Ellingsworth v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co.
247 F. Supp. 3d 546
E.D. Pa.2017Background
- Marykate Ellingsworth, a female customer service rep at The Hartford, alleges her supervisor Angela Ferrier repeatedly mocked her appearance, called her a "dyke," forced her to show a concealed tattoo and told coworkers Ellingsworth was a lesbian, causing anxiety and depression.
- Ellingsworth complained to a supervisor in May 2013; HR investigator reported the matter was investigated and closed but plaintiff received no detail and Ferrier remained her supervisor.
- Ferrier took maternity leave and returned in November 2013; Ellingsworth took medical leave starting January 6, 2014 and received a March 24, 2014 letter saying she must return or be terminated. Ellingsworth did not return and alleges constructive discharge.
- Plaintiff filed an administrative complaint with the PHRC on May 23, 2014, cross-filed with the EEOC. Defendant moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim and as untimely.
- The court considered whether Title VII’s prohibition “because of sex” covers gender stereotyping/perceived sexual orientation, whether the complaint plausibly pleads hostile work environment/constructive discharge and retaliation, and whether claims were timely under applicable statutes of limitation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Title VII bars discrimination tied to gender stereotyping/perceived sexual orientation | Ellingsworth: harassment flowed from failure to conform to feminine norms (dress, tattoo) — a form of sex discrimination/gender stereotyping under Title VII | Hartford: Title VII does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or perceptions of sexual orientation | Court: Denied dismissal — Title VII covers gender stereotyping; allegations plausibly state discrimination "because of sex" even if based on perceived orientation |
| Whether the complaint pleads a hostile work environment and constructive discharge | Ellingsworth: persistent, abusive comments, public humiliation, proximity to supervisor after complaint made conditions intolerable leading to constructive discharge | Hartford: Conduct insufficient or untimely to constitute constructive discharge/hostile environment | Court: Denied dismissal — factual allegations plausibly state hostile work environment and objective constructive discharge |
| Whether complaining to employer constituted protected activity for retaliation claim | Ellingsworth: her May 2013 complaint opposed conduct prohibited by Title VII (gender stereotyping) | Hartford: Complaint was about sexual orientation (not protected), so not protected activity | Court: Denied dismissal — complaint reasonably alleged protected activity because it complained of sex-based stereotyping; retaliation claim survives |
| Timeliness of discrimination/harassment claims | Ellingsworth: constructive discharge occurred March 24, 2014; administrative charge filed May 23, 2014 — within limitations | Hartford: earlier acts fall outside limitations and bar the claims | Court: Denied dismissal — applying Green, limitations run from resignation/constructive discharge; plaintiff timely filed; hostile environment includes acts within filing period |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must state a plausible claim for relief)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (court need not accept legal conclusions; plausibility standard)
- Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (gender stereotyping is discrimination "because of sex")
- Bibby v. Philadelphia Coca Cola Bottling Co., 260 F.3d 257 (Title VII does not, on its face, prohibit sexual-orientation discrimination absent a nexus to sex)
- Prowel v. Wise Bus. Forms, Inc., 579 F.3d 285 (gender-stereotyping theory can support Title VII claim; line between sexual orientation and sex stereotyping can be blurred)
- Green v. Brennan, 136 S. Ct. 1769 (in constructive-discharge claims, limitations period begins at resignation)
- Mandel v. M & Q Packaging Corp., 706 F.3d 157 (discrete acts and timeliness distinctions; discussion of constructive discharge timing)