Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—SEX—E.D. Pa.: SEPTA train operator, fired after verbally complaining of supervisor’s harassment, advances claims, (Apr 18, 2025)

By Todd Harrison, J.D.

There was some question as to the supervisor’s motivation in writing up and recommending the employee be terminated after she isolated him in a train car without authorization.

A former SEPTA train operator could move forward with her Title VII claims alleging gender discrimination, a hostile work environment, and retaliation, ruled a federal district court in Pennsylvania. The employee’s supervisor commented on her appearance several times and would physically touch the employee, at one point stating, “We don’t have to keep going through this if you just let me take you out.” After the supervisor issued the employee a charge sheet recommending written discipline, she verbally complained to a higher-up of the alleged harassment, but no action was taken after this report. The supervisor then set forth additional disciplinary charges, ultimately leading to the employee’s termination (Cromwell v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, No. 24-1884 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 15, 2025)).

The employee began working for SEPTA in 2006, eventually becoming a Subway Elevated train operator in 2016. She began reporting to her alleged harasser in September 2021.

Private meetings. In January 2022, the employee was having problems with her coworkers that required her to meet privately with the supervisor in his office. In these meetings, the supervisor would comment on the employee’s physical appearance, and at the end of the meetings would press himself against the employee’s body as she was leaving such that she could feel his genitals against her.

Car isolated. On January 25, 2023, the supervisor was seated in a train car behind the employee as she was operating the train. The employee stated that there was a spill on the floor and sought to isolate, or lock, the car despite her supervisor telling her not to. She notified the dispatcher and the car was isolated.

Discipline. Later that year, on July 12, the supervisor was riding a train operated by the employee when he noticed that the destination sign was incorrect. He banged on the employee’s door, told her the automatic announcements were not playing and instructed her to reset the sign. The employee stated that she was unaware of the issue because the announcements were playing in her car. The supervisor responded that, “We don’t have to keep going through this if you just let me take you out.” The employee slammed the door and reported the issue to a mechanic. The supervisor issued a charge sheet charging the employee with violations for failing to display destinations and making automatic announcements, recommending a written warning.

Verbal report. On August 23, the supervisor’s manager asked the employee why the two were not getting along. She told him that the issue was the supervisor was trying to have sex with her and she was not interested. When she saw the manager in a break room later that day, she told him that she was tired of the harassment and asked him to talk to the supervisor in an effort to get him to stop. This report complied with SEPTA’s harassment prevention policy, but the manager failed to take action after the report.

Disciplinary hearings. An informal hearing related to the employee’s written warning was held on September 14. The employee grieved the written warning and things proceeded to a formal hearing. Before the formal hearing, the supervisor added additional charges against the employee for violation of rules related to the car isolation incident, alleging violations concerning personal conduct, tampering, conduct to the public, and safety. With these additional charges, the supervisor changed the recommended discipline to discharge.

EEO charge. On October 5, 2023, the employee filed a complaint with SEPTA’s EEO office about the supervisor’s conduct.

Termination. A formal hearing related to the recommended discharge was held on November 17. The recommendation was accepted. The discharge was upheld on appeal and again by an arbitration panel. On February 12, 2024, the employee filed this lawsuit.

Gender discrimination. First addressing the employee’s gender discrimination claim, the court found that she had produced sufficient evidence that the circumstances surrounding her termination permitted an inference of discrimination, including the fact that she made a verbal report, and that her supervisor repeatedly commented on her physical appearance and physically rubbed himself against her.

These allegations, among others, created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the employee was discriminated against because of her gender and whether SEPTA’s proffered reasons for the termination and the escalation of discipline were pretextual, said the court.

Further, while the formal hearing officer and the arbitration panel discussed that isolating a train car without permission was potentially an issue, there was testimony that isolating a train car without authorization is not considered tampering under SEPTA rules because it does not involve a safety device. This too established a genuine issue of material fact related to SEPTA’s proffered reason for its termination decision and the supervisor’s motivation in escalating the discipline. Accordingly, SEPTA’s motion for summary judgment against this claim was denied.

Hostile work environment. Turning to the employee’s hostile work environment claim, the court found that it was timely under the continuing violations doctrine, and that there were genuine issues of material fact that foreclosed a finding of summary judgment against this claim.

Here, the court again referenced the repeated comments about the employee’s physical appearance and the unwanted physical contact initiated by the supervisor. Such actions could permit a reasonable jury to conclude that the harassment occurred because of the employee’s sex, said the court. In addition, the supervisor’s conduct, if proven, could be viewed by a reasonable juror as sufficiently severe or pervasive to support a hostile work environment claim, and that the alleged conduct detrimentally affected the employee as it would a reasonable person in similar circumstances.

Although SEPTA attempted to argue that the employee did not complain to anyone at SEPTA and thus was not detrimentally impacted, it also appeared to concede that the verbal report to the supervisor’s manager complied with its reporting policies and that the manager had failed to escalate the report.

Retaliation. Finally, with regard to the claim for retaliation, the court acknowledged SEPTA’s concerns regarding a causal connection. On October 5, 2023, the employee filed a complaint to the EEO office and an investigation ensued. However, the write-up and escalation of discipline occurred before this date. As such, the court could not find that the employee’s filing of the EEO complaint gave rise to a claim for retaliation, and summary judgment was appropriate as far as the claim was based on the EEO complaint.

However, it was disputed whether the employee had engaged in a protected activity by making a verbal complaint and whether this had a causal relation to her adverse employment actions. As previously discussed, SEPTA appeared to concede that the verbal report complied with its policies and there were questions concerning the supervisor’s motivation in escalating the discipline. Thus, the employee could move forward with her retaliation claim on this basis.

The case is No. 24-1884.

Judge: Baylson, M.

Attorneys: Jesse C. Klaproth (Klaproth Law) for Ayanna Cromwell. Amy C. Lachowicz (Clark Hill) for Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority.

Companies: Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority

Cases: Discrimination SexDiscrimination Discharge PublicEmployees Retaliation PennsylvaniaNews GCNNews