A hostile work environment is one that is “permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment.”
How later courts described this case
- A hostile work environment is one that is “permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
BRION A. SCUDDER, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 21-886
) Judge Cathy Bissoon
INDIANA UNIVERSITY OF )
PENNSYLVANIA., et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
I. MEMORANDUM
For the reasons that follow, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 18) will be granted in
part and denied in part.
Defendants have not demonstrated entitlement to dismissal of the discrimination and the
retaliation claims. At this juncture, Plaintiff need only give Defendants fair notice of these
claims and “raise the reasonable expectation that discovery will uncover evidence of
discriminatory motive.” Gibbs v. City of Pittsburgh, 989 F.3d 226, 230 (3d Cir. 2021) (quoting
Martinez v. UPMC Susquehanna, 986 F.3d 261, 267 (3d Cir. 2021)). He has done so for his
reverse discrimination claim. See Am. Compl. (Doc. 17) ¶¶ 64–65 (“Plaintiff and the other law
faculty retrenched from the department were white male faculty in a department that is
predominately of Indian descent. At least one of the faculty not retrenched in this department
was a person with less seniority and was also of Indian descent.”)
Similarly, Plaintiff plausibly has alleged that he was retrenched in retaliation for his
previous lawsuit. Contrary to Defendants’ assertion, Plaintiff has done more than “merely
plead[] that he was retrenched shortly after settling” that lawsuit. Defs.’ Br. (Doc. 19) at 5. As
alleged, unbeknownst to Plaintiff, his retrenchment was being considered by Defendants even as
the parties engaged in settlement negotiations. Am. Compl. ¶ 40. This allegation, which must be
accepted as true, certainly raises suspicions. While it is true that to prevail on the retaliation
claim, Plaintiff must establish that his “protected activity was a but-for cause of the alleged
adverse action,” Univ. of Texas Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338, 362 (2013), “proving
but-for causation as part of [his] ultimate burden of persuasion comes later, and not at the
motion-to-dismiss stage.” Carvalho-Grevious v. Delaware State Univ., 851 F.3d 249, 257
(3d Cir. 2017).
Plaintiff’s remaining claims do not survive dismissal. The hostile work environment
claim is untenable because it is premised on incidents from the prior lawsuit which was
dismissed with prejudice. To the extent Plaintiff attempts to anchor this claim on being “denied
access to his personnel file to confirm aspects of the settlement,” Pl.’s Br. (Doc. 21) at 8, such
actions do not fit the bill. See Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 116 (2002)
(A hostile work environment is one that is “permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule,
and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s
employment and create an abusive working environment.”); Pitzer v. Ringgold Area Sch. Dist.,
No. CIV. 10-1564, 2012 WL 6052014, at *1 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 5, 2012) (explaining that hostile
working environment “is a term of art, and it should not be confused or conflated with other
theories of employment discrimination/retaliation.”).
Dismissal of the breach of contract claim also is warranted as the Court lacks jurisdiction
to adjudicate this claim.1 See Nahouraii v. Indiana Univ. of Pennsylvania, No. 2:11-CV-00973,
2015 WL 401422, at *3 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 28, 2015) (“[B]ecause of Pennsylvania’s limited waiver
1 This claim is dismissed without prejudice.
of immunity, claims alleging a breach of a contract involving the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania may only be brought before the Pennsylvania Board of Claims.”). Finally, Plaintiff
consents to the dismissal of the fraudulent misrepresentation claim. Pl.’s Br. at 10.
Consistent with the foregoing, the Court hereby enters the following:
II. ORDER
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 18) is DENIED as to the discrimination and the
retaliation claims and GRANTED as to the remaining claims.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
June 27, 2022 s/Cathy Bissoon
Cathy Bissoon
United States District Judge
cc (via ECF email notification):
All Counsel of Record