Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—SEX—M.D. Pa.: Fired prison employee advances claims of retaliation, discrimination based on sexual orientation, (Oct 2, 2025)

By Kathleen Kapusta, J.D.

The deputy warden alleged that throughout her tenure at the prison, she was regularly subjected to highly offensive, sexist, homophobic, and sexual comments by male officials.

A female prison employee who was in a same-sex marriage, and who was terminated for receiving contraband intended for an inmate and insubordination during the ensuing investigation, presented sufficient evidence from which a jury could infer she was subjected to a pattern of antagonism following her complaint of sexual orientation discrimination, a federal court in Pennsylvania found, denying summary judgment against her Title VII and state-law retaliation claims. Allowing her to also proceed to trial on her hostile work environment claims, the court cited evidence she was regularly subjected to homophobic, sexist, and sexually explicit comments (Purvis v. Lackawanna County, No. 3:22-CV-01907 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 29, 2025)).

The employee, who began working for the county in 2017, was hired to work as a lieutenant at the county prison three years later. Shortly after that, she became Acting Captain of Treatment and then Deputy Warden of Treatment.

Investigation. She alleged that during her tenure there, the warden, HR director, and other male officials regularly subjected her to highly offensive, sexist, homophobic, and sexual comments. In December 2021, the warden investigated her for an alleged relationship with another woman, who was a supervisory employee with the prison’s medical provider. Investigators, however, ultimately determined that there was not enough evidence to discipline her. In February 2022, the employee’s attorney sent a letter accusing prison officials of discriminating against the employee based on her gender and sexual orientation.

Contraband. In March, the warden interviewed the employee regarding contraband an inmate’s spouse allegedly mailed to her. He claimed she was uncooperative and insubordinate during the interview. According to the employee, the package contained a wedding ring and a crucifix chain, which were not contraband pursuant to prison policy, and she was hesitant to answer questions without her attorney present.

Termination. Nonetheless, the county determined that the employee should be suspended pending a hearing. That same day, she requested FMLA leave. When her leave ended, she was placed on administrative suspension. A three-member panel, which included the warden and HR director, subsequently recommended her termination, which was approved by the county prison board.

Retaliation. Moving for summary judgment against the employee’s Title VII and Pennsylvania Human Relations Act retaliation claims, the county argued that she failed to establish a causal connection between her attorney’s February 2022 letter and her termination four months later. The court, however, found evidence of a pattern on antagonism following her protected conduct.

First, the court observed, there was evidence the employee engaged in protected conduct before her attorney’s letter. Specifically, in January 2022, the HR director, in an email to prison officials, announced that he was recusing himself from the investigation into the employee’s alleged affair with the supervisory employee because the employee had complained that the investigation was based on her sexual orientation. In addition, the employee testified that after she complained, she was treated differently at the prison and was left out of certain events such as an event with drug dogs and group lunches.

The court also noted evidence that after the county received the attorney’s letter, county officials attempted to circumvent him before suspending and terminating the employee, including by never attempting, as he requested, to meet and work out an “amicable resolution.” Further, said the court, the 20-day gap between the attorney sending the letter and the employee’s suspension was unduly suggestion of discrimination. Based on this evidence, the court stated, a jury could infer that county officials engaged in a pattern of antagonism following the employee’s protected conduct.

Pretext. There was also evidence the county’s proffered reason for firing the employee—the alleged contraband incident and her purported insubordination—was pretextual. As to the inmate’s wedding ring and crucifix, the employee presented the prison employee manual, which listed as contraband items such as intoxicants, alcohol, pocketknives, tobacco, drugs, weapons, and all other objects that could jeopardize security, safety or stability. In addition, a former deputy warden testified that inmates were permitted to have crucifixes and wedding rings as long as they fit within certain size requirements and did not have sharp edges.

The employee also produced an email from a corrections counselor informing her that the inmate was receiving a package and her email in response stating “[s]ounds good, I’ll forward to the Captain” as well as her testimony that the captain was the captain of security. Moreover, the county failed to present any evidence the employee was engaged in an agreement to smuggle contraband into the prison.

As to the employee’s purported insubordination, there was evidence HR allowed the warden to conduct the disciplinary interview of the employee even though it knew she had accused him of discrimination. According to the notes from an individual present at the interview, the employee “[r]efuses to answer any questions. Wants an [attorney] present.” For her part, the employee testified that she told the warden she would comply with the investigation but wanted an attorney present because she had accused him and others of discrimination and believed the allegations against her were false and targeted. “From this,” said the court, “a reasonable jury may conclude that [the employee] was not insubordinate but rather was trying to protect herself from retaliation.”

Neutral third party. And while the county pointed out that a neutral third party, the county prison board, made the termination decision, there was evidence HR allowed the warden to conduct the investigation into the employee despite knowing she had accused him of discrimination and that he made the termination recommendation to the board. Thus, a reasonable jury could infer the county prison board relied on the warden’s investigation and recommendation to terminate the employee and could have foreseen that retaliatory animus affected the warden’s findings and recommendation. Accordingly, the court denied summary judgment on this claim.

Hostile work environment. Regarding the employee’s federal and state-law hostile work environment claims, the county argued that she testified to only 11 offensive and sexual comments during her deposition, some of which did not relate to gender and sexual orientation, and this was not enough to support her claim. But while she testified to 11 specific comments, she also testified that male prison officials made offensive and sexual comments constantly and that some of the 11 specific examples were examples of recurring offensive and sexual comments, including the HR director referring to a female corrections counselor as a “whore” and recurring comments about the attractiveness of the employee’s sister and wife. Thus, the court found a fact issue as to whether the employee was subjected to pervasive and regular discrimination.

There was also a fact issue as to whether the comments were sufficiently severe to create a hostile work environment, said the court, noting evidence the warden asked if the employee was “the male or female” in her same-sex marriage and the HR director stated that the employee’s sister-in-law’s vagina smelled bad, repeatedly called a woman a whore, said the employee’s sister was ugly, and called her wife hot. Based on all this, the court denied summary judgment against this claim as well.

The case is No. 3:22-CV-01907.

Judge: Mehalchick, K.

Attorneys: Ari R. Karpf (Karpf, Karpf & Cerutti) for Krista Purvis. Dana M. Zlotucha (Kreder Brooks Hailstone) for Lackawanna County.

Companies: Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania

Cases: SexDiscrimination Discrimination Retaliation Discharge StateLawClaims PennsylvaniaNews GCNNews