Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—SEX—E.D. Pa.: Bartender, fired after allegedly padding customer tip charges, cannot advance claims, (Jun 12, 2026)

By Todd Harrison, J.D.

The court took issue with the pro se plaintiff’s approach, noting, “Factual misrepresentations are a problem throughout his briefing, perhaps a result of his admitted use of artificial intelligence.”

Granting an employer’s motion for summary judgement against a former bartender’s claims alleging Title VII sex discrimination, a federal district court in Pennsylvania determined that there was no record evidence to suggest that the employee’s sex had anything to do with his termination. Fired for allegedly padding customer tips, the court found he had merely speculated about his employer’s motives and had “saturated” his briefing with immaterial and misrepresented facts, apparently hallucinated by artificial intelligence. Further, no reasonable juror could find he had suffered an adverse employment action from a denial of certain work assignments or alleged retaliation when the employer appealed his claim for unemployment compensation (Gaddy v. Wood Brothers Bar, Inc., No. 24-6529 (E.D. Pa. June 9, 2026)).

Beginning his employment in 2018, the employee in this case worked as a bartender primarily at “Woody’s,” a gay-oriented establishment consisting of several bars. Woody’s closes at 2:00 a.m., while its sister establishment down the street, Voyeur, is open until 4:00 a.m. on weekends.

Disputed charges. In May 2022, the employer learned that two customers who had been drinking at the employee’s bar had disputed charges on their credit cards for transactions on April 2 and April 9. Further investigation revealed the disputes arose from unauthorized tips. Employees use shared logins to enter tips, and the employee was working with another female bartender on the nights the disputed charges occurred.

After looking into the incidents, the employer discovered the employee was the only bartender on duty when Woody’s closed on those nights. The other bartender had left early to work at Voyeur.

On May 5, the employee met with his supervisor to discuss the tip discrepancies. The employee admitted “it’s possible we could have made a mistake,” and texted another supervisor later that day, stating “I am human and can make mistakes.” An employee separation report was created that noted that the employee had put false information into the point-of-sale credit card system and did not dispute doing so. The employee was fired on May 8, leading to this lawsuit.

Comparator evidence. First considering the employee’s Title VII sex discrimination claim as it related to his termination, the employer contested only the fourth element of his prima facie case, the inference of discrimination. In response, the employee pointed to two female bartenders who he believed were comparators. However, the court noted neither had engaged in similar conduct without different mitigating circumstances sufficient to distinguish them from the employee.

As to the first comparator, the female bartender the employee was paired with on the nights of the disputed charges, the employee criticized the employer’s investigation and argued that the bartender was never seriously considered as a suspect. The court explained that his was immaterial to her status as a comparator. She would be a comparator, continued the court, if she were found to have also padded tips and only the employee faced discipline, but that was not the case here. Although the receipts in question bore the bartender’s name, the employer concluded the employee was responsible for improperly entering the point-of-sale information. The bartender, therefore, was not a comparator.

With regard to the second comparator, the employer had temporarily withheld a large customer credit card tip from her pending confirmation the tip was legitimate. When the customer never disputed the bill, the tip was paid to the bartender. Further, that bartender was later fired when it was later discovered she was pocketing cash customers used to pay for drinks, further undermining the employee’s claim that female employees enjoyed preferential treatment.

Male bartenders. In an attempt to show similar discrimination had occurred against four male bartenders, the employee claimed that every one of them who had worked with the employee’s bartender partner on the nights in question had departed under adverse circumstances, while the female bartender continued her employment. The court found this allusion to the female bartender as an overarching factor in the four men’s termination to be speculative. In addition, his suggestion that the bartender was somehow bulletproof was belied by the fact that she herself had been fired and then later rehired.

Party assignment. Finally, the employee pointed to comments a supervisor had made on the job as evidence of sex discrimination. Roughly one week before he was fired, the employee asked the supervisor why the female bartender was selected over him to work a bachelorette party. The supervisor told him he preferred to have women work bachelorette parties, that “women are just better under pressure,” and that the employee “didn’t fit the look.”

No reasonable juror could conclude from these comments alone that the employee was fired because he is a man, explained the court. The comments were isolated and were the only such comments ever made by the supervisor. Further, they did not show that the supervisor—a man—harbored discriminatory animus against other men.

More importantly, continued the court, when a plaintiff relies on comments made by a decisionmaker to show discrimination, the comments must relate to the adverse decision process. Here, the remarks were about the employee’s assignment as a bartender for a bachelorette party, not about his broader employment at the establishment. There was no evidence connecting the remarks to his termination, and without evidence from which a factfinder could conclude he was fired because he was a man, the employee failed to establish an issue of fact on his prima facie case.

No pretext. Even if the employee could establish a prima facie case, the employer articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its termination decision—the padding of customer tips. In an effort to show pretext, the employee attacked perceived insufficiencies in the employer’s investigation into the alleged wrongdoing. The court was not moved.

Although the employer acknowledged its investigation was imperfect, challenges to the adequacy of an investigation are not enough to establish pretext, explained the court.

AI issues? The employee also pointed to various purported inconsistencies which, he believed, suggested pretext. However, the court found the employee had misrepresented the record with respect to several of the alleged inconsistencies, noting that, “Factual misrepresentations are a problem throughout his briefing, perhaps a result of his admitted use of artificial intelligence.”

One such issue concerned a text the supervisor had allegedly sent the female bartender on May 4. However, the supervisor did not send the text, the bartender did, and the employee attempted to use the misattribution to show evidence of pretext. He later used the same message, this time properly attributed, as evidence of a “critical conflict of interest.” The court explained that he could not contort the facts to match his theories.

Another text message attributed to a coworker was referred to no fewer than five times in the employee’s briefing and exhibits. However, no such text ever existed. When called upon to explain the fabrication, the employee contended that statement in question was actually made to him in person. Regardless, the statement in question was immaterial to the employee’s claims.

Most of the employee’s arguments boiled down to the employer not proving beyond all doubt that the employee, not his bartender partner, was responsible for the disputed charges. The court explained that this was not the standard, and the employer had never given a contradictory reason for its termination decision.

Temporal connection. Finally, the employee again pointed to his supervisor’s comments regarding the bachelorette party assignment as evidence of pretext. The court noted that there was a temporal connection between the comments and the employee’s subsequent firing, but the employer only learned of the disputed charges after these comments had been made. The court also reiterated that the record was bereft of evidence that the employer ever discriminated against male employees.

Shift denials. Next, the employee claimed he was denied the opportunity to work certain shifts at Voyeur because he was a man. The court was not persuaded. The employee had stated that he preferred to work at Woody’s on Fridays and Saturdays, and had only worked twice at Voyeur in 2022, following a conversation with a supervisor about consolidating and only working with the female bartender at Woody’s South Bar because it was particularly lucrative. The employee cannot now claim sex discrimination after previously stating a preference to work a more lucrative assignment at Woody’s, said the court. Further, the record demonstrated that shift assignments at Voyeur are made without regard to sex.

Retaliation. The employee’s final claim was that he was retaliated against for filing an EEOC charge when the employer appealed his unemployment claim. The court noted that an employer’s appeal of unemployment compensation benefits can constitute an adverse action when, for example, the appeal harms future employment opportunities. However, the employee admitted he received all unemployment compensation to which he was entitled and conceded he suffered no adverse employment consequences. Thus, this claim also failed, and summary judgment was granted in favor of the employer.

The case is No. 24-6529.

Judge: Pappert, G.

Attorneys: Casey A. Gaddy, pro se. Wade D. Albert (Stevens & Lee) for Wood Brothers Bar, Inc. dba Woody's and Mayfield Social Club dba Voyeur Nightclub.

Companies: Wood Brothers Bar, Inc.; Woody's and Mayfield Social Club; Voyeur Nightclub

Cases: SexDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge Retaliation AINews PennsylvaniaNews