Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—SEX—M.D. Pa.: Fired Marathon Petroleum employee, allegedly demeaned by managers, advances sex discrimination case, (Feb 14, 2025)

By Jason Albright, J.D.

She alleged that supervisors criticized her looks when she challenged male colleagues.

A former employee of Marathon Petroleum Logistics Services, LLC, allegedly criticized based on her “looks” and fired after male supervisors removed her from her tasks and replaced her with lower-level male employees they required her to assist, may proceed with her Title VII and PHRA sex discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation claims, a federal district court in Pennsylvania found. The employee sufficiently alleged that one supervisor repeatedly removed her from her assignments and then assigned her undesirable and unreasonable work after she complained about the alleged sex discrimination. In addition, she adequately alleged that her reassignment to undesirable tasks after she filed a PHRC complaint, and later, her denial of an extension of FMLA leave and subsequent termination, were materially adverse consequences that would dissuade a reasonable worker from engaging in protected activities (Baughman v. Marathon Petroleum Logistics Services, LLC, No. 4:24-CV-00287 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 13, 2025)).

No workstation and sex-based comments. The employee alleged that her supervisor required her to work on the floor without a workstation, and that he and other male supervisors made sex-based discriminatory comments to her, including criticizing her looks when she challenged male colleagues.

Removal from tasks. According to the employee, the supervisor also removed her from tasks at which she was contributing at a “high level,” only to replace her with lower-level male employees to whom she was required to offer assistance if needed. Further, she claimed that the poor treatment she allegedly received was not directed toward male coworkers.

Anxiety, depression, and medical leave. As a result of the discrimination she was allegedly experiencing at work, she began to experience anxiety and depression, which required her to take medical leave in July 2021.

PHRC complaint. These experiences also led her to file her first discrimination complaint with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (PHRC) on September 14, 2021.

No improvement and new placement. When she returned to work on October 13, the defendants allegedly had not taken any remedial action regarding her complaints. Instead, they allegedly placed her in a position that was not comparable to her position prior to her complaints. She also received no training for the new position, and its duties allegedly came with unreasonably short deadlines such that it was “difficult for her to complete the tasks.”

Second PHRC complaint, second medical leave. As a result of the ongoing discriminatory environment, she filed a second PHRC complaint—which was cross-filed with EEOC—on or about January 10, 2022, and she went on another approved medical leave in April 2022.

Return? Then, in June 2022, she communicated with Marathon about returning to work and was told she would be supervised by the same male supervisors she alleged had previously been discriminatory toward her. She alleged that she “repeatedly asked Defendants for assistance with the discriminatory and retaliatory environment to which she was being subjected” but that “Defendants did not respond to Plaintiff’s questions or dispute that she would still be required to report to male managers about whom she had complained.”

Discharge. Marathon fired her on September 16, 2022. She also submitted that Marathon and the managers created and allowed a hostile work environment to continue by failing to assist her in remediating the situation.

Lawsuit. She brought claims under Title VII, the PHRA, and the FMLA, and Marathon moved to dismiss.

Sex discrimination. The court first found that the employee adequately pleaded a sex discrimination claim. She alleged that she was qualified for her position because she performed excellently and completed substantial and high-level work. And she also alleged that she was treated more poorly than male employees by the supervisor and other male colleagues, and that later, she was terminated from employment.

More specifically, she alleged that she was not considered for certain roles or tasks without reason, when other lower-level male employees were considered; that she was excluded from meetings when other male employees were not; that she was told she had to work on the plant floor, when other male employees were not; that “male managers criticized Plaintiff’s tone and her looks in meetings, especially when Plaintiff offered her recommendations or opinions, or challenged the opinions or recommendations of her male colleagues and supervisors”; and that she was generally unfairly criticized and spoken to in a patronizing and condescending manner. This was enough to survive the motion to dismiss.

HWE claim. The employee’s hostile work environment (HWE) claim likewise survived. She made allegations of discriminatory conduct that occurred on-site and repeatedly over the course of several years, and she further alleged that, after filing a PHRC complaint, she was given unreasonable assignments and stripped of independence by the supervisor, who required her to copy him on every email she sent. In addition, several colleagues—not just one—allegedly discriminated against her by repeatedly removing her from projects on which she had excelled in favor of lower-level male employees, by speaking to her in a patronizing tone, and by criticizing her looks. These allegations, said the court, amounted to a hostile work environment.

Retaliation. The employee’s Title VII retaliation claim was also adequately pleaded. The filing of her administrative PHRC complaint undoubtedly constituted protected activity, as did her verbal complaints to the supervisor about workplace sex discrimination, according to the district court. And upon return from her medical leave in October 2021, the discriminatory environment had allegedly not been addressed and the supervisor began assigning “her tasks that she was not trained to handle and for which he did not offer her training” and tasks “that were outside the scope of her job description and job responsibilities and which put her in the position of not being able to complete her current responsibilities,” leading to further “anxiety and depression resulting from Defendants’ discriminatory and retaliatory conduct.”

She was thus approved for a second medical leave beginning in April 2022, and in June 2022, she was allegedly told that upon returning to work she would be required to report to the same male supervisors about whom she had complained of discrimination and retaliation. She alleged that she then requested to extend her leave “consistent with her doctor’s medical advice” due to the stress associated with the events that had taken place and the requirement to continue reporting to male supervisors about whom she had complained of discriminatory conduct but that “Defendants did not respond to Plaintiff’s questions or dispute that she would still be required to report to male managers about whom she had complained.” Finally, Marathon fired her on September 16, 2022.

In short, according to the court, the employee’s reassignment to undesirable work tasks and later, her denial of an extension of her leave and subsequent termination amounted to materially adverse consequences that would dissuade a reasonable worker from engaging in protected activities.

Continuing violation doctrine. Finally, observing that Marathon’s failure to promote her did not occur within 300 days of the majority of the conduct of which she complained, the court nonetheless concluded that it would allow her to submit evidence under the “continuing violation” doctrine, regarding such earlier alleged acts of discrimination that may otherwise be time-barred. The parties did not dispute that she was terminated on January 2, 2021, which fell within the applicable 300-day limitations period, and this was “sufficient at this stage of the litigation for us to apply the continuing violation doctrine to related, non-discrete discriminatory acts that would otherwise be time-barred.”

The case is No. 4:24-CV-00287.

Judge: Mehalchick, K.

Attorneys: Caren N. Gurmankin (Console Mattiacci Law) for Danielle Baughman. Christopher Michalski (Littler Mendelson) for Marathon Petroleum Logistics Services, LLC.

Companies: Marathon Petroleum Logistics Services, LLC

Cases: SexDiscrimination Discrimination SexualHarassment Discharge Retaliation PennsylvaniaNews