Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—W.D. Pa.: Employee fired after leaving work early due to conflicts with Santeria religion advances bias, accommodation claims, (Oct 8, 2025)

By Kathleen Kapusta, J.D.

The team lead for a company providing services to individuals with intellectual disabilities can also proceed to trial on his claim he was subjected to a sexually hostile work environment throughout his short tenure.

An employee who, because of a conflict with his Santeria religion, left work two minutes before his relief arrived, leaving two adults with intellectual disabilities unsupervised, presented sufficient evidence that his subsequent discharge was pretext for religious discrimination, a federal court in Pennsylvania ruled, denying summary judgment against his Title VII claim. Evidence a supervisor, who was responsible for covering the overnight shift, refused because she wanted to get drunk was also sufficient to support his failure-to-accommodate claim. The court also denied summary judgment against the employee’s claim the same supervisor sexually harassed him throughout his employment with the residential and support services provider (Boodoo v. AMP Home Care LLC dba AMP, No. 24-1056 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 7, 2025)).

The employee began working for the residential care provider as a Team Lead in December 2023, working the 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. shift Monday through Friday. He was responsible for providing services to two adult residents with intellectual disabilities, including one who was nonverbal and another with a high risk of fleeing. He often covered shifts when the company was short-staffed, received high praise, and was named “Employee of the Month” in January 2024.

Sexual harassment. According to the employee, one of his supervisors sexually harassed him throughout his employment, including by groping him, showing him her genital area during a FaceTime call, taking about sex, and telling him she wanted to “f**k” him. Although he complained, nothing was done.

Mr. Spiritual. The supervisor, who knew the employee identified his religion as Santeria, also purportedly told him he “shouldn’t be messing around with that spiritual stuff” and that he “needs Jesus.” She often referred to him as “Mr. Spiritual.”

Overtime shifts. On February 23, 2024, the supervisor asked the employee, who was scheduled to work his normal shift, to also work the 4:00 p.m. to 12 a.m. shift, allegedly threatening him that if he did not, she would no longer give him extra shifts. Although he told her that he had religious obligations that night, he eventually agreed to work the shift but had to leave at midnight because it was a full moon and he had to engage in various religious practices.

Throughout the afternoon, the supervisor repeatedly asked him to also stay and work the 12:00 a.m. to 10 a.m. shift, telling him she was supposed to work that shift but “wanted to get drunk” that night. The employee told her he could not work that shift because of his religious obligations. He also called the supervisor’s supervisor, telling her he could not work the overnight shift “due to religious practices.” She allegedly told him that if he left, she would call the police.

Termination. The employee ultimately told his supervisor he would wait until 12:15 a.m. for coverage to arrive. She arranged for someone to relieve him but when that person did not show up by 12:15, the employee left. His replacement arrived two minutes later. The employee was subsequently fired for leaving the two individuals under his care alone.

Religious discrimination. He sued for religious discrimination in violation of Title VII and the court, assuming he established a prima facie case, addressed his contention that his employer’s stated reason for firing him—leaving before relief arrived, purportedly in violation of state law and company policy—was pretextual. Pointing to his supervisor, who performed many of the same duties as Team Leads, the employee argued that she was treated more favorably even though she abused and neglected residents.

Here, the court noted evidence she came into work drunk, yelled and cursed at residents, called them “stupid” and “dirty,” stole their money, and physically harmed them but was never disciplined. Moreover, her supervisor also supervised the employee and she was required to follow the same policies. There was also evidence the employer was aware of her conduct as others complained to HR and the COO/executive director, who tolerated her behavior and expected others to tolerate it as well.

Draconian measures. As to evidence submitted by the employer regarding others who had been fired for resident abuse or abandonment, the court found that it actually revealed its “draconian measures” targeting the employee. For instance, prior to his termination, the employee had no disciplinary infractions. Another worker, however, who was fired for leaving a resident alone at least five times for 30-45 minutes each time had been suspended before being terminated. Further, there was evidence the employee’s supervisor, as the on-call supervisor, was responsible for covering the overnight shift.

The employee also presented evidence of discriminatory remarks by the supervisor mocking his religion. And even though she was not the ultimate decisionmaker, she told her supervisor the employee was unable to work the overnight shift due to his religious practices and she in turn communicated this information to HR. In addition, said the court, the employee was fired less than three days after he requested a religious accommodation. Based on all of this, the court denied summary judgment against this claim.

Failure to accommodate. As to the employee’s failure-to-accommodate claim, the employer argued that he had worked overnight during a full moon period the previous month without any objection or request for accommodation and thus his religious beliefs were not sincerely held. The employee, however, presented evidence a full moon was not his sole source of religious significance and that it becomes important when there are deaths or death anniversaries in the family.

Notice. Addressing the employer’s assertion the employee failed to provide adequate or timely notice of his need for an accommodation, as it was not until shortly before 10:00 p.m. on February 23, 2024, that he made a verbal reference to a religious issue while speaking to the supervisor, the court pointed to evidence the supervisor was aware of and mocked his religion prior to that date.

More importantly, said the court, the employee told the supervisor during a phone call at approximately 5:00 p.m. on February 23 that he could not work the overnight shift because of his religious practices and thus she had seven hours to find alternate coverage for the overnight shift. Moreover, the supervisor herself was required to work the shift if there was a staffing shortage. Further, because he was not scheduled to work the shift, there was no need for him to have made a prior religious accommodation request. Accordingly, the court also denied summary judgment against this claim.

Sexual harassment. Turning to the employee’s sexual harassment claim, the court rejected the employer’s contention the supervisor’s conduct was not sufficiently severe or pervasive because their interactions were infrequent. The supervisor’s conduct, the court observed, spanned the entire length of his employment. Further, the employee alleged that she groped him, showed him her genital area during a FaceTime call, talked to him about sex and said she wanted to have sex with him, made a pass at him and when he objected, told him that she could mandate him to stay with her because he was “on the clock,” and called him continuously, even when he was not on duty.

This conduct was also witnessed by other workers who testified that the supervisor “constantly talked about sex” in the workplace and about male employees with whom she had sex. Moreover, the supervisor admitted that the employer created a fraternization policy because of her own inappropriate workplace behavior.

Knowledge. Regarding the employer’s contention it was not made aware of the supervisor’s alleged conduct, the court noted evidence the employee complained to HR and the supervisor’s supervisor about the harassment, but no action was ever taken. And while the parties disputed whether the supervisor was actually a supervisor, the court pointed out that if a factfinder concludes she was, the employer could be strictly liable for her actions. If, however, a factfinder finds she was merely a coworker, the company could be liable for her actions because it knew of the harassment and failed to take prompt and appropriate remedial action. Thus, the court allowed this claim to also proceed to trial.

Retaliation. Finally, as to the employee’s retaliation claim, the court pointed out that he was fired just three days after he requested a religious accommodation and just weeks after his last sexual harassment complaint. Further, as already discussed, he presented comparator evidence; evidence concerning the company’s failure to follow company policies/protocols; evidence of discriminatory comments and antagonism; corroborating witness statements; and evidence of the company’s failure to investigate his harassment complaints.

The case is No. 24-1056.

Judge: Fischer, N.

Attorneys: Jeremy M. Cerutti (Karpf, Karpf & Cerutti) for Andrew Boodoo. Christopher Penco (Ebony Law) for AMP Home Care LLC dba AMP.

Companies: AMP Home Care, LLC; AMP

Cases: ReligiousDiscrimination Discrimination SexualHarassment SexDiscrimination Discharge Retaliation PennsylvaniaNews GCNNews