Mandel v. M&Q Packaging Corp.
3:09-cv-00042
M.D. Penn.May 7, 2013Background
- Mandel filed Title VII and PHRA claims and an IIED claim against M&Q; Third Circuit remanded on hostile environment/constructive discharge for continuing violation scope.
- Mandel worked at M&Q 1996–2007, resigning May 23, 2007; EEOC charge filed Dec 14, 2007; complaint filed Jan 9, 2009.
- Initial summary judgment (2011) dismissed PHRA/Title VII pre-11/17/2006 claims as time-barred and granted on hostile environment/constructive discharge on the remaining incidents.
- Third Circuit (Jan 14, 2013) reversed some aspects, remanding for continued consideration of continuing violation scope; held permanency not required.
- Court analyzes continuing violation factors (subject matter/frequency) and EEOC-charge incidents to determine if the hostile environment claim survives; laches defense also addressed.
- Court denies summary judgment on hostile environment and constructive discharge; laches defense rejected; both issues proceed to trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether continuing violation applies to Mandel's hostile environment claim. | Mandel can rely on continuing violation beyond pre-2006 incidents. | Only post-period incidents and same-actor/hiatus limits apply. | Continuing violation applies; scope expands beyond pre-2006 if conditions support ongoing pattern. |
| What incidents are part of the continuing violation. | All incidents in Complaint/EEOC Charge should be included. | Limit to post-2006 incidents by Bachert/Conway/Rubenstein; exclude pre-2006 harms. | All incidents from Complaint/EEOC Charge included except the precluded 2006 failure-to-promote allegation. |
| Whether the harassment was severe or pervasive to support a hostile environment. | Harassment was frequent, severe, and pervasive. | Harassment must be severe/pervasive under totality of circumstances. | Evidence supports severe/pervasive conduct; jury could find hostile environment. |
| Whether Mandel's hostile environment gives rise to employer liability (supervisor vs coworker). | Supervisory conduct by management could trigger vicarious liability. | Liability depends on whether harasser is supervisor or coworker and applicable defense. | Respondeat superior liability supports finding of liability; whether supervisor status is established remains from evidence. |
| Whether Mandel's resignation constitutes a constructive discharge. | Harassment made employment intolerable, forcing resignation. | No constructive discharge without tangible adverse action; gaps remain. | Genuine issue of material fact on constructiveness; denial of summary judgment continues. |
Key Cases Cited
- Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 447 U.S. 57 (U.S. 1986) (establishes standard for hostile work environment)
- Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (U.S. 1998) (employer liability defenses for supervisor harassment)
- Ellerth v. Burlington Industries, 524 U.S. 742 (U.S. 1998) (affirmative defense for employer when no tangible employment action)
- Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (U.S. 1993) (totality-of-the-circumstances standard for hostile environment)
- Morgan v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., 536 U.S. 101 (U.S. 2002) (continuing violation theory for hostile environment; time-bar doctrine)
- Huston v. Procter & Gamble Paper Prods. Corp., 568 F.3d 100 (3d Cir. 2009) (defines supervisor vs coworker liability distinctions)