DUCKETT v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
2:18-cv-04017
E.D. Pa.Jul 17, 2019Background
- Plaintiff Danielle Duckett was a DHS supervisor (Mar 2014–Jan 2017). She supervised employee Lee Franczyk.
- Provider complaints alleged Franczyk sexually harassed provider staff (comments, touching patients, viewing porn on phone); Duckett and her supervisor investigated and suspended Franczyk for five days.
- After discipline, Franczyk behaved aggressively toward Duckett and coworkers (yelling, throwing things, tracking arrivals); Duckett alleges stalking, social‑media harassment, and tampering with her car.
- Duckett reported incidents to DHS; DHS increased supervision, security, lighting, and considered but did not transfer Franczyk (union constraints cited). Police investigated the car incident.
- Duckett resigned Jan 3, 2017, citing threats and a hostile work environment; she later sued under Title VII and PHRA. DHS moved for summary judgment; cross‑motions were filed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Duckett can prove Title VII hostile work environment (discrimination because of sex) | Franczyk’s post‑investigation hostility, alleged stalking, sexual rumors about a relationship with a female subordinate, and other incidents created a sex‑based hostile environment that forced her resignation | Franczyk’s conduct was retaliation/animus for being involved in his discipline and workplace disputes, not motivated by sex; no evidence links hostility to gender | Court: No. Duckett failed to show intentional discrimination motivated by sex; hostile environment claim dismissed |
| Whether DHS is liable (respondeat superior/negligence) | DHS failed to prevent or adequately remediate harassment and thus is liable | DHS took reasonable remedial steps (security, supervision, counseling) and constraints (union, police) limited options | Court did not reach DHS negligence/respondeat superior due to failure on discrimination element |
| Whether Duckett established constructive discharge | Working conditions were so intolerable (threats, car tampering, stalking) that a reasonable person would resign | Conditions, while serious, were not shown to be motivated by sex; constructive discharge requires predicate hostile environment based on protected characteristic | Court: No. Constructive discharge claim fails because hostile environment element not proved |
| Whether PHRA claim proceeds in federal court | Duckett asserted PHRA in complaint | DHS invoked Eleventh Amendment immunity for Commonwealth agencies | Court: DHS immune; PHRA claim dismissed in federal court |
Key Cases Cited
- Meritor Sav. Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (hostile‑work‑environment standard requires severe or pervasive harassment)
- Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (Title VII is not a general civility code; employer liability framework)
- Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (harassment actionable only when motivated by sex)
- Mandel v. M&Q Packaging Corp., 706 F.3d 157 (elements of hostile work environment claim)
- Brown v. Henderson, 257 F.3d 246 (harassment tied to non‑sex reasons insufficient for Title VII)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden allocation)
- Kirleis v. Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C., 560 F.3d 156 (self‑serving affidavits insufficient to defeat summary judgment)
- Pa. State Police v. Suders, 542 U.S. 129 (constructive discharge requires hostile work environment predicate)