McSparran v. Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania
1:13-cv-01932
M.D. Penn.Apr 8, 2014Background
- Patricia McSparran, a longtime DEP engineer, was Director of the Bureau of Waterways Engineering and Wetlands and alleges she was paid less, harassed, and then terminated because of her sex.
- She complained internally about pay disparities versus male bureau directors and received a partial (two-step) exceptional pay increase that she says did not cure the disparity.
- McSparran alleges sexual harassment and favoritism by male supervisor John Hines (unwelcome touching, leering, advances) and extensive exclusion, preferential treatment of men, and defamatory statements by her later supervisor Kelly Heffner (female) and Jeffrey Logan (male), who participated in her termination.
- After termination on April 5, 2013, she was replaced by Jeffrey Means, a male whom she alleges was less qualified and who was appointed without a posted competitive search.
- Procedurally: Defendants moved to dismiss McSparran’s amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6). Court dismissed some claims and allowed others to proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unequal pay (Title VII/PHRA/§1983 equal protection) | McSparran alleges similarly situated male bureau directors were paid more despite comparable duties and sometimes less seniority. | Defendants say comparator allegations are too conclusory, seniority may explain differences, and a prior two-step raise undercuts discrimination. | Allowed to proceed: comparator allegations and context were sufficient at pleading stage to state a plausible unequal-pay claim. |
| Discharge (sex-based termination/quid pro quo) | Heffner orchestrated McSparran’s firing and replaced her with a less qualified male (Means); alleges pattern of sexual favoritism. | Defendants note Heffner is female and another woman briefly held a bureau-director role, arguing these facts undermine a sex-based motive. | Allowed to proceed: allegations that Heffner favored males and replaced McSparran with a less-qualified man suffice to state a plausible discharge claim. |
| Hostile work environment — Hines (sexual harassment) | McSparran alleges unwelcome touching, leering, advances by Hines while he supervised her (2009–Jan 2011). | Defendants argue the hostile-work-environment claim is time-barred under Title VII/PHRA/§1983 limitations. | Dismissed with prejudice as time-barred (EEOC charge filed beyond statutory filing window). |
| Hostile work environment — Heffner (exclusion/favoritism) | Heffner routinely excluded McSparran from meetings, communications, task forces, and gave men preferential treatment, creating a hostile environment. | Defendants contend the alleged conduct is managerial decision-making and not sufficiently severe or pervasive to state a Title VII hostile-work-environment claim. | Dismissed with prejudice: allegations do not meet the severe-or-pervasive standard. |
| Defamation (state law) | McSparran alleges Heffner published false statements about her performance broadly (beyond supervisors) and Logan republished them, causing reputational harm and job loss. | Defendants argue statements were non-defamatory workplace evaluations, limited to interested parties, or privileged. | Survives motion to dismiss: complaint plausibly alleges publication to third parties without legitimate interest and reputational harm; privilege and limited-audience defenses rejected at pleading stage. |
Key Cases Cited
- Byers v. Intuit, Inc., 600 F.3d 286 (3d Cir. 2010) (pleading standard—accept factual allegations as true on Rule 12(b)(6))
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must plead facts making claim plausible)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (labels and conclusions insufficient; plausibility standard applies)
- Connelly v. Steel Valley Sch. Dist., 706 F.3d 209 (3d Cir. 2013) (three-step Iqbal/Twombly pleading analysis)
- Mandel v. M&Q Packaging Corp., 706 F.3d 157 (3d Cir. 2013) (elements for Title VII disparate-treatment and hostile-work-environment claims)
- Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. 2009) (Twombly/Iqbal pleading standard applies to employment discrimination claims)