Doe v. Triangle Doughnuts, LLC

Decision Date16 July 2020
Docket NumberNo. 5:19-cv-5275,5:19-cv-5275
Citation472 F.Supp.3d 115
Parties Jane DOE, Plaintiff, v. TRIANGLE DOUGHNUTS, LLC, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

Justin F. Robinette, The Law Offices of Eric A. Shore, P.C., Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiff.

Victor E. Scomillio, Boyer, Holzinger & Harak, Bethlehem, PA, for Defendant.

OPINION

Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, ECF No. 15 — GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part

Joseph F. Leeson, Jr., United States District Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

In this employment discrimination action, Plaintiff Jane Doe1 ("Doe") sues her former employer, Triangle Doughnuts, LLC ("Triangle"), for myriad2 violations of her civil rights based on her race, as well as her transgender and HIV-positive status. Before the Court is Triangle's motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim. For the reasons set forth below, Triangle's motion is granted, in part, and denied, in part.

II. BACKGROUND
A. Facts alleged in the Amended Complaint3

Doe is a transgender female4 who identifies herself by a female name and female pronouns. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 13, 14(a). She is also HIV-positive and a person of color.5 Id. ¶¶ 70(f), 4. Doe was hired in or around March 2018 to work as a cashier at Triangle, which operates a Dunkin’ Donuts in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. Id. ¶¶ 3, 12.

Doe alleges that during the course of her employment between March 2018 and May 2018, she experienced harassment and discrimination by coworkers and customers. See Am. Compl. ¶ 14. Doe's coworkers regularly misgendered Doe with a male name and male pronouns despite her requests to use her female name and female pronouns. Id. ¶ 14(c). For instance, Doe's Shift Supervisor, Lisa, Last Name Unknown ("LNU"), held a supervisory role in the company and would frequently use Doe's male legal name, male pronouns, and "dude" when referring to Doe, despite Doe's requests for her to use female pronouns and a preferred female name. Id. ¶¶ 14(a)-(b). Other coworkers in managerial positions, such as Stephanie Almanzar, the manager, and Anot LNU, the assistant manager, acted similarly by regularly referring to Doe as "he," which encouraged further misgendering and harassment by both coworkers and third-party customers. Id. ¶¶ 14(c), (d). Coworkers also asked Doe inappropriate and probing questions throughout her employment. For example, Sarah LNU, Doe's coworker, asked Doe "are you a tranny?" Id. ¶ 14(e). Another coworker, Beyonce LNU, asked Doe about her "sexual orientation," and whether Doe was going to have "[her] penis removed." Id. ¶¶ 14(g), (h). And Lisa LNU asked Doe "why do you wear a bra if you don't have breasts?" Id. ¶ 14(q). When Doe responded by stating that she is a transgender female and identifies as female, Lisa LNU stated "boy, you know you're not." Id.

Customers, including regular customers, misgendered Doe on a frequent and sometimes daily basis. Am. Compl. ¶ 14(i). On one occasion, a customer stated "I don't want him serving me at the register" when referring to Doe. Id. ¶ 14(j). Another customer complained about having to use female pronouns or a female name when referring to Doe because she was "not a girl." Id. ¶ 14(k). On another occasion, a customer stated to Doe, "[y]ou're a man." Id. ¶ 14(m). Doe states that she frequently corrected and rebuffed these customers for their misgendering and harassment. Id. ¶¶14(i), (k), 34, 35, 59. However, rather than addressing or preventing customer behaviors of misgendering and gender stereotyping, Doe's supervisors acceded to the harassment and reassigned her to duties that were out of the view of customers. Id. ¶ 14(j). Lisa LNU also threatened to write Doe up if she did not work where she was assigned. Id. Doe was also told "[d]on't use the women's bathroom" because "[customers] don't feel comfortable with you going in there." Id. ¶ 14(l).

During the course of her employment, Doe was also subject to a stricter dress code than other female and cisgender6 employees, such as being required to wear her hair in a ponytail and being prohibited from wearing nail polish or makeup. See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 14(n), (o), (p).

Several of Doe's interactions with her coworkers and customers were threatening, and even became physical on one occasion. See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 15(b), (c), (d). Specifically, in April or May 2018, Sarah LNU tried to confront Doe aggressively as if she was going to try to physically fight Doe while calling her a "n-gga" and stating that Doe would "get [her] ass beat up." Id. ¶ 15(b). In the same time frame, a customer who was friends with one of Doe's coworkers approached Doe and told her that they heard she was "talking shit." Id. ¶ 15(c). On another occasion in the same time frame, a group of three customers, including one of Doe's former coworkers, pushed Doe and made derogatory and threatening statements such as "I'll kill your bitch ass," referred to Doe as a "fucking faggot," and told her "[w]e don't like faggots." Id. ¶ 15(d). Doe asserts that these interactions were retaliation for her rebuffing of customers and coworkers who misgendered and harassed her. Id. ¶ 43.

Doe reported the incident involving the three individuals to the police. Am. Compl. ¶ 15(d). Although Doe's manager told Doe something to the effect of, "[i]f you don't feel safe, go home" in response to the incident, when Doe stated she was going home, her manager told Doe that she was being taken off of the schedule. Id. ¶ 15(e). In April or May 2018, Stephanie Almanzar informed Doe that she was being taken off of the schedule permanently and that she no longer worked at Dunkin’ Doughnuts. Id. ¶ 15(f).

Doe claims that Triangle failed to provide prompt and appropriate action to correct and remedy the harassment against her. Am. Compl. ¶ 16. In support of this, Doe points out that Stephanie Almanzar stated the following to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"): "Our customers are our number one priority[,] we are not allowed to argue or ‘correct’ a customer, it does go with [sic] the saying ‘customers are always right’ ... no I did not and will not correct my customers." Id. Doe moreover claims that although Triangle's company handbook contains a non-discrimination and anti-discrimination policy related to "sexual orientation," it did not include such a policy for "gender identity" or "gender expression." Id. ¶ 18.

According to Doe, she was objectively qualified for her position with Triangle, as she had previously been employed at a Dunkin’ Donuts, had been previously employed as a server, and had prior customer service experience. Am. Compl. ¶ 21. She claims she was capable of performing the duties of her position with reasonable accommodations — being treated consistent with her gender identity, being referred to as female, and being allowed to use the female restroom — and that she in fact requested and was denied these reasonable accommodations. Id. ¶¶ 84-85, 90. Doe similarly alleges that near the end of her employment, she requested time off for reasons related to her HIV-positive diagnosis, however her request was denied and she ended up going into work while sick. Id. ¶ 91. According to Doe, Triangle was aware of both her transgender status as well as her HIV-positive status. Id. ¶ 81. In particular, Doe told Stephanie Almanzar that she was HIV-positive, undergoing hormone replacement therapy, and that being male was "not who [she was]." Id.

Doe also recalls telling Stephanie Almanzar that she needed time off for "my diagnosis." Id. ¶ 104.

Doe claims that in response to her EEOC charge, Triangle stated that Doe was discharged for violating the company's policy regarding scheduling time off, which required employees to submit availability forms two weeks before the day(s) they were requesting to take off. Am. Compl. ¶ 26. Doe maintains that this justification was pretextual. Id. Doe claims that her HIV-positive status prevented her from complying with this policy, as a person with HIV may require time off for complications that are not foreseeable two weeks in advance. Id. ¶ 28. Doe also alleges that company policy required three warning letters to precede termination, letters which she did not receive. Id. ¶ 27.

In the end, Doe states that her treatment and eventual termination were direct consequences of her transgender and/or HIV-positive status, as well as retaliation for her requests for time off and for frequently rebuffing customers and coworkers who misgendered and harassed her. See, e.g. , Am. Compl. ¶¶ 20, 34, 103. She also claims that her race as "Afro-Latina" was a motivating factor in her termination. Id. ¶ 149.

B. Procedural background

On November 8, 2019, Doe filed the initial Complaint in this action against Triangle and Dunkin’ Donuts, along with a motion to proceed in her suit anonymously through use of a pseudonym. See ECF Nos. 1-2. On December 13, 2019, the Court denied Doe's motion to proceed anonymously without prejudice and with leave to re-file after both Defendants had been served and Plaintiff's counsel conferred with Defendantscounsel regarding the substance of the motion. See ECF No. 6. Triangle filed a motion to dismiss the initial Complaint on December 20, 2019. See ECF No. 9. Several days later, on December 26, 2020, the Clerk of the Court issued notice that Dunkin’ Donuts had failed to timely respond to the Complaint. See ECF No. 10.

On January 3, 2020, Doe filed an Amended Complaint along with a second motion to proceed anonymously. See ECF Nos. 11-12. Several days later, the Court denied Doe's second motion to proceed anonymously without prejudice and with leave to re-file once both Defendants were served the Amended Complaint and all counsel had conferred regarding the substance of the motion. See ECF No. 13. On January 23, 2020, Triangle filed a motion to dismiss Doe's Amended Complaint. See ECF No. 15. Service was subsequently effected on Dunkin’ Donuts, and it filed its own motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • Branch v. Temple Univ.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • August 12, 2021
    ...and emails to supervisors of racial discrimination are considered protected activity under Title VII. See Doe v. Triangle Doughnuts, LLC , 472 F. Supp. 3d 115, 139 (E.D. Pa. 2020) ; Mufti v. Aarsand & Co. , 667 F. Supp. 2d 535, 552 (W.D. Pa. 2009) ("Protected activity includes formal charge......
  • Hanafy v. Hill Int'l
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • April 19, 2023
    ... ... Vertical ... Screen , 592 F.Supp.3d 409, 422 (E.D. Pa. 2022); see ... Jones , 198 F.3d at 415; Doe v. Triangle Doughnuts, ... LLC , 472 F.Supp.3d 115, 138-40 (E.D. Pa. 2020) ...          Defendant ... argues that Plaintiff has ... ...
  • Nickey v. UPMC Pinnacle
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • August 5, 2022
    ... ... Pa. 2005) (noting that ... termination is an adverse employment action)); see also ... Doe v. Trianvle Doughnuts, LLC., 472 F.Supp.3d 115, 137 ... at n. 26 (E.D. Pa. 2020). It is undisputed that Nickey was ... terminated on November 9, 2018. (Doc ... ...
  • Mozeleski v. Main Line Hosps.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • March 23, 2022
    ... ... Mozeleski failed to show how the ... harassment impacted her for most of this broad timeframe ... See Doe v. Triangle Doughnuts, LLC , 472 F.Supp.3d ... 115, 132 (E.D. Pa. 2020) (citing Walton , 168 F.3d at ... 667) ... Mozeleski also fails to ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT