Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, RETALIATION—W.D. Pa.: Restaurant manager allegedly fired for refusing to constructively discharge staff didn’t engage in FLSA-protected activity, (Aug 8, 2025)

By Marjorie Johnson, J.D.

She failed to present any evidence that she made any type of FLSA-related complaint—oral or written—or that the employer believed she had done so.

A former restaurant manager, who claimed she was paid less than male colleagues and terminated because she refused to constructively discharge employees and asked for a raise, will not get a trial on her pay discrimination and FLSA retaliation claims. Granting the employer’s motion for summary judgment, a federal district court in Pennsylvania concluded that no reasonable juror could find she engaged in FLSA-protected activity. Moreover, the men whom she claimed received higher pay were not proper comparators under either Title VII or the Equal Pay Act, and gender bias could not be inferred from evidence concerning the salaries of other female employees (Crisci v. Bridgeville Restaurant Group, LLC, No. 2:23-cv-01909 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 5, 2025)).

Paid less than men. On June 9, 2022, the employer hired the plaintiff to work at one of its restaurants as a service manager with an annual salary of $52,000. Around the same time, a male assistant general manager was paid $60,000 per year. In September 2022, the employee was promoted to general manager and given a salary increase to $60,000. The male assistant manager was also promoted to general manager, but the employer claimed he did not receive a raise. At some point, the employee allegedly inquired about a raise and bonus.

Won’t constructively discharge workers. As a general manager, the employee was responsible for handling and investigating sexual harassment complaints and also had the authority to fire employees. She claimed that one of the company’s owners asked her to train managers in a manner to force them to quit.

Fired. The employer terminated the employee on January 22, 2023, ostensibly based on her poor management of the restaurant, customer and staff complaints, and missing cash from the safe.

Lawsuit. She sued, alleging pay discrimination under Title VII and the Equal Pay Act and FLSA retaliation. She also brought various state-law claims, but the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them after having disposed of the federal claim.

No FLSA-protected activity. The employee alleged that the employer violated the FLSA by retaliating against her for refusing to constructively discharge certain staff members and for inquiring about receiving a raise and bonus. In response, the employer argued that those actions did not constitute protected activity under the FLSA. Though she urged the court to interpret the FLSA expansively so as to find that her actions were protected under the statute, the court declined to do so.

Under the FLSA, an employer cannot “discharge or in any other manner discriminate against any employee because such employee has filed any complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related to this chapter . . .” 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3). While the FLSA is a remedial statute, the Third Circuit has explained that it only protects employees who have filed a complaint that is “sufficiently clear and detailed for a reasonable employer to understand it, in light of both content and context, as an assertion of rights protected by the statute and a call for their protection.”

No complaint or notice. The court found there was simply no evidence that the employee made any type of FLSA-related complaint—oral or written—or that the employer believed she had done so. Her refusal to participate in the constructive discharge of other workers and request for a raise and bonus did not suffice, and she did not otherwise put the employer on notice that she was asserting an FLSA-protected right.

Not paid less than male comparator. Her Title VII claim also failed since she could not show she was paid less than similarly situated male employees, nor did she present any other evidence suggesting bias. While she pointed to the male assistant manager whose annual salary was $60,000 at the time that she was being paid $52,000 as a service manager, he was not a proper comparator under Title VII or the Equal Pay Act because he held a different position. She also claimed that he received a raise when he was promoted to general manager but she failed to present evidence to dispute that his salary remained at $60,000. As such, they were paid equally.

The court also rejected her contention that bias could be inferred because a female assistant manager was paid $60,000 and then terminated after asking for a raise. However, it was the employee who hired her and set her pay. She also pointed to another female assistant manager who was paid $52,000, but the court found such facts were immaterial to showing that the employee’s gender was the reason why her pay was lower.

Kitchen managers’ work not equal. The employee’s Equal Pay Act claim similarly failed since she could not establish that she was paid less than male counterparts for equal work. Though she pointed to two male kitchen managers whom she claimed were paid more, they both had different training and duties as compared to her as she did not go to culinary school and was not responsible for cooking food for the restaurant.

The case is No. 2:23-cv-01909.

Judge: Wiegand, C.

Attorneys: Martell Harris (The Trial Law Firm) for Mary Crisci. Trisha A. Gill (Litchfield Cavo) for Bridgeville Restaurant Group, LLC dba Dee Jay's BBQ Ribs & Grille and Mt. Nebo Foods, LLC dba Dee Jays BBQ Ribs & Grille, Michael McMullen, and James A. Irvine.

Companies: Bridgeville Restaurant Group, LLC; Dee Jay's BBQ Ribs & Grille; Mt. Nebo Foods, LLC

Cases: Retaliation PayDiscrimination SexDiscrimination Discrimination WageHour PennsylvaniaNews