A federal appeals court reinstated a hostile work environment claim brought by a fired mental health worker but affirmed the dismissal of her wrongful termination claim.
Tondalaya Davis was a mental health program specialist at the Elwyn, Pennsylvania-based human services organization Elwyn of Pennsylvania and Delaware, whose New Beginnings Program provided care for patients who had been released from involuntary institutionalization, according to Friday’s ruling by the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Appeals in Philadelphia i Tondalaya Davis v. Elwyn of Pennsylvania and Delaware.
Shortly after she began working at Elwyn in October 2018, Davis began experiencing racial and sexual harassment from a patient diagnosed with mood, impulsivity and borderline personality disorders, the ruling said.
Other staff also had problems with the patient and the police were called several times because of his actions, it said.
In June 201
9, Davis had a dispute with the patient over who was going to change his bedclothes, which culminated in her supervisor telling her to either make the bed or go home. Ms. Davis went home and the supervisor began dismissing her.Davis sued Elway under state and federal law in U.S. District Court in Philadelphia, alleging she was the victim of a hostile work environment and of retaliation for reporting the patient’s conduct.
The district court granted Elway’s motion for judgment.
A three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals reinstated Davis’ hostile work environment claim, saying, “A reasonable employee could expect to receive support and protection from his employer rather than instructions to submit to dehumanizing and potentially dangerous behavior.”
The record “contains sufficient evidence supporting Ms. Davis to ‘find the conduct alleged to be so prejudicial that it altered (Davis’s) working conditions,'” it said, citing a previous case and reinstatement of the claim.
The panel upheld the dismissal of Davis’ retaliation claim, saying she “failed to present any evidence showing that her stated reasons” for her termination were pretextual.
Attorneys in the case had no comment or did not respond to a request for comment.
Source link
