Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—SEXUAL HARASSMENT—M.D. Pa.: Employee called ‘eye candy’ by nonprofit director advances hostile environment claim, (May 22, 2025)

By Molly Platnick

Facts plausibly suggest nonprofit executive director severely and pervasively harassed employee because of his sex in violation of Title VII.

A federal court in Pennsylvania denied a job training and placement assistance nonprofit’s motion to dismiss the Title VII claim asserted by a male employee who alleged he was fired, despite strong job performance, after he complained about sexual harassment by the organization’s executive director. The court found the employee plausibly alleged a hostile work environment claim (Bookhart v. Tri-County Opportunities Industrial Centers, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-00334 (M.D. Pa. May 19, 2025)).

The employee worked for the nonprofit as an employment specialist from October 2023 to March 2024. He alleged he was repeatedly praised for his “excellent job performance” and was rewarded with bonuses for completing large reports, received an Employee of the Month Award, and was offered a promotion to a director-level position. The supervisor called his work “prolific and efficient.” Despite these glowing reviews, in March 2024, the employee was purportedly abruptly terminated for poor performance.

Protests. According to the employee, he was terminated in retaliation for “protesting unlawful sexual harassment” by the nonprofit’s executive director. Starting in January 2024, the executive director, according to the employee, began making “almost daily” comments about his appearance and physique, including calling him “eye candy.” These comments were made in front of third parties, including staff from the Department of Corrections. In March 2024, shortly before he was dismissed, the employee allegedly turned down a promotion to Co-Director of Re-Entry for fear of having to work too closely with the executive director.

Discouraged complaints. The nonprofit did not have an HR officer when the employee worked there, and the employee said he was not given a handbook or any training on how to respond to sexual harassment or discrimination in the workplace. He claimed he repeatedly told the executive director her comments made him uncomfortable and asked her to stop, but she told him she “had license to say whatever she wanted because she is the boss.” The employee discussed the executive director’s behavior with the supervisor, who said he would “escalate his concerns and try to intervene.” Several days later, the supervisor told the employee he had spoken to the director but discouraged “further escalating” the sexual harassment claims because “they don’t want a bigger issue.’”

In February 2025, the employee sued, asserting retaliation and sexual harassment claims under Title VII. In April, the nonprofit filed a 12(b)(6) motion, seeking only to dismiss the hostile work environment claim.

Hostile work environment. The court found the employee plausibly alleged the harassment was based on gender because “it is well-established that comments to an individual about his or her body plausibly allege discrimination based on sex.” The court rejected the nonprofit’s argument the complaint needed to reference comments by the executive director explicitly based on gender.

Severe/pervasive. The court next addressed whether the executive director’s calling the former employee “eye candy” and commenting on his clothes and appearance between January and March 2024 was “severe and pervasive.” The employee argued the conduct was pervasive because the comments were made “almost daily” and severe enough that the supervisor spoke to the executive director. The employee noted that he turned down the co-director position promotion, claiming this was evidence the director’s harassment “altered the conditions” of his employment. The court concluded this conduct was severe and pervasive because the comments were so frequent and the action the employee took to avoid the executive director was so extreme.

The court “easily dispensed” with the nonprofit’s challenges to the third and fourth elements of the former employee’s Title VII hostile work environment claim. Rule 12(b)(6) requires the court to accept all the facts in the complaint as true and view them in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Here, the employee alleged he was uncomfortable enough with the executive director’s comments to turn down the co-director promotion. The court was satisfied the conduct thus “detrimentally affected” the employee and would have “detrimentally affected” a reasonable person in his position.

The court denied the nonprofit’s motion to dismiss the Title VII hostile work environment claim because the employee credibly alleged the executive director harassed him because of his sex and the harassment was severe and pervasive and detrimentally affected him, as it would a reasonable person.

The case is No. 1:25-cv-00334.

Judge: Kane, Y.

Attorneys: Ari R. Karpf (Karpf, Karpf & Cerutti) for Tyrell Bookhart. Alexis Conrad (Stark Law Group) for Tri-County Opportunities Industrialization Centers, Inc.

Companies: Tri-County Opportunities Industrialization Centers, Inc.

Cases: SexualHarassment SexDiscrimination Discrimination PennsylvaniaNews