The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania has overturned a decision by the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (Commission) that found Electric City Aquarium & Reptile Den, LLC (Employer) liable for retaliating against a former employee, Rachel Lanning (Complainant). The court ruled that the Commission made an error in its legal analysis, leading to the reversal of the order.
The case centered around Complainant’s claim that she was fired in retaliation for reporting alleged harassment by a coworker. The Commission had ordered the Employer to pay Complainant backpay and interest. However, the Commonwealth Court disagreed with the Commission’s findings.
Background of the Case
Complainant worked as a reptile curator for the Employer from September 2018 to October 11, 2019. Her duties included managing schedules and staff shows. In October 2019, Complainant reported concerns about a coworker, Justin Elchynski (Elchynski), to the Employer’s director, Melissa Rosevear (Rosevear). Complainant provided handwritten notes to Rosevear, which were used to draft a formal complaint. The complaint detailed instances where Elchynski allegedly belittled Complainant, dismissed her concerns, and made inappropriate requests.
Shortly after filing the complaint, Complainant was placed on paid leave, and then, on October 11, 2019, she was informed that she was being laid off due to “business being considerably slow recently.”
Complainant then filed a complaint with the Commission, alleging sex discrimination and retaliation. The hearing examiner found in favor of the Complainant on the retaliation claim, but not on the sex discrimination claim. The hearing examiner concluded that the Complainant had presented a prima facie case of retaliation, and that the Employer’s reasons for terminating her employment were pretextual. The Commission upheld the hearing examiner’s findings, ordering the Employer to pay damages.
The Commonwealth Court’s Decision
The Commonwealth Court, however, disagreed with the Commission’s conclusions. The court focused on two key arguments raised by the Employer:
Prima Facie Case of Retaliation
The court held that the Commission erred in finding that Complainant had established a prima facie case of retaliation. To prove retaliation, a complainant must show, among other things, that they engaged in a “protected activity.” The court found that the Complainant’s reports to the Employer did not constitute a protected activity.
Under Pennsylvania law, a protected activity is when an employee opposes a practice forbidden by the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (Act). The Act prohibits discrimination based on factors like sex. The court found that the Complainant’s reports about Elchynski’s behavior did not allege sex discrimination or sexual harassment. The court noted that the Complainant’s complaint primarily focused on Elchynski’s conduct, such as belittling her and dismissing her concerns. The court pointed out that the Complainant’s testimony and the written complaint did not explicitly mention sex discrimination or sexual harassment. The court acknowledged that the Complainant used the term “harassment,” but this word did not automatically equate to a claim of discrimination under the Act.
Pretextual Reason for Termination
The Employer also argued that the Commission erred in finding that its stated reason for terminating the Complainant, financial losses, was pretextual (a cover-up). The court noted that the hearing examiner had previously accepted the Employer’s financial difficulties as a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the Complainant’s discharge when addressing the sex discrimination claim. The court found it inconsistent for the hearing examiner to then consider the same reason pretextual when analyzing the retaliation claim.
The court emphasized that the Complainant did not offer sufficient evidence to show that the Employer’s financial reason was a lie. The court stated that the Complainant’s evidence was insufficient to show that the financial reason was a cover-up.
Legal Principles Applied
The court’s decision was based on a careful application of legal principles. The court cited the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, which prohibits retaliation against employees who oppose unlawful discrimination. The court also referenced the burden-shifting framework established in the *McDonnell Douglas* case, which is often used in employment discrimination cases. Under this framework, the Complainant must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation. If the Complainant does so, the burden shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its actions. Finally, the burden shifts back to the complainant to show that the employer’s stated reason is pretextual.
The Ruling
Ultimately, the Commonwealth Court reversed the Commission’s order, concluding that the Commission erred in its analysis of the case. The court found that the Complainant did not establish a prima facie case of retaliation because her reports to the Employer did not constitute protected activity. The court also found that the Complainant failed to prove that the Employer’s stated reason for terminating her employment was pretextual.