Vnuk v. Berwick Hosp. Co. – Aug. 2105 (Summary)

SEXUAL HARASSMENT

Vnuk v. Berwick Hosp. Co., No. 3:14-CV-01432 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 19, 2015)

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania denied a defendant physician’s motion to dismiss a plaintiff nurse’s Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (“PHRA”) claims due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction, but granted the defendant hospital’s motion to dismiss the nurse’s intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. The physician, who served as Chief of Staff, allegedly sexually harassed the nurse over a two and one half year period in the emergency department, including many instances of touching and sexually suggestive remarks. The harassment was allegedly general knowledge among hospital staff. The nurse claimed she reported the harassment to supervisors and the hospital’s human resources department, but the hospital decided to only conduct interviews of hospital employees instead of conducting an investigation consistent with its internal policy. Additionally, the nurse claimed the physician and hospital allegedly retaliated against her for reporting the harassment. She also claimed the hospital attempted to deal with the harassment by not scheduling her to work on shifts when the physician would not be present, reducing her work hours.

The physician filed a motion to dismiss the nurse’s PHRA claims, because the nurse had not exhausted her administrative remedies. The district court noted the physician’s name did not need to appear in the caption of the nurse’s Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission complaint; the allegation in the body of the complaint, naming the physician and detailing the actions he allegedly committed, was enough to satisfy this requirement. Additionally, the district court denied the physician’s motion to dismiss the breach of fiduciary duty claim, noting the nurse had alleged sufficient facts to support that claim

The court granted the hospital’s motion to dismiss, explaining that while the Pennsylvania worker’s compensation statute provided the sole remedy for injuries allegedly sustained during the course of employment, a personal animus exception exists where the injury is motivated by personal reasons as opposed to generalized contempt. The district court held the alleged retaliatory actions of the hospital did not amount to personal animus for the purposes of the exception; they did not evince intent to harm the nurse for personal reasons. Nor were the alleged retaliatory actions legally sufficient to be considered “outrageous” by a member of the community. Additionally, the district court held the hospital could not be considered vicariously liable for the physician’s conduct because sexual harassment was not in the scope of the physician’s employment at the hospital. The court also noted that the nurse had filed a new administrative complaint, alleging constructive discharge, with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission and U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission.