Opinion
Civil Action No. 02-CV-07533
May 25, 2004
ORDER
NOW, this 25th day of May, 2004, upon consideration of the Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment on Behalf of Defendant Levitz Home Furnishings, Inc., filed September 15, 2003; upon consideration of Plaintiff's Answer to Motion for Summary Judgment filed September 29, 2003; upon consideration of the briefs of the parties; after oral argument conducted before the undersigned November 6, 2003; and for the reasons articulated herein,_______
IT IS ORDERED that defendant's motion for summary judgment is denied.
Plaintiff's Complaint asserts five causes of action. Count I avers violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e) to 2000(e)-17, alleging a sexually hostile work environment, retaliation and gender based discrimination. Count II alleges a sexually hostile work environment, retaliation and gender based discrimination in violation of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act ("PHRA"), Act of October 27, 1955, P.L. 744, No. 222, §§ 1-13, as amended, 43 P.S. §§ 951-963. Count III alleges wrongful discharge in retaliation for filing a worker's compensation claim. Count IV alleges negligent supervision of two co-workers pursuant to Pennsylvania law. Finally, Count V alleges negligent retention of two co-workers in violation of Pennsylvania law.
Plaintiff Steven D. Kocsis was a sales associate at the Allentown, Pennsylvania furniture store of defendant Levitz Home Furnishings, Inc. Plaintiff alleges that he was one of the top sales producers in the company. On May 5, 2001 defendant discharged plaintiff for an alleged fight with a co-worker. Five months earlier plaintiff had been suspended for a physical altercation with another employee.
In considering a motion for summary judgment, the court must determine whether the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c);Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Federal Home Mortgage Corporation v. Scottsdale Insurance Company, 316 F.3d 431, 433 2003). Only facts that may affect the outcome of a case are Moreover, all reasonable inferences from the record are drawn in non-movant. Anderson, supra.
Although the movant has the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of genuine issues of material fact, the non-movant must then establish the existence of each element on which it bears the burden of proof.See Watson v. Eastman Kodak Company, 235 F.3d 851, 858 (3d Cir. 2000). A plaintiff cannot avert summary judgment with speculation or by resting on the allegations in his pleadings, but rather must present competent evidence from which a jury could reasonably find in his favor.Ridgewood Board of Education v. N.E. for M.E., 172 F.3d 238, 252 (3d Cir. 1999); Woods v. Bentsen, 889 F. Supp. 179, 184 (E.D. Pa. 1995).
A review of the record in this matter, in the light most favorable to plaintiff as the non-moving party, as we are required to do, reveals several genuine issues of fact which preclude entry of summary judgment for defendant. These genuine issues of fact include, but are not limited to: (1) the underlying facts regarding the altercations between plaintiff and Patrick Dougherty; (2) the circumstances surrounding the alleged fight between plaintiff and Pedro Garcia; (3) the actual reason for defendant terminating plaintiff's employment; (4) whether the alleged discrimination by Mr. Budusky was "because of" plaintiff's gender; (5) whether the incidents relating to Mr. Dougherty and Mr. Garcia occurred because of work-related or non-work-related personal animus against plaintiff; (6) whether the alleged workplace taunting by plaintiff's co-workers was motivated by a belief that plaintiff did not conform to the stereotypes of his gender; (7) whether the conduct alleged by plaintiff would have affected a reasonable person of plaintiff's gender; (8) whether defendant retaliated against plaintiff for filing a workmens' compensation claim or a claim for discrimination with the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission; and (9) whether defendant would have discharged plaintiff for allegedly lying on his employment application. All of these issues, are material disputes to plaintiff's claims for a sexually hostile work environment, gender based discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and the PHRA and plaintiff's claims for wrongful discharge, negligent supervision and negligent retention. Accordingly, we deny defendants' motion for summary judgment.