Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—SEXUAL HARASSMENT—M.D. Pa.: Sexual harassment claims, based on manager’s ‘clearly inappropriate’ online comments, dismissed, (Feb 11, 2025)

By Jason Albright, J.D.

In one virtual meeting, the manager expressed his hope that a male employee would “come in a maid outfit[,]” and then commented on “the things they would do to this guy.”

Benvenuti Arts, Inc. is entitled to dismissal of the Title VII and Pennsylvania sexual harassment claims of a former operations specialist who resigned, shortly after she was hired in February 2023, following a series of lewd comments made by a manager—who, among other things, also showed her his “cock ring”—during online meetings with her. Although the manager’s comments and actions were “clearly inappropriate,” there were no allegations that he made the comments because of the employee’s sex, nor that his conduct would have been different had she been male, the court found (Barzyk v. Benvenuti Arts, Inc., No. 1:24-CV-0956 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 10, 2025)).

Operations specialist. The plaintiff began working for Benvenuti as an operations specialist on February 3, 2023. She was encouraged to apply for the position by her upstairs neighbor and longtime acquaintance, who was Benvenuti’s Director of Operations and Human Resources.

PTSD. Her employment application contained reference to information that she was a domestic violence survivor and suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder.

First meeting, “machete” and “orgy” comments. On her first day of work, she attended a remote, virtual training session with the director and several other new employees. During the meeting, the director told group that if they had “comments or complaints,” they could send them to HR, but that if the complaints were about him, “then do not send them at all.”

The meeting was interrupted by an audible crash in the director’s office, which he explained was a “14-inch machete.” At the end of the meeting, an employee attending the session commented that he was going to an art event after the meeting, and the director responded “along the lines of ‘Oh, I guess you are going to a weird art orgy,’” according to the court.

One-on-one and sex toys. The employee and the director then had a virtual one-on-one after the group meeting, during which the director mentioned and displayed sex toys he owns. During the conversation, the employee’s toddler son walked into the room and “[a]s her son was visibly on her camera, [the director] showed a ‘cock ring’ on camera and stated words to the effect of ‘this is jewelry that is worn on the male genitalia.’”

The director again mentioned his machete and referred to his “supply of ‘emergency cocaine.’”

“[M]aid outfit” comments. The two had another virtual one-on-one meeting on February 5, and the director began discussing a different employee. The director said he hoped the mentioned employee would “come in a maid outfit[,]” and also commented on “the things they would do to this guy.”

Resignation and ensuing texts to her mother. Ultimately, on February 10, a week after she was hired, the employee sent a resignation letter, which included an explanation of the director’s behavior and comments, to the company’s CEO.

After she resigned, however, the director allegedly began text messaging her mother, sending “a total of approximately seventeen (17) screenshots;” stating that he was going to resign to save face, and then continued to “harass Plaintiff’s mother for the next several days.”

Lawsuit. The former employee sued in federal district court, alleging a hostile work environment (HWE) due to sexual harassment under Title VII and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act. Benvenuti moved to dismiss.

HWE. The district court found that the employee failed to allege the first element of a HWE claim: that she was subjected to discrimination because of her sex. She alleged three situations in which the director made sexual or inappropriate comments while she was present virtually, but there were no allegations that the comments were directed to her or about her.

As alleged, the director made a comment, during a remote group meeting, about a male coworker going to an orgy. Then he discussed and showed the plaintiff his “cock ring” during an individual remote meeting, and he made sexually charged comments about a different coworker during another such meeting. “While showing one’s intimate items to a coworker or expressing sexual desire for a different coworker is clearly inappropriate,” said the court, “there are no allegations that [the director] did these actions or made these comments because of [the operations specialist’s] sex, just that they generally had to do with the topic of sex.”

The employer’s motion to dismiss was accordingly granted.

The case is No. 1:24-CV-0956.

Judge: Wilson, J.

Attorneys: Benjamin D. Salvina (Marzzacco Niven & Associates) for Brendi Barzyk. George C. Thompson (Block & Associates) for Benvenuti Arts, Inc.

Companies: Benvenuti Arts, Inc.

Cases: SexualHarassment SexDiscrimination Discrimination PennsylvaniaNews