Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—SEX—M.D. Pa.: Nonprofit director gets trial on harassment claim over CEO’s ‘demasculating’ remarks, (Oct 15, 2025)

By Marjorie Johnson, J.D.

The CEO allegedly made repeated statements attacking his masculinity, rather than a one-off remark, and he also complained that she used derogatory language about his gender both directly to him and to the staff.

A former director for a nonprofit agency that provides outpatient mental health and substance abuse services, who claimed that the CEO repeatedly chastised his “abrasive masculinity” and laughed when he asked to take time off for his mental health, and who was ultimately terminated for misconduct by a unanimous board vote in which the CEO did not participate, will have a jury decide whether he was subjected to a gender-based hostile work environment (HWE), though a federal court tossed his claim alleging a disability-based HWE since his “regarded as” disability was minor and transitory. He also failed to survive summary judgment on his ADA, Title VII, and Pennsylvania Human Rights Act (PHRA) claims alleging that his termination was discriminatory and retaliatory since it was undisputed that he was fired due to his well-documented harassing conduct and financial improprieties, and there was no evidence suggesting pretext (Bascom v. PA Treatment & Healing, No. 3:23-CV-1271 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 30, 2025)).

“Demasculating” remarks. In 2022, the employee served as the project and facility director at two offices operated by the nonprofit employer. He reported directly to the female president and CEO, who he claimed made numerous inappropriate gender-based remarks to him and about him, including chastising his “abrasive masculinity” and “demasculating” him by telling him “how to be a man.”

Request for mental health leave. He also claimed that when he asked the CEO to allow him to take a week off for his mental health, she laughed at him. He responded, “I can’t believe you’re laughing at me about saying I need to have a mental health week off.”

Staff complaints. Meanwhile, the employee’s employment in 2022 was marred with peer complaints and disciplinary actions, with a least seven staff members filing complaints against him that year. In a March 3 letter, the HR and finance assistant noted she stopped attempting to balance one of the office’s petty cash and copay accounts due to “the improper ways” he was handling them. Also in March, another staff member complained that he asked her if she had “been taking [her] meds” and if she was “taking them properly.” Later that month, he apologized to the staff for his speech and conduct underlying the various complaints against him.

A staff member subsequently informed the CEO in April that she was quitting because of the employee, and that “he is still tormenting me.” In October, the HR and finance assistant again complained about his conduct and accused him of misusing client copays as petty cash since her hiring in 2020.

Reports CEO’s harassment. Amid these complaints, on August 21, he submitted a grievance to the board of directors outlining the CEO’s alleged discrimination, harassment, and other inappropriate conduct. For example, he alleged she coerced junior staff to stand up to him and to tell her what they “really thought” of him because he is a man. He also complained that she consistently used derogatory language about his gender to him directly and to the staff. Three days later, on August 24, he filed a letter of resolution of the grievance, writing that his discussions with the CEO, the director of finance, and a board member were, “frank, open, and I believe honest.”

Terminated. On December 8, the agency’s board unanimously voted to terminate the employee based on reports prepared by the director of finance documenting his harassing conduct and financial improprieties. The CEO did not have a vote in his termination and was not present at the meeting at which he was terminated.

Firing not discriminatory. Even if the employee could make out a prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas, his discrimination and retaliation claims would all still fail, the court concluded. Significantly, it was undisputed that the board terminated him due to his harassing conduct and financial improprieties, which was well-documented by multiple staff members who had filed complaints against him. Moreover, he even conceded and apologized for some of his actions.

He also failed to present any evidence suggesting pretext. Indeed, he admitted he had no knowledge of bias or retaliatory intent by any of the board members who unanimously voted to terminate him. One of those board members submitted a sworn affidavit that her vote to terminate him “was not influenced by his sex, his health, or any complaints made by him at anytime.” On this record, “the mere allegation that [the CEO’s] perceived animus infected the board’s decision to fire him is not enough to create a genuine dispute of material fact.”

Gender-based HWE claim advances. Allowing his gender-based HWE claim to proceed to trial, the court found that the record demonstrated a classic “he said, she said” dispute unfitting for summary judgment. The employee testified that the CEO made repeated statements attacking his masculinity, rather than a one-off remark. He also stated in his August 21 grievance that she consistently used derogatory language about his gender both directly to him and to other agency staff. Though he later filed a letter of resolution that his “grievances have been clarified and resolved,” this apparent concession required a credibility determination that was inappropriate at summary judgment.

Perceived disability “transitory and minor.” However, his claim that he was subjected to a HWE because of a perceived disability failed as a matter of law. Importantly, the ADA explains the “being regarded as” framework “shall not apply to impairments that are transitory and minor.” The statute provides that a transitory impairment “is an impairment with an actual or expected duration of 6 months or less,” and court have addressed whether an impairment is minor on a case-by-case basis.

Here, the court found that the employee’s impairment was clearly transitory. While the parties disputed the exact number of “mental health days” the employee took off, at most he took three days in March and five days in August, which undisputedly lasted under six months. Finding that the impairment was also minor, that court stated that while it “does not discount the weight of mental health issues,” the employee failed show how his mental health issues affected him symptomatically, what treatment they required (beyond taking a few days off from work), and what knowledge the employer had regarding those symptoms and treatments.

The case is No. 3:23-CV-01271.

Judge: Neary, K.

Attorneys: Ari R. Karpf (Karpf, Karpf & Cerutti) for Kenneth Bascom, Jr. Kimberly D. Borland (Borland & Borland) for PA Treatment & Healing dba PATH.

Companies: PA Treatment & Healing; PATH

Cases: Discrimination DisabilityDiscrimination SexDiscrimination Discharge Retaliation StateLawClaims PennsylvaniaNews