MERCADO v. SUGARHOUSE HSP GAMING, L.P.
2:18-cv-03641
E.D. Pa.Jul 23, 2019Background
- Mercado, a dealer at Sugarhouse Casino, became pregnant in May 2016, took leave, gave birth January 31, 2017, and returned to work March 22, 2017.
- While pregnant and after returning to work to breastfeed, Mercado requested nonsmoking assignments and frequent pump breaks; she used a locked lactation room (the “Pump Room”) several times per day.
- Mercado alleges repeated derogatory comments from supervisors and co-workers about her pregnancy and pumping (e.g., remarks about her breasts, milk production, being unfair to coworkers) and a confrontational incident with a security officer over the Pump Room key.
- Mercado reported incidents repeatedly to a shift manager (Robin Ryan) and to HR director Jay Tarbell; investigations and discipline (e.g., Roche’s warning) were uneven and at times scaled back; Ryan did not always notify HR promptly.
- Mercado resigned shortly after the September 2017 Pump Room/key incident and filed EEOC charges; she sued under Title VII, the PHRA, and the Philadelphia Fair Practices Ordinance alleging hostile work environment and constructive discharge (she abandoned retaliation and aiding/abetting claims and failure-to-promote theory).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mercado suffered a sex- or pregnancy-based hostile work environment | Mercado says repeated pregnancy- and lactation-related comments, access issues to Pump Room, and a physically threatening security incident created a hostile environment | Sugarhouse contends many incidents were isolated/offhand and not sex-based; disputes some facts | Court: Triable issue exists; viewing facts favorably to Mercado, comments and incidents could be severe/pervasive and sex-related — hostile environment claim survives summary judgment |
| Whether employer is entitled to Faragher–Ellerth affirmative defense | Mercado argues she reported multiple times and employer’s anti-harassment measures were ineffective or not followed | Sugarhouse argues it had policies and investigated; seeks Faragher–Ellerth defense as a matter of law | Court: Employer has not shown the defense as a matter of law — factual disputes about policy effectiveness and reporting preclude summary judgment |
| Whether Mercado was constructively discharged | Mercado contends intolerable conditions (harassment, Pump Room incidents) forced her resignation | Sugarhouse notes Mercado’s unemployment appeal cited lack of pumping time and argues hostile-environment claim insufficient | Court: Constructive discharge claim survives summary judgment because hostile-environment triable issues exist and credibility/factual determinations remain |
| Overall procedural disposition on summary judgment | N/A | N/A | Court grants summary judgment: Mercado abandoned several claims (retaliation, aiding/abetting, failure-to-promote, and claims against individual defendants). Court denies summary judgment as to hostile work environment and constructive discharge claims against Sugarhouse only. |
Key Cases Cited
- Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) (hostile-work-environment standards and employer affirmative defense articulated)
- Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998) (employer liability and Faragher–Ellerth defense explained)
- Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993) (severity/pervasiveness test for hostile work environment)
- Vance v. Ball State Univ., 570 U.S. 421 (2013) (distinguishes supervisor vs. coworker harassment rules)
- Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders, 542 U.S. 129 (2004) (constructive discharge and tangible employment action analysis)
- Young v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 575 U.S. 206 (2015) (pregnancy-related accommodation disputes can constitute sex discrimination under PDA)
- E.E.O.C. v. Houston Funding II, Ltd., 717 F.3d 425 (5th Cir. 2013) (lactation is a pregnancy-related condition under PDA)
- Hicks v. City of Tuscaloosa, Ala., 870 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 2017) (breastfeeding/lactation protected under PDA)
- Mandel v. M & Q Packaging Corp., 706 F.3d 157 (3d Cir. 2013) (elements of hostile work environment and constructive discharge in Third Circuit)
- Castleberry v. STI Grp., 863 F.3d 259 (3d Cir. 2017) (severity/pervasiveness: severity and pervasiveness are alternative pathways)
- Moody v. Atl. City Bd. of Educ., 870 F.3d 206 (3d Cir. 2017) (hostile work environment analysis and Faragher–Ellerth defense guidance)
- Minarsky v. Susquehanna Cty., 895 F.3d 303 (3d Cir. 2018) (reasonableness standard for employer/employee conduct under Faragher–Ellerth)