571 F.Supp.3d 455
E.D. Pa.2021Background
- Plaintiff David Hawkins, an openly gay forensic scientist with the Philadelphia Police Department since 2008, alleges a long-running hostile work environment through mockery, gestures, and homophobic language by coworkers and his supervisor, Danielle Imes.
- Early incidents (2009–2012) included a coworker posting and drawing images of Sanjaya Malakar that Hawkins viewed as mocking; the Department investigated in 2012, removed offending items, and issued diversity training/memos.
- Hawkins alleges repeated later conduct: coworkers calling his name in an effeminate tone, laughing at him in meetings, slapping-gesture mimicry, overheard homophobic slurs (including several uses of the slur faggot in 2015), and a 2019 incident where Hawkins claims supervisor Imes used the slur loud enough for him to hear. Hawkins reports PTSD and workplace anxiety attributable to the conduct.
- Plaintiff withdrew claims for discrimination and retaliatory hostile work environment, leaving only a hostile work environment claim under Title VII and the PHRA; Defendants moved for summary judgment.
- The court denied summary judgment, finding genuine disputes of material fact—notably whether slurs were directed at Hawkins—and that at least some alleged uses of the homophobic slur could be severe enough to support a jury finding of a hostile work environment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hawkins suffered intentional discrimination (element 1) | Coworkers and supervisor used homophobic slurs and conduct directed at Hawkins and in his hearing that indicate animus toward his sexual orientation | Many incidents were not directed at Hawkins or were innocuous; thus no inference of intent | Denied summary judgment: factual disputes (notably two incidents where the slur was heard by Hawkins and alleged directed conduct) preclude judgment for defendants |
| Whether the conduct was severe or pervasive (element 2) | Repeated mocking, ostracism, and at least two uses of the slur (including by a supervisor) meet severe-or-pervasive standard | Incidents were infrequent, isolated, and not sufficiently severe to alter employment conditions | Denied summary judgment: court found the alleged use of the slur(s), particularly by a supervisor, could be sufficiently severe to survive summary judgment |
| Whether the conduct would detrimentally affect a reasonable person (objective prong) | The use of the homophobic slur and the aggregate conduct plausibly would affect a reasonable person similarly situated | The conduct would not have a detrimental effect on an objectively reasonable person | Denied summary judgment: a reasonable jury could find the conduct would detrimentally affect a reasonable person |
Key Cases Cited
- Meritor Sav. Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (Sup. Ct.) (hostile work environment framework)
- Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (Sup. Ct.) (test for abusive workplace)
- National R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (Sup. Ct.) (timeliness and hostile work environment context)
- Cardenas v. Massey, 269 F.3d 251 (3d Cir.) (review of the record as a whole for hostile environment claims)
- Caver v. City of Trenton, 420 F.3d 243 (3d Cir.) (limits on using comments directed at others to show intent)
- Castleberry v. STI Group, 863 F.3d 259 (3d Cir.) (single use of a slur by a supervisor can be sufficiently severe)
- Bostock v. Clayton County, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (Sup. Ct.) (Title VII prohibits discrimination on basis of sexual orientation)
- Williams v. Mercy Health Sys., 866 F. Supp. 2d 490 (E.D. Pa.) (use of racial epithet by supervisors can satisfy severe-or-pervasive requirement)