Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RACE—E.D. Pa.: Recruiter, fired two days after complaining of unlawful activity, advances claims, (Mar 26, 2025)

By Todd Harrison, J.D.

She had complained to another recruiter that she felt she was the victim of racial discrimination and that she believed the branch manager’s racist behavior created an inappropriate work environment.

A federal district court in Pennsylvania denied PeopleShare’s motion for summary judgment against the Title VII, Section 1981, and PHRA claims brought by a former recruiter who alleged that she was the victim of race/color discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment. The employee’s branch manager, among other things, allegedly shared inappropriate, racially-charged videos and instructed staff not to contact job candidates with names like “Jaqueesha.” The court found that the employee had satisfied the prima facie elements of all her claims and that there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether her work environment was objectively hostile (Harrell v. PeopleShare, LLC, No. 23-2366 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 24, 2025)).

PeopleShare is a company that connects other companies with job candidates. In October 2022, the employee, a woman of African-American, Indigenous, and Mexican heritage, was hired as a recruiter. Three other recruiters, two white and one African-American, were also hired at this time.

Green Tree Branch. The employee and the other newly hired African-American recruiter were assigned to the employer’s Green Tree Branch, which the employee alleged to be a less desirable branch with a high turnover rate. By contrast, the two newly hired white recruiters were assigned to the West Chester Branch, which the employee contended was more tailored to training new hires.

Branch manager’s conduct. While assigned to the Green Tree Branch, the employee’s day-to-day activities were overseen by the branch manager, a white man. The branch manager allegedly engaged in behavior that the employee considered to be discriminatory and hostile. Among other things, the branch manager encouraged his team not to contact job candidates with names like “Jaqueesha;” used racially loaded language like “ratchet” to describe African-Americans; and shared inappropriate videos during work meetings, including one featuring the comedian Katt Williams using the ‘N’-word repeatedly during a routine. The branch manager would single out the employee for not laughing at the videos he shared.

Complaints. In a one-on-one meeting with her supervisor, the employee complained about the branch manager’s conduct. When her supervisor told her “there was nothing she could do about it,” she elevated her complaint to another higher-up. Unlike a white employee who had previously complained about the branch manager, the employee was not transferred to another location.

Hostility. According to the employee, both her supervisor and the higher-up exhibited hostility towards her that was not extended to white employees. Further, the higher-up allegedly instructed a Latino employee to sing “Feliz Navidad” during a team meeting, then interrupted her and instructed her to sing the song “with an accent,” causing that employee to appear “visibly uncomfortable.”

Sometime around March 2023, the employee was assigned to another branch where—in response to comments that she had an attitude—the higher-up told the employee she had a “resting bitch face” and she “needed to put a f***ing smile” on her face. When the employee appeared to become upset, the higher-up allegedly said, “are you about to cry... because I’ll come across the camera and smack you across the face.”

Commiseration. Following this incident, the higher-up announced that another African-American recruiter would speak with the employee because he was also a “problem child” and the two could relate because they came “from the same place.” When the two spoke, the other recruiter said, “as a Black person to another Black person, I can see why you don’t want to smile.” The employee stated that she felt she was the victim of discrimination and discussed the behavior of the branch manager. Her fellow recruiter reported to the employee’s supervisor and higher-up that the employee believed the work environment was unprofessional.

Termination. Two days after this meeting, the employee was terminated for allegedly failing to meet her metrics. The other African-American recruiter who was also hired along with the employee was fired at this time as well. The two white recruiters who were hired at that time retained their positions. Subsequently, the employee filed this lawsuit.

Race/color discrimination. First, the court considered the employee’s claims for race/color discrimination. The court was not moved by the employer’s argument that the employee could not point to evidence demonstrating that any supervisor/decisionmaker was aware of the employee’s race, noting that the employee was of mixed heritage with skin that was visibly brown, and thus her membership in a protected class was patent.

In response to the employer’s argument that the employee was unqualified for her position because she had failed to meet her metrics, the employee pointed to the two white recruiters who were hired at the same time and who had both failed to achieve their metrics but were nonetheless retained. Thus, a reasonable jury could conclude the employee was qualified for the position, said the court.

As to whether similarly situated white recruiters were treated more favorably, a reasonable jury could reach such a conclusion, explained the court. The two white recruiters were initially assigned to a more desirable branch and neither were terminated despite failing to meet their metrics.

Pretext. The employer proffered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its termination decision—the employee did not achieve her metrics. However, the timing of the termination along with the employer’s treatment of the employee gave rise to an inference that this proffered reason was pretextual, said the court. Accordingly, the employer’s motion for summary judgment against the employee’s race/color discrimination claims was denied.

Retaliation. Next, the court turned its attention to the employee’s retaliation claims. The employer argued that the employee did not engage in protected activity because although she complained of “unfair treatment” by the branch manager, she did not specifically discuss race or national origin when she met with her supervisor or the higher-up. However, observed the court, the employee’s complaints to other individuals more clearly targeted the branch manager’s racially discriminatory behavior.

When the employee was directed to meet with another African-American recruiter, he explicitly acknowledged the nature of the employee’s complaints as they related to race, stating that “as a Black person” he understood why the employee did not want to smile while at work. From the context of these statements, a reasonable jury could discern that the employee’s complaint to the recruiter was at least implicitly opposing unlawful conduct under Title VII.

In addition, the fact that the employee was terminated two days after this conversation was sufficient to establish causation, and the employee had satisfied her prima facie case for retaliation.

HWE. Turning to the employee’s hostile work environment claims, the employer disputed that she had suffered intentional discrimination because of her race and that the discrimination was severe or pervasive. The court was not moved.

According to the court, the frequency of the discriminatory conduct, including at least five racially hostile comments by the branch manager and two comments by the higher-up, over the course of four months weighed in favor of the employee.

Further, the nature and severity of the conduct also weighed in favor of the employee, with the higher-up at one point physically threatening to slap the employee. In addition, the higher-up’s demand that another worker sing “Feliz Navidad” with an accent causing the worker to appear “visibly uncomfortable” could be considered humiliating. Although this conduct was not directed at the employee, it could be enough to alter her working conditions, said the court.

Based on the totality of the circumstances, the employee had shown that she subjectively perceived the work environment to be hostile and had raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the environment was objectively hostile. As such, the court denied the employer’s motion for summary judgment on these claims.

Individual liability. Finally, the court considered the employee’s Section 1981 and PHRA claims as they related to her supervisor and the higher-up. Much of the behavior which the employee found offensive was perpetrated by the higher-up, and a reasonable jury could conclude that she was personally involved in and participated in the discriminatory actions contributing to the alleged hostile work environment, explained the court, denying the higher-up’s motion for summary judgment.

The supervisor’s individual liability was less clear cut, but the employee nonetheless succeeded in establishing genuine issues of material fact sufficient to preclude summary judgment. A reasonable jury could find that the supervisor was involved in and participated in the employer’s retaliation against the employee, concluded the court.

The case is No. 23-2366.

Judge: Brody, A.

Attorneys: Benjamin David Salvina (Marzzacco Niven & Associates) for Taisja N. Harrell. Colin David Dougherty (Fox Rothschild) for PeopleShare, LLC.

Companies: PeopleShare, LLC

Cases: Discrimination RaceDiscrimination CoverageLiability Discharge Retaliation PennsylvaniaNews