Bonson v. Hanover Foods Corp.

451 F.Supp.3d 345

Tyler BONSON, Plaintiff,

v.HANOVER FOODS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.

Civil No. 1:19-CV-54

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania.

Signed April 1, 2020

Christopher J. DelGaizo, Derek Smith Law Group, PLLC, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiff.

Adam Lawrence Santucci, Langdon T. Ramsburg, McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC, Harrisburg, PA, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Martin C. Carlson, United States Magistrate Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

This case presents issues on the cutting edge of employment discrimination law relating to the extent to which federal law protects workers from acts of workplace discrimination based upon gender identification, perceived gender identification or hostility to an employee's failure to abide the employer's stereotypical views of gender roles. While the legal benchmarks which govern such claims are in flux, as discussed below we find that under current prevailing legal standards in this circuit disputed issues of fact regarding the conduct and motivation of the parties preclude summary judgment in this case.

Pending before the court is the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff, Tyler Bonson, brought this action against his former employer, Hanover Foods Corporation ("Hanover") and two supervisory employees, alleging that he was discriminated against, subjected to a hostile work environment, and eventually terminated from his employment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, and the related provisions of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act ("PHRA"), 43 Pa. Cons. Stat. §§ 951 et seq. Specifically, Bonson alleges that he was subjected to constant harassment from his supervisors based upon a stereotypical perception of his sexuality, and that this discriminatory sexual stereotyping was the reason he was terminated rather than an alleged violation of company policy.

For their part, the defendants contend that Bonson was not discriminated against or subjected to a hostile work environment, and that he was terminated for a violation of Hanover's single-absence attendance policy rather than for discriminatory reasons. However, after consideration, we find that the record is replete with disputes of material fact that preclude the entry of summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Accordingly, for the following reasons, we will deny the defendants’ motion.

II. BACKGROUND

Tyler Bonson was employed by Hanover from 2008 until he was terminated in 2017, holding positions such as Inspector and Freezer Operator. (Doc. 1, ¶ 9; Doc. 20-3, at 128). Page Gaddis, the individual defendant,¹ was one of Bonson's supervisors, as well as the Human Resources representative for Hanover. (Doc. 1, ¶ 11). According to Bonson, during his employment with Hanover, Gaddis harassed him by constantly calling him derogatory names such as "queer," "fag," and "fairy," due to the way Bonson kept himself in comparison to the other employees at Hanover. (Doc. 20-3, at 133). Gaddis also told other employees that the plaintiff was gay and told Bonson that his car looked like "something a queer would drive." (Id., at 124). Although Bonson never made a formal complaint to HR, given that Gaddis was the HR representative, he did tell Gaddis on numerous occasions to stop calling him names and to leave him alone. (Id., at 121-24, 133-36).

He also testified that one of his supervisors, Robert Smoyer, called him these names as well, and that he felt he couldn't report the behavior because these individuals were his supervisors. (Id., at 133, 140). For their part, the defendants dispute that Gaddis and Smoyer harassed the plaintiff in this way. To the contrary, Gaddis stated that he never called Bonson any of these names or harassed him in any way. (Id., at 29). Robert Smoyer, Jr. also testified that he didn't call Bonson names and never heard Gaddis call Bonson or anyone else by these names. (Id., at 62). Thus, at the outset, there is a sharply defined dispute of facts between the parties regarding whether Bonson was subjected to a series of derogatory gender identification stereotypes by supervisory and HR personnel.

On September 4, 2017, Labor Day, Bonson did not show up for work. (Id., at 144). According to Bonson, he was told by Smoyer that work on that day was discretionary and that Bonson could work if he needed the hours. (Id., at 143). Bonson claims that he informed Smoyer on September 1 that he would not be working on September 4. (Id. ) However, Gaddis and Smoyer stated that Bonson did not actually inform anyone that he would be absent on Labor Day, thus defining another material factual dispute in this case. (Id., at 35, 57). The next day, September 5, 2017, Gaddis terminated Bonson's employment. (Doc. 1, ¶ 22). Gaddis claimed that the termination was warranted under Hanover's one-time, no call/no show absence policy, wherein an employee could be terminated for failing to show up for work on one occasion without calling and informing a supervisor of their absence. (Doc. 20-3, at 27, 251). Bonson claims that on the day he was terminated, as well as three weeks before his termination, Gaddis again harassed him and called him derogatory names and Bonson told him to stop. (Id., at 124, 137, 144).

The following day, Bonson filed a grievance with the workers’ union concerning his termination. (Id., at 157). Bonson did not mention Gaddis’ harassment in his grievance. (Id., at 157-58). His grievance was denied by Gaddis at the initial stage, and the grievance ultimately went to arbitration. (Id., at 251). Bonson claimed that he mentioned Gaddis’ behavior toward him at the arbitration but it was not considered. (Id., at 158).

Thus, after filing a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission ("PHRC"), Bonson received his Right-to-Sue letter and filed the complaint in the instant action on January 9, 2019. (Doc. 1). In his complaint, Bonson asserted claims of discrimination and disparate treatment, hostile work environment, and retaliation in violation of Title VII and the PHRA against Hanover, Smoyer, and Gaddis. (Id. ) Thereafter, Bonson stipulated to dismissal of the individual claims against Smoyer. (Doc. 14). Thus, the remaining claims in this case are discrimination, harassment, and retaliation against Hanover and Gaddis.

On January 31, 2020, the defendants filed the instant motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 17). This motion raises a threshold legal issue regarding the scope of the workplace protections afforded under federal law since the defendants assert that Bonson cannot show that he was part of a protected class, and thus cannot prevail on his Title VII and PHRA claims. Moreover, they claim that even if Bonson was part of a protected class, he cannot show that his termination was for a discriminatory reason, rather than a violation of company policy. However, after a review of the record, we find that Bonson's claims fall within the reach of federal law and this case is marked by two starkly contrasting factual narratives that will likely turn on a credibility assessment of the parties. Accordingly, because that credibility assessment is reserved for a jury rather than the Court, we will deny the instant motion for summary judgment.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The defendants have moved for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Summary judgment is appropriate "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). In evaluating a motion for summary judgment, a court must determine "whether the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions on file, and affidavits show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and whether the moving party is therefore entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Macfarlan v. Ivy Hill SNF, LLC, 675 F.3d 266, 271 (3d Cir. 2012) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986) ). A disputed issue is only "genuine" if there is a sufficient evidentiary basis upon which a reasonable factfinder could find for the non-moving party. Kaucher v. Cnty. of Bucks, 455 F.3d 418, 423 (3d Cir. 2006) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) ). A factual dispute is "material" only if it could affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law. Doe v. Luzerne Cnty., 660 F.3d 169, 175 (3d Cir. 2011) (citing Gray v. York Papers, Inc., 957 F.2d 1070, 1078 (3d Cir. 1992) ). The Court is not tasked with resolving disputed issues of fact, but only with determining whether there exist any factual issues that must be tried. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247-49, 106 S.Ct. 2505.

In considering a motion for summary judgment, a court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Macfarlan, 675 F.3d at 271 ; Bouriez v. Carnegie Mellon Univ., 585 F.3d 765, 770 (3d Cir. 2009). Where there exist factual issues that cannot be resolved without a credibility determination, the court must credit the non-moving party's evidence over that presented by the moving party. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505. However, if there is no factual issue presented, and if only one reasonable conclusion could arise from the record with respect to the potential outcome under the governing law, the court must award summary judgment in favor of the moving party. Id. at 250, 106 S.Ct. 2505.

The court must review the entire record, but in doing so must take care to "disregard all evidence favorable to the moving party that the jury is not required to believe." Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, 530 U.S. 133, 150-51, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000). The task for the court is to examine "whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to the jury or whether it is so...