Clouser v. Hanover Foods Corp.

NICHOLAS CLOUSER, Plaintiff v. HANOVER FOODS CORPORATION and STEPHANIE KLEINFELTER, ESQUIRE, Defendants

Civil Action No. 1:21-CV-1148

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

May 2, 2022

MEMORANDUM

Christopher C. Conner United States District Judge.

Plaintiff Nicholas Clouser alleges 14 statutory claims against his former employers, Hanover Foods Corporation and its general counsel Stephanie Kleinfelter, Esquire pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.; the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.; the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq.; and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (“PHRA”), 43 PA. STAT. AND CONS Stat. Ann. § 951 et seq. Clouser also brings two common-law claims for wrongful discharge in violation of Pennsylvania public policy. Hanover and Kleinfelter (collectively “defendants”) move to dismiss 13 of the 16 claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). We will grant in part and deny in part the motion.

I. Factual Background & Procedural History

Clouser worked for Hanover from March 2017 through March 2021 in several different positions, including human resource assistant, human resource representative, and digital marketing administrator. (See Doc. 1 ¶ 6). Kleinfelter acted as Hanover's general counsel in the human resources department and made disciplinary and termination decisions regarding Hanover employees, including Clouser. (See Id. ¶ 4).

According to the complaint, Clouser suffers from anxiety and depression. (See id. ¶ 7). During an October 2020 meeting, Clouser alleges he notified his supervisor and vice president of operations, James Osborn, of his diagnoses. (See id.) He also notified Hanover's chief executive officer Jeff Warehime and a vice president of retail sales and marketing Russell Smith. (See id.) Over the next several weeks, Clouser experienced information technology (“IT”) issues at work. (See id. ¶ 8). On October 26, he “lost his domain administration access.” (See id.) After inquiring into the reason for his loss of access, Clouser learned he had been mistakenly removed as an administrator because he no longer worked in human resources. (See id. ¶¶ 9-10). Clouser's access was restored two days later. (See Id. ¶ 12). On November 15, Clouser and a systems administrator named Mike Frazier performed IT maintenance. (See id. ¶¶ 14-16; Doc. 1-7). The pair encountered some trouble during the maintenance, and the complaint alleges Frazier attempted to blame Clouser for these IT problems. (See id. ¶¶ 16-18).

On November 20, 2020, Clouser attended a meeting with Osborn and Kleinfelter. (See id. ¶ 20). During the meeting, Osborn and Kleinfelter placed Clouser on a performance improvement plan (“PIP”) for “not communicating with Mr. Osborn that [Clouser] would be helping with IT projects.” (See id. ¶ 21). They also issued Clouser a three-day unpaid suspension to begin the following week. (See Id. ¶ 22). They further informed Clouser he would be receiving a new job title and reporting to James Hernandez, Director of IT. (See id. ¶¶ 8, 21).

Following the meeting, Osborn purportedly informed Clouser that Kleinfelter “pushed” to have Clouser suspended. (See id. ¶ 23). Clouser also alleges that news of the unpaid suspension exacerbated his anxiety and depression, and that he “notified his supervisors of the same.” (See id. ¶ 22). Clouser sent several emails after the meeting to Osborn, Kleinfelter, and Warehime, believing he had become “a scape[]goat for any negative issues” and that Hanover's IT department “had become a hostile work environment.” (See id. ¶ 24).

Clouser alleges he took several actions during his November 2020 suspension. He contacted the Department of Labor (“DOL”) about the fact that his suspension was unpaid. (See id. ¶ 25). Clouser avers DOL “provided him with documentation” stating that Hanover was “not permitted to withhold pay” from him. (See id.) Clouser also contacted the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) to file a charge about “discrimination and hostile work environment, ” although the complaint does not provide further details about this charge. (See id. ¶ 26). Additionally, Clouser alleges he filed a complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) to inform the agency of “unsafe conditions” in four Hanover plants in Pennsylvania and spoke with a Hanover safety manager about the same. (See id. ¶¶ 26-27).

According to the complaint, Clouser attended another meeting with Osborn and Kleinfelter when he returned to work on December 4, 2020. (See id. ¶ 28).

Clouser allegedly “raised his former complaints . . . regarding a hostile environment, ” and stated the timing of his suspension was “suspicious” and had “caused him further anxiety.” (See id.) Clouser also complained to Kleinfelter about being “ridiculed due to his base of knowledge regarding various IT issues, ” and provided her with information and paperwork from DOL about his unpaid suspension. (See Id. ¶ 32). Clouser alleges Kleinfelter “grabbed the paper out of [his] hand” and stated, “I should fire you; you're getting off pretty lucky and if I can find a way to fire you I will.” (See id.)

Clouser then began his new job duties in the IT department, working under Hernandez and focusing on creating a new website. (See id. ¶ 34). Clouser allegedly informed Hernandez and Osborn he was worried about getting “thr[own] under the bus” in his new position. (See id.) The complaint details several meetings during December 2020 and January 2021 in which Clouser allegedly perceived “a hostile situation and environment, ” little support or attention from his superiors, and his exclusion from “important conversations” that could affect his job. (See id. ¶¶ 36-40). On January 12, Osborn emailed Clouser with several tasks he wanted Clouser to prioritize. (See id. ¶ 41). Clouser “responded with a review of the IT department[']s poor communication, hostile work environment, and poor leadership.” (See id.) Clouser avers that after he sent this email, he was “told to just shut up and do his job.” (See id.)

The complaint alleges that on January 15, 2021, Clouser received approval from Hernandez to work from home part-time. (See id. ¶ 42). Clouser allegedly needed to work from home “due to childcare needs and because of his anxiety.” (See id.) The following week, Clouser attended a meeting to follow up on his PIP with Hernandez, Osborn, and director of human resources Chuck Muzzy. (See Id. ¶ 43). Clouser avers he “met all expectations of work, ” but that his January 12 email to Osborn about the IT department was also a point of discussion. (See id.)

Clouser continued working from home part-time without incident for several weeks. (See Id. ¶ 44). On February 9, 2021, Clouser informed Hernandez he still needed to work from home “until he could find a daycare solution, ” and also “raised the issue of stress and anxiety . . . due to the prior hostilities at work.” (See id.) Hernandez allegedly responded that Clouser's working from home “was not a problem, ” and reiterated this sentiment to Clouser via telephone on February 12, 2021. (See id. ¶¶ 44-45). The complaint also avers that Ellen Snyder, a female coworker in his department, was permitted to work from home for 8-10 months due to concerns about the COVID-19 epidemic and her ill husband. (See id. ¶ 60). However, Hernandez emailed Clouser on February 24, 2021, stating he believed Clouser's work-from-home arrangement “was a temporary solution, ” and noted he had not informed anyone that Clouser was working remotely. (See id. ¶¶ 46-47). Clouser was informed he needed to return to the office by the following Monday, March 1, 2021. (See id. ¶ 48). He purportedly responded by requesting leave pursuant to the FMLA “due to his health and the family crisis, ” but neither Hernandez nor anyone else in Hanover's leadership provided him with any FMLA paperwork. (See id.)

On Friday, February 26, Clouser received an email with an attached letter from Muzzy titled: “Unpaid Leave of Absence - March 1st through March 5 th Return to Work - March 8th.” (See Id. ¶ 49; Doc. 1-16). The email stated Clouser had no paid time off available to use, and that “there [was] no leave to which [Clouser was] entitled under this set of circumstances.” (See Doc. 1-16 at 3). However, the letter offered Clouser one week of unpaid leave “to address [his] childcare situation, ” and noted he would be required to return to the office on March 8, 2021, or face disciplinary action, including discharge. (See id. at 3; Doc. 1 ¶ 49). Clouser allegedly responded by requesting FMLA paperwork a second time and newly requesting worker's compensation for a carpal tunnel injury that he “had been complaining to HR about since 2019.” (See id. ¶ 50). He later informed Hanover that he “did not wish to take unpaid leave” because he was able to work from home. (See id. ¶ 51).

At some point between February 26 and March 8, Clouser's work email account was allegedly suspended. (See id. ¶ 51). Clouser avers he continued to communicate with Hanover about his worker's compensation claim through his personal email account. (See id.) On March 8, (the date Clouser was due back in the office), he emailed Osborn Hernandez, Smith, and Muzzy around 6:15 a.m. to inform them he would be taking the day off because he was unable to obtain childcare and had a worker's compensation appointment that afternoon. (See Id. ¶ 52). Clouser alleges he received no response. (See id.) Around 4:00 p.m., Clouser received a call from Osborn, Hernandez, and Muzzy, who informed him that due to his absence from work, Hanover was terminating his employment. (See Id. ¶¶ 5455). Clouser avers his...