WIGGINS v. UNIVERSAL PROTECTION SERVICES, LLC
2:21-cv-00303
| E.D. Pa. | Feb 9, 2021Background
- Wiggins, a security guard, worked for Universal Protection Services at Episcopal Hospital (Aug 3–Sep 21, 2019) and later at Penn Presbyterian; he alleges repeated discrimination and harassment by site supervisor Lola Watson and wrongful termination by HR official Patrice O’Rourke.
- Allegations: Watson assigned male guards to more physically demanding standing posts and female guards to lighter posts; Wiggins requested Sundays off for Christian worship and alleges Watson harassed him for being Christian.
- After an incident with a coworker at Presbyterian and a subsequent termination by O’Rourke, Wiggins prevailed in a union grievance and was rehired and returned to Episcopal, where Watson allegedly blocked him from working because he wore a different Universal uniform; Wiggins claims this was pretextual and points to Watson wearing non‑uniform Muslim head coverings.
- Claims: Title VII disparate treatment and hostile‑work‑environment claims based on sex and religion against Universal, Watson, and O’Rourke; a state‑law tortious interference claim against Watson; he seeks compensatory and punitive damages.
- Procedural posture: Wiggins was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis; the court reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (dismissal for failure to state a claim).
- Disposition: The court dismissed with prejudice the Title VII claims against the individual defendants (Watson and O’Rourke) and Wiggins’s state‑law tortious‑interference claim against Watson; the Title VII claim against Universal survives and will be served.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether individual employees/supervisors can be liable under Title VII | Watson and O’Rourke engaged in discriminatory acts toward Wiggins, so they are proper Title VII defendants | Title VII does not authorize individual liability for supervisors/employees | Dismissed with prejudice — individuals cannot be sued under Title VII (§1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)) |
| Whether the state‑law tortious interference claim against Watson is plausible | Watson interfered with Wiggins’s rights under the collective bargaining agreement | Watson acted within scope of employment as Universal’s agent; Universal was a party to the CBA, so agent cannot be liable for interference with its own contract | Dismissed — no plausible tortious‑interference claim against Watson under Pennsylvania law |
| Whether the Title VII claim against Universal is sufficiently pleaded to proceed | Wiggins alleges disparate treatment and hostile environment based on sex and religion, with facts supporting discrimination in assignments, harassment, and adverse actions | (Implicit) Universal’s defenses not resolved at screening; court tests plausibility under Rule 12(b)(6)/§1915 | Allowed to proceed — Title VII claim against Universal survives initial screening and will be served |
Key Cases Cited
- Sheridan v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Co., 100 F.3d 1061 (3d Cir. 1996) (Title VII does not permit liability against individual supervisors)
- Glazer v. Chandler, 200 A.2d 416 (Pa. 1964) (a corporation cannot be liable for tortious interference with a contract to which it is a party)
- Chuy v. Philadelphia Eagles Football Club, 595 F.2d 1265 (3d Cir. 1979) (employer liable for torts of employees acting within scope of employment)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishes prima facie framework for employment discrimination claims)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility pleading standard governs dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6))
- Fowler v. UMPC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. 2009) (employment discrimination pleading requires facts raising reasonable expectation discovery will reveal necessary elements)