Female Employee’s Discrimination Claim Sent to Trial

Takeaway: Employers must have uniform standards for promoting and compensating employees irrespective of gender and other protected traits.

After a female employee alleged that her employer promoted men to plant manager more readily than her and started them at higher salaries, a Pennsylvania federal district court ruled that the employee could take her discrimination claim to trial.

Mickey Truck Bodies hired the plaintiff as an office administrator for its Berwick plant in September 2017 at $16 an hour based on her experience.

In September 2017, the company also hired a man to be the Berwick plant manager at a salary of $75,000. He had an associate degree, five years of manufacturing experience, and experience as a production supervisor. Yet, the company swiftly terminated him on Oct. 3, 2017.

It then hired another man for the same role at a salary of $85,000. He had two advanced degrees, two years of service as a company commander in the U.S. Army Reserves, and experience as a production supervisor. In February 2018, the company fired him for poor performance.

That same month, the plaintiff was promoted to a salaried supervisor role for the Berwick plant paying $65,000 per year. That amount put her in the pay range of a production supervisor. She asserted that the company’s HR director offered her the plant manager position and, until May 2018, she ran the plant with help from company headquarters.

The company then hired another male manager at a $70,000 salary. He had previous experience as a production supervisor, and that’s the role his offer letter designated him as, but the Berwick team was told he was in charge. The company’s director of manufacturing operations required the plaintiff to train him and report to him. In September 2018, however, the director fired him and put her back in charge.

By January 2019, the plaintiff assumed the role of Berwick plant supervisor, and in April 2019, she received a standard 1.5 percent raise. In July 2019, the company hired another man as plant manager at a $105,000 salary. He had two advanced degrees, over 20 years of military service, and project engineering experience. In September 2019, the company terminated the plaintiff by eliminating her position.

The plaintiff claimed that she did not receive regular performance reviews or salary increases. The company had various explanations for this but could not explain the lack of a review in February 2019.

The plaintiff alleged that she was denied assistance that male plant managers received. For example, upon hire, one male plant manager received a laptop, but she did not receive one until after his termination. Male plant managers immediately attended in-person training at the company headquarters, while she had to wait five months to do so. Finally, she only had part-time administrative assistance, no HR or quality control systems, and no leadman for several months.

The plaintiff also claimed that upper management treated her poorly and harassed her. Among her claims: the CEO canceled a business lunch with her despite meeting with male managers, the director of manufacturing operations told her that she “mommies and babies” shop employees and instructed her to avoid socializing with nonmanagers, an HR director told her that it was unheard of to have a woman out on the shop floor, and a plant manager yelled at her about various issues but never yelled at male employees.

The plaintiff sued the company in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania for sex discrimination and a hostile work environment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The company moved for summary judgment on both claims.

The court evaluated the plaintiff's sexual harassment claim and determined that the offensive conduct she alleged did not meet the level of severity or pervasiveness required by Title VII.

The court found that the disparate treatment claim was a closer issue. It found that the plaintiff stated a prima facie case of discrimination, but that the company provided a nondiscriminatory reason for its compensation structure based on her lack of an advanced degree and production supervisor experience. It nevertheless found that, while there was not much evidence of discriminatory intent, there was enough to defer to the plaintiff and deny summary judgment on her sex discrimination claim. It thus allowed her claim to proceed to trial.

Hricenak v. Mickey Truck Bodies, M.D. Pa., No. 4:21-CV-00694 (April 12, 2024).

Jeffrey Rhodes is an attorney with McInroy, Rigby & Rhodes LLP in Arlington, Va.