200 F. Supp. 3d 514
E.D. Pa.2016Background
- Winkler worked for Progressive from Jan 2012; promoted to morning manager; Cody Rhian began working at her branch in fall 2013.
- Over ~9 months Rhian made Winkler uncomfortable; on June 20, 2014 he placed folded dollar bills between her bra strap and bare skin while saying she should "dance for" the money.
- Winkler reported the incident up the chain; Rhian admitted the conduct, apologized, re-signed the harassment policy, was written up, and continued working near her that day.
- Winkler told management she felt unsafe; Progressive responded that Rhian was written up but did not follow up about her safety; she alleges constructive discharge.
- She exhausted administrative remedies (EEOC right-to-sue dated Nov 27, 2015), filed suit Feb 26, 2016; original complaint dismissed without prejudice for failure to respond, and she timely refiled on June 6, 2016 per the court’s order.
- Claims: Counts I–II (sex discrimination under Title VII and PHRA) and Counts III–IV (hostile work environment/sexual harassment under Title VII and PHRA).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of refiled complaint | Refiled complaint is timely because court expressly permitted refiling by June 7, 2016 | Refiled complaint is untimely; 90-day period after EEOC letter expired | Refiled complaint is timely—court’s conditional dismissal allowed refiling within the deadline provided |
| Hostile work environment (Title VII & PHRA) | Conduct (months of discomfort plus the June 20 assault) was severe, humiliating, and made workplace hostile; employer knew and responses were inadequate | Single incident; employer acted promptly (write-up, policy re-signature), so environment not sufficiently severe/pervasive and remedial action was adequate | Denied dismissal—plausible hostile work environment claim: physical, sexually charged conduct + prior complaints and allegedly inadequate remedial action suffice at pleading stage |
| Employer liability (respondeat superior) | Progressive knew or should have known and failed to take adequate remedial steps addressing Winkler’s safety concerns | Progressive promptly investigated and disciplined Rhian (write-up, policy re-sign) so no employer liability | Denied dismissal—plausible employer liability because alleged remedial measures were inadequate given continued proximity and failure to address safety concerns |
| Sex discrimination (disparate treatment / constructive discharge) | Failure to protect and alleged constructive discharge show adverse action tied to sex | No facts showing similarly situated males were treated better or any facts giving rise to inference of intentional discrimination | Granted dismissal with prejudice—pleading insufficient to show disparate treatment or facts permitting an inference of intentional sex-based discrimination |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. 2009) (two-step framework for evaluating pleadings)
- Mandel v. M & Q Packaging Corp., 706 F.3d 157 (3d Cir. 2013) (hostile work environment elements)
- Kunin v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 175 F.3d 289 (3d Cir. 1999) (employer’s duty to take prompt remedial action)
- Knabe v. Boury Corp., 114 F.3d 407 (3d Cir. 1997) (adequacy of remedial response for employer liability)
- Brennan v. Kulick, 407 F.3d 603 (3d Cir. 2005) (effect of dismissal without prejudice on refiling/tolling)