Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RACE—E.D. Pa.: White Outback bartender, fired for overserving inebriated patron, gets trial on race bias claim, (Dec 19, 2025)

By Kathleen Kapusta, J.D.

“At the Springfield, Pennsylvania Outback Steakhouse on April 2, 2024, there was a rule; it was broken; and all was not just right.”

Outback Steakhouse is not entitled to summary judgment on a white bartender’s Title VII race discrimination claim alleging she was fired, not because she served five alcoholic drinks to a patron who became inebriated, but rather because she is white and was the best scapegoat for the racially charged incident that occurred when several Black coworkers attempted to throw the white patron out of the restaurant after he began yelling anti-Black epithets. Although the company had a policy, which the employee signed, requiring a server to notify a manager before serving a patron a fourth alcoholic drink, she was one of only two employees whom Outback claimed to have terminated for violating the policy, other employees at that location were unaware of the policy, and she was the only employee disciplined for the incident (Tuohey v. Bloomin’ Brands, Inc. dba Outback Steakhouse, Inc., No. 24-5990 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 15, 2025)).

During her nine-year tenure at Outback, the employee worked in various roles, including as an hourly manager and a lead trainer. She appeared to have been demoted from the manager position after an investigation into alleged misconduct, including taking smoke breaks outside while working as a bartender, arriving late for shifts and then altering her time, calling a coworker a “bitch” and “cunt” during an altercation, ringing her tables under the bar to avoid sharing tips, and having a possible drug problem. At some point, she voluntarily stepped down from the lead trainer position.

Inebriated patron. In April 2024, she served a patron five alcoholic drinks before informing a manager that he was “acting funny” and she would no longer serve him. When the patron returned from a trip to the bathroom, he fell off his barstool and to the ground. Two Black managers helped him up, offered him a free Uber ride, and told him they would pay his bill. The patron, however, became belligerent, started yelling racial epithets, and refused to leave.

Two other Black staff members attempted to help the managers carry the patron outside. One of the managers tried to put him in a headlock but he lost his balance, which caused the guest to fall on him and injure his knee. A staff member then threw the patron’s phone at him, hitting him in the face. At some point, police arrived and escorted the patron from the premises. The manager went to the hospital for his injury.

Terminated. Two days after the incident, the employee was fired for violating Outback’s fourth drink policy. No other employees were disciplined in connection with the incident.

The employee subsequently sued, asserting a race discrimination claim in violation of Title VII.

Prima facie case. In moving for summary judgment, Outback argued that the employee could not show that any similarly situated employees received more favorable treatment as it fired a multiracial bartender from another location in the same market area for violating the same four drink policy and with the involvement of the same HR and business managers who were involved in the employee’s termination.

Construed in the light most favorable to the employee, the court found the record evidence established that the employee, the sole white employee involved in the incident with the patron, was the only one disciplined for that incident; four Black employees carried the patron out of the restaurant and one attempted to place him in a headlock while another threw his phone at him and hit him in the face; the patron was yelling anti-Black epithets; multiple coworker-servers stated that they were unaware of the fourth drink policy; one coworker-server stated that she previously violated the policy; and the employee was one of only two employees Outback claimed it had terminated for violating the policy.

A reasonable jury, said the court, could not only infer race discrimination on these facts, but also it could conclude that one or more of the staff involved in the incident were similarly situated to the employee such that their conduct and Outback’s reaction to that conduct should be considered when evaluating the existence of discrimination.

Pretext. As to evidence of pretext, the court noted that Outback claimed it terminated the employee because she violated the fourth drink policy, which clearly prohibits serving a customer a fourth alcoholic drink without first notifying a manager and which the employee signed. “But having a meritorious defense is not enough to win a summary judgment motion,” said the court. Given the evidence it had already noted in its discussion of the employee’s prima facie case, the court found a reasonable jury could conclude that Outback’s proffered reason was mere pretext for race discrimination. Accordingly, the court denied summary judgment on the employee’s race discrimination claim.

The case is No. 24-5990.

Judge: Murphy, J.

Attorneys: David M. Koller (Koller Law) for Erin Tuohey. John E. MacDonald (Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete) for Bloomin Brands, Inc. d/b/a Outback Steakhouse, Inc.

Companies: Bloomin Brands, Inc.; Outback Steakhouse, Inc.

Cases: RaceDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge PennsylvaniaNews