Mandel v. M & Q Packaging Corp.
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 864
| 3rd Cir. | 2013Background
- Mandel was hired by M&Q Packaging in 1996 as Inside Sales/Customer Relations Coordinator.
- She alleges years of gender-based harassment and discrimination by male managers and owners, including derogatory remarks and unequal treatment.
- She resigned on May 23, 2007 after a meeting where Bachert insulted her, later accepting a job with Yuengling.
- Her resignation letter referenced the Employee Handbook's Equal Employment Opportunity Policy and Open Door policy, but she claimed discomfort reporting harassment.
- Mandel filed EEOC questionnaires in 2007 and a complaint in 2009 alleging Title VII, PHRA, and IIED claims; the district court dismissed portions and granted summary judgment in M&Q's favor, leading to this appeal.
- The court holds that retaliation claims were exhausted and PHRA claims are time-barred, but reverses on Title VII hostile environment and constructive discharge claims and remands for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mandel exhausted retaliation claims and scope of EEOC charge | Mandel argues the charge should be liberally construed to include retaliation | M&Q contends retaliation was not in the EEOC charge and thus not exhausted | Retaliation claims are exhausted and dismissed |
| Whether PHRA claims are time-barred | PHRA claims should be timely due to EEOC dual filing and deferral state rules | PHRA timing runs from state filing; EEOC questionnaire alone is insufficient | PHRA claims time-barred; affirmed summary judgment on PHRA claims |
| Whether Title VII continuing violation supports hostile environment | A continuing pattern of harassment within a hostile environment should be timely-cast | Discretionary continuation not properly considered under pre-Morgan framework | Hostile environment claim reversed and remanded to determine scope and continuing violation |
| Whether constructive discharge exists given hostile environment | Resignation due to intolerable conditions shows constructive discharge | District Court properly linked constructive discharge to hostile environment | Remanded to reassess constructively discharged claim after hostile environment analysis |
| Whether sex discrimination claim based on wages and benefits survives | Mandel suffered lower pay and fewer vacation opportunities than a similar male employee | No prima facie showing due to non-similar job/education differences | Summary judgment affirmed on sex discrimination claim |
Key Cases Cited
- National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (U.S. 2002) (discrete acts not actionable if time-barred; continuing violations allowed in hostile environment)
- West v. Philadelphia Elec. Co., 45 F.3d 744 (3d Cir. 1995) ( Berry factors for continuing violations (subject matter, frequency, permanency))
- Rush v. Scott Specialty Gases, Inc., 113 F.3d 476 (3d Cir. 1997) ( Berry factors; perpetuity of discrimination events)
- Berry v. Board of Supervisors, 715 F.2d 971 (5th Cir. 1983) (non-exhaustive factors for continuing violations (subject matter, frequency, permanency))
- Antol v. Perry, 82 F.3d 1291 (3d Cir. 1996) (scope of EEOC investigation and discovery implications)