Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RACE—E.D. Pa.: Casino worker, fired for sleeping on job, cannot advance discrimination claims, (May 21, 2025)

By Cathleen Calhoun, J.D.

A jury could conclude that a search of the worker’s headband was based on racial animus, but that and other actions did not establish that events were “severe or pervasive.”

In granting summary judgment to a casino on federal racial discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment claims and a state claim, a federal district court in Pennsylvania found that the casino worker failed to establish a causal link between her protected activity and any adverse employment action. The casino argued that the worker was fired for sleeping on the job, as shown through security footage. The worker denied that she was sleeping. Prior to that incident, the worker had expressed concerns to her manager and others about how she was treated (Morris v. Sugarhouse HSP Gaming, L.P., No. 24CV1916 (E.D. Pa. May 19, 2025)).

Hostile work environment. The casino argued that the worker cannot establish any of the instances of alleged harassment had anything to do with her race, or that those instances were so severe or pervasive that they would detrimentally affect a reasonable person. The worker alleged that she was given less favorable job assignments than a Puerto Rican employee. The court noted that such evidence, standing alone, failed to establish a hostile work environment claim. For some other incidents described, including the accusation that her manager called her schizophrenic, gave her a Devil-themed wine bottle, and changed her time off request from approved, back to pending, then to approved again, the worker failed to show evidence that any “racist comment, written or spoken, was ever directed at” her.

Two accusations, the search of the worker’s headband, and the issuance of three performance improvement notices (PINs) to her when other non-white employees were not disciplined, could allow a rational factfinder to conclude that there was racial animus, the court noted. However, the court found that those instances did not establish that events were “severe or pervasive,” and, as a result, the worker’s hostile work environment claim must fail, and summary judgment was granted to the casino.

Disparate treatment. The casino worker’s claim that she was discriminated against when she was fired also failed. The court noted that the only question at issue was whether the evidence in the record indicated that the termination “occurred under circumstances that could give rise to an inference of intentional discrimination.” The evidence presented did not support the inference that she was terminated for discriminatory reasons, the court found. The court noted that the evidence of another person being discriminated against by the same manager stemmed from a complaint a year after the casino worker had been fired and people of multiple races were fired in the past three years. The court granted summary judgment to the casino on the discrimination claim.

Retaliation. For her retaliation claim, the court stated that if the casino worker had established that she had been subject to discrimination or harassment in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1981 before she was terminated, and that if she had complained about such a violation, she would be able to use those complaints as the “protected activity” to satisfy her Section 1981 prima facie retaliation case. Since no underlying Section 1981 violation occurred, she has failed to establish a Section 1981 retaliation claim, and summary judgment was granted to the casino.

The court noted that the prima facie case for a Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA) retaliation claim is coextensive with Title VII. The casino worker argued that her PINs, the headband search, Devil-branded wine, and time off mix-up were all the kind of “antagonism coupled with timing” that might suggest retaliation. The court disagreed finding that those actions could not compare with the constant written and verbal warnings and disciplinary action, all of which occurred soon after the casino worker’s initial complaints and continued until her discharge. The court found the casino worker failed to establish a causal link between her protected activity and any adverse employment action and granted the casino’s motion for summary judgment as to the PHRA retaliation claim.

The case is No. 24CV1916.

Attorneys: James A. Bell (Bell & Bell) for Shantel Morris. Abigail Marie Green (Cozen O'Connor) for SugarHouse HSP Gaming, L.P.

Companies: SugarHouse HSP Gaming, L.P.

Cases: RaceDiscrimination Discrimination Retaliation Discharge StateLawClaims PennsylvaniaNews