally in 2011 to coworkers and supervisors; more formal complaints to HR began in May–July 2013, prompting an investigation and a Last Chance Agreement with Stamm; he was later terminated (Oct. 2013) for violating that agreement.
- In 2014 she received a derogatory “Hurt Feelings Report” from a coworker; Defendant investigated in June 2014; Bumbarger resigned while the investigation was ongoing.
- Defendant moved for summary judgment on Title VII claims (hostile work environment, constructive discharge, retaliation); court considered motions to strike parts of affidavits and denied most challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hostile work environment (sex) | Stamm’s repeated profanities, two uses of “c‑t,” mooning, touching, post‑termination mocking and Hurt Feelings Report created severe/pervasive sex‑based harassment | Conduct was boorish but not severe or pervasive; many epithets were generic profanity used toward men and women; some allegations are unsubstantiated/time‑barred | Court: Even viewed favorably to plaintiff, conduct (isolated profanities, limited touching, one mooning, one Hurt Feelings Report, brief mocking) not sufficiently severe or pervasive; hostile‑environment claim fails. |
| Constructive discharge | Resignation was compelled by intolerable conditions (Hurt Feelings Report, mockery, prior harassment history and inadequate protection) | Defendant investigated, accommodated transfers, paid leave during investigation, and terminated Stamm when he violated the Last Chance Agreement; no intolerable conditions forcing resignation | Court: Defendant took reasonable remedial steps; plaintiff resigned while investigation ongoing and did not show conditions more egregious than for hostile‑work claim; constructive discharge fails. |
| Retaliation | After EEOC charge (2013), 2014 assignments (call‑backs, training on roller, being sent to distant jobs) were materially adverse and causally connected | No materially adverse actions: plaintiff was called back contemporaneously with others, reassigned closer to home when she complained, and training/assignments were not materially adverse; temporal gap undermines causation | Court: Plaintiff failed to show materially adverse actions or causation (protected activity and alleged adverse events separated by months); retaliation claim fails. |
| Motions to strike affidavits (Bumbarger & Monica Graham) | Affidavits clarify facts omitted at deposition and supply relevant corroboration ("me‑too") | Defendant calls portions sham, hearsay, or irrelevant "me‑too" evidence | Court: Struck part of one paragraph in Bumbarger affidavit (narrow edit); otherwise denied motion to strike Bumbarger affidavit; denied motion to strike Graham’s affidavit but limited consideration to averments related to plaintiff’s theory/circumstances. |
Key Cases Cited
- National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002) (distinguishes discrete acts from continuing hostile‑work‑environment claims for timeliness).
- Harris v. Forklift Sys., 510 U.S. 17 (1993) (hostile‑work‑environment standard: severe or pervasive conduct judged by totality, including effect on reasonable person).
- Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) (employer affirmative defense where supervisor harassment occurs but no tangible employment action).
- Burlington Indus. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998) (companion to Faragher on employer vicarious liability and affirmative defense).
- Vance v. Ball State Univ., 571 U.S. 421 (2014) (defines "supervisor" for harassment liability as one empowered to take tangible employment actions).
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment standard and burdens).
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (summary judgment when record could not lead a rational trier of fact for non‑movant).
- Jiminez v. All Am. Rathskeller, Inc., 503 F.3d 247 (3d Cir. 2007) (sham affidavit doctrine and flexible approach where corroborating record evidence exists).
- Heffernan v. City of Paterson, 777 F.3d 147 (3d Cir. 2015) (summary judgment rule restatement).