Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—SEX—E.D. Pa.: HWE, constructive discharge claims fail, but retaliation claim proceeds to discovery, (May 1, 2025)

By Nadine E. Roddy, J.D.

A female cardiologist who resigned her position with a health network plausibly alleged the elements of protected activity, adverse employment action, and causation.

Although a former employee’s Title VII hostile environment (HWE) claim was timely under the continuing violation theory, the complaint failed to allege hostile acts that were sufficiently “severe or pervasive,” a federal district court in Pennsylvania has ruled. A claim of Title VII retaliation for making internal complaints of gender discrimination, however, was plausibly stated (Ahnert v. Lehigh Valley Health Network, No. 24-2561 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 24, 2025)).

A cardiologist brought this suit against her former employer, a health network, asserting claims of gender discrimination in compensation under the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, as well as disparate treatment gender discrimination, HWE, retaliation, and constructive discharge under Title VII.

Pay discrepancies. After completing a fellowship program with the employer, the employee was hired as a clinical cardiologist. She was the only woman in the group. She alleged that during her first year in that position, she was paid $50,000 less than the amount specified in the employer’s standard compensation plan. When she objected, she was told that she “needed to ‘prove herself’ first.” Throughout her 14-year tenure, however, the employer engaged in “unequal and discriminatory pay practices.”

More specifically, the employee claimed that she was paid “substantially less than her comparable male counterparts” despite taking on “additional responsibilities and producing at a higher level than others.” She was a “top performer,” receiving numerous achievements and distinctions, and her “performance and productivity were superior to her male counterparts.”

Additionally, the employer “wrongfully reduced various substantial benefits” that it provided to her, including supplemental retirement benefits, supplemental life benefits, and supplemental disability benefits. The HWE to which she was allegedly subjected consisted of “unequal pay, being passed over for certain positions and/or promotions, and being excluded from certain opportunities and events,” all based on her gender.

Complaints, resignation. The employee complained several times of these discriminatory acts to superiors, but, although they seemed sympathetic at the time, they did nothing to remedy the issues. The employee ultimately resigned her position and then filed a charge of gender discrimination with the EEOC. The employer filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the claims of HWE, retaliation, and constructive discharge, as well as to strike certain discrete acts as time-barred.

Timeliness. It was undisputed by the employee that, for purposes of Title VII, any discrete acts of gender discrimination, HWE, or retaliation that occurred prior to May 12, 2023, were barred by the 300-day statute of limitations. Instead, she argued that the doctrine of equitable tolling should apply so that the discrete acts occurring before the cut-off date still could be considered timely. The court disagreed, noting that by the end of 2022, the employee “clearly knew” that the employer was not going to rectify the alleged pay inequities and unfair treatment, and yet she had not filed an EEOC charge.

Continuing violations? Regarding the HWE allegations, the employee argued that the hostile acts occurring prior to May 12, 2023, could still be part of the HWE claim based on the continuing violation theory. The court determined that some of the acts, such as failing to promote the employee and removing her from her leadership position, were individually actionable and therefore could not be aggregated as part of the claim. However, acts such as a superior’s comments, being passed over to run monthly practice meetings, a superior’s failure to meet with her to discuss her claims of pay inequity, and the clearing out of her office while she was on leave were not discrete acts. Thus, they could be aggregated with the timely HWE acts under the continuing violation theory.

HWE claim. The court then held, however, that the complaint failed to set forth an actionable HWE claim. Although the alleged hostile acts may have been humiliating to the employee, the court found as a matter of law that the incidents, even when viewed collectively, did not reflect any “severe or pervasive” conduct. The allegations of denial of promotions and equal pay did not suggest the type of conduct that would create an abusive or hostile work environment, as opposed to discrete acts constituting discriminatory treatment that could be rectified through a disparate treatment claim.

Retaliation. With regard to the retaliation claim, the court determined that the complaint adequately alleged the first two elements of a Title VII retaliation claim—protected activity and adverse employment action. Being disinvited from a prestigious company event and having one’s compensation reduced could dissuade a reasonable employee from making or supporting a charge of discrimination. Whether a causal connection existed between these two elements could be fleshed out in discovery.

Constructive discharge. The court noted the Third Circuit’s holding that “[t]o prove constructive discharge, the plaintiff must demonstrate a greater severity or pervasiveness of harassment than the minimum required to prove a hostile working environment.” Because the court had found that the complaint did not (and could not) state a HWE claim, it likewise did not and could not state a claim of constructive discharge.

For these reasons, the court granted the employer’s motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part.

The case is No. 24-2561.

Judge: Schmehl, J.

Attorneys: Kevin Edward Barber (Barber Law Firm) for Amy M. Ahnert. Steven E. Hoffman (Hoffman & Hlavac) for Lehigh Valley Health Network.

Companies: Lehigh Valley Health Network

Cases: Discrimination SexDiscrimination Discharge Retaliation PennsylvaniaNews