Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—SEXUAL HARASSMENT—W.D. Pa.: Former trucking employee’s sexual harassment and retaliation claims advance to trial, (Aug 19, 2026)

By Mandavi Singh, LL.M.

Evidence of persistent sexual harassment by several coworkers and allegedly inadequate investigations, along with the circumstances surrounding the employee’s termination, created fact issues for trial.

A female Driver Sales Representative for a national trucking company can proceed to trial on her Title VII and Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA) hostile work environment and retaliation claims, a Pennsylvania federal court has found. Denying the employer’s summary judgment motion, the court found sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that the employee experienced ongoing sexually-charged harassment by multiple coworkers and that the company knew or should have known about the conduct but failed to take measures reasonably calculated to stop it. Her retaliation claims also survived because the timing and circumstances of her unpaid leave and termination could permit a jury to disbelieve the company’s assertion that she was fired solely for failing to maintain a required HAZMAT certification (Tillman v. XPO Logistics Freight, Inc., No. 2:23cv1585 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 17, 2026)).

Sexual harassment. The employee was hired in February 2020 as a Driver Sales Representative, operating tractor-trailers and loading and unloading freight. Several months later, a male driver allegedly began making repeated unwanted sexual advances, including explicit propositions. She reported the conduct to her service center manager, and the coworker received formal coaching, but she alleged the harassment continued until he left the company in February 2022.

Another coworker allegedly began pulling her hair, invading her personal space, and making sexually suggestive remarks. In April 2022, a different driver allegedly touched her leg and made a sexual proposition when she stopped to see whether he needed roadside assistance. She later learned of a sexually provocative image circulated among coworkers that referred to her and another woman. Although she reported several incidents, the company repeatedly found insufficient corroboration or otherwise declined to impose discipline.

Continuing environment. The employer argued that the earlier harassment should be separated from the later incidents. On that theory, the earlier conduct was time-barred, and the remaining incidents were not sufficiently severe or pervasive.

The court disagreed. Relying on National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002), it explained that a hostile work environment consists of “a series of separate acts that collectively constitute one unlawful employment practice.” The employee presented the earlier harassment as part of a broader pattern rather than as a discrete employment action.

The incidents were sufficiently related because they involved male coworkers approaching her for sex, treating her as a sex object, or otherwise harassing her based on sex, and they occurred at intervals throughout her approximately three years with the company. Under Mandel v. M&Q Packaging Corp., 706 F.3d 157 (3d Cir. 2013), acts not individually actionable may be aggregated when sufficiently linked as part of a continuing hostile environment.

Severe or pervasive. Viewed collectively, the evidence also exceeded the threshold necessary to proceed to trial. The alleged conduct ranged from repeated explicit propositions to unwanted touching and sexually charged comments and imagery. The court stressed that the work environment had to be considered as a whole rather than by determining whether each coworker’s conduct independently amounted to actionable harassment. A jury could conclude that the employee suffered “fairly continuous harassment from many angles for nearly three years.”

Moreover, she was the only woman working on the dock, and much of the alleged harassment occurred openly. The evidence could support a finding that the conduct remained ongoing and persistent and that the absence of meaningful discipline contributed to its severity and pervasiveness.

Employer response. The court also found sufficient evidence for employer liability. Because the alleged harassers were coworkers, the employee had to show that the company knew or should have known about the harassment and failed to take remedial measures reasonably calculated to stop it. Although the company emphasized that it investigated her formal complaints, a jury could find the investigations superficial. Supervisors repeatedly interviewed the employee and alleged harasser and, absent independent corroboration, treated the complaints as “he said, she said” disputes.

Significantly, a terminal manager testified that he thought the employee’s complaints were “a little far-fetched,” explaining that, based on his upbringing, he did not think “something like that would go on in the world.” A jury could find that attitude, together with the company’s insistence on corroborating evidence, resulted in inadequate investigations. The court also reasoned that the company’s approach could have signaled to coworkers that harassment would result in little meaningful discipline, thereby contributing to its continuation. The record therefore could support a finding that the employer negligently failed to take measures reasonably calculated to end the harassment.

HAZMAT lapse. The retaliation claims arose from the employee’s termination after her HAZMAT certification lapsed. She filed an EEOC charge alleging sexual harassment in December 2022. In February 2023, her certification unexpectedly lapsed when she renewed her driver’s license. The company initially allowed her to work on the dock but later placed her on unpaid leave while she sought recertification. Her requests to continue dock work or drive routes not requiring the certification were denied. When she failed to obtain the certification during the 90-day leave period, the company terminated her.

The employer maintained that HAZMAT certification was mandatory for drivers and that it had given her ample time to renew it. Although the court found this a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for termination, the employee produced sufficient evidence for a jury to consider whether it was pretextual.

Retaliatory motive. Applying the McDonnell Douglas framework, the court found a prima facie retaliation case based on the employee’s harassment complaints, EEOC charge, unpaid leave, and termination. The timing could support an inference of retaliation. She filed her EEOC charge in December 2022, was placed on unpaid leave approximately two months later, and was terminated immediately after the leave expired. The “timing of the events, the surrounding circumstances and the immediacy of the termination” permitted a jury to consider whether the certification requirement was used as pretext.

Evidence also supported a possible pattern of antagonism. Shortly after the EEOC charge, a supervisor alerted management that the employee continued to express concerns about workplace discrimination. The company subsequently denied her requests for dock work or non-HAZMAT routes despite initially permitting her to work without the certification.

Further, the employee asserted that two male drivers had worked without HAZMAT certifications and that only a portion of the company’s transports involved hazardous materials. Together with the company’s initial decision to let her work on the dock without certification, this evidence could permit a jury to disbelieve that the certification requirement was the actual reason for her termination.

Accordingly, the court found sufficient evidence for a jury to determine that retaliatory motive was a determinative factor in the termination. Thus, it denied summary judgment on the Title VII and PHRA hostile work environment and retaliation claims.

The case is No. 2:23cv1585.

Judge: Cercone, D.

Attorneys: David B. Spear (Minto Law Group) for Ryann Tillman. Terri Imbarlina Patak (Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart) for XPO Logistics Freight, Inc.

Companies: XPO Logistics Freight, Inc.

Cases: SexualHarassment Discrimination Retaliation SexDiscrimination Discharge CoverageLiability PennsylvaniaNews