In Henrich v. Henkels & McCoy, Inc. et al, No. 20-6281, 2022 WL 3701969 (E.D.Pa. Aug. 26, 2022), the court held that plaintiff presented sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to infer that she was subjected to severe or pervasive gender discrimination that gave rise to a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
From the decision:
Plaintiff has presented substantial evidence that in response to complaints about gender discrimination allegedly experienced by her and other female employees, high-level company officials repeatedly threatened her continued employment and ultimately followed through on that threat. A reasonable jury may well find that such treatment would “unreasonably interfere[ ] with an employee’s work performance” and have a negative “effect on the employee’s psychological well-being,” both of which are relevant factors to determining whether a work environment was hostile.
Threatening Henrich’s employment in an attempt to prevent her from speaking about gender discrimination is not the only hostile behavior of which Plaintiff has presented evidence. To note a few, Plaintiff has presented undisputed deposition testimony that she attended a meeting in 2016 at which all the men present were called upon and none of the women. (MSJ Resp., Ex. 3, Henrich Dep. at 123.) Plaintiff has also presented deposition testimony that she was held to certain standards regarding department spending (id. at 225–63, 233) and mandatory field visits (id. at 243–46 ) that she believes her male colleagues were not. Finally, Plaintiff has presented deposition testimony that she was removed from her position as chairperson of the company’s Business Integrity Committee, of which she was the sole female member, shortly after she complained about gender discrimination in October 2017.1 (MSJ Resp., Ex. 2, Henkels Dep. at 137, 163–64, 169–70.)
Each of these episodes—the concrete facts of which Defendants do not dispute, though they assert that they were not related to Henrich’s gender—may not in and of themselves give rise to a reasonable inference of gender discrimination. However, “[a] hostile work environment claim ‘is composed of a series of separate acts that collectively constitute one “unlawful employment practice” ’and ‘cannot be said to occur on any particular day.’ ” Mandel, 706 F.3d at 165 (quoting Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 103 (2002)). Viewed in concert with the serious punishments Henrich received directly in response speaking about gender discrimination, a reasonable jury might find that these additional incidents were also linked to her gender.
[Cleaned up.]
The court, accordingly, denied defendants’ motion.