Bumbarger v. New Enterprise Stone & Lime Co. (170 F. Supp. 3d 801, 2016)

United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania 2016-03-17

Citations

Full opinion text

MEMORANDUM OPINION

KIM R. GIBSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

I. Introduction

Pending before the Court is a motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 24) filed by Defendant New Enterprise Stone and Lime Co., Inc., with respect to all claims asserted in Plaintiff Suzette M. Bumbarger’s amended complaint filed on July 2, 2014, (ECF No. 2). Plaintiffs amended complaint alleges claims for a hostile work environment, constructive discharge, wrongful failure to promote, and retaliation, under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. (“Title VII”). Also pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion to strike portions of Plaintiffs affidavit (ECF No. 35) and Defendant’s motion to strike Monica Graham’s affidavit (ECF No. 37). These matters have been fully briefed (see ECF Nos. 25, 26, 29, 30, 33, 34, 36, 38, 39, 40) and are ready for disposition. For the reasons that follow, Defendant’s motion to strike portions of Plaintiffs affidavit will be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Defendant’s motion to strike Ms. Graham’s affidavit will be DENIED. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment will be GRANTED.

II. Jurisdiction and Venue

The Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs federal claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

III. Procedural and Factual Background

Defendant is a building materials supplier and highway contractor that operates quarries and blacktop and concrete-mix plans in Pennsylvania and performs highway construction and roadway paving projects on a seasonal basis. (ECF Nos. 25 ¶ 1; 30 ¶ 1.) Plaintiff was hired as a part-time flagger for Defendant on a seasonal basis in May 2005 and was hired as a full-time laborer in August 2009. (ECF Nos. 25 ¶ 2; 30 ¶ 2.) When Plaintiff transferred to her position as a full-time laborer in August 2009, she was assigned to the roadway construction crew for which Gregory Stamm, Defendant’s former employee, served as a crew superintendent. (ECF Nos. 25 ¶ 3; 30 ¶ 3; 33 ¶ 3.) As a laborer, Plaintiff diverted traffic during roadway paving. (ECF Nos. 30 ¶ 351; 33 ¶351.) Plaintiffs base rate of pay was $18.00 per hour, and on prevailing wage jobs, her rate of pay was approximately $22.00 per hour. (ECF Nos. 25 ¶ 5; 30 ¶ 5.) Plaintiff continued to be employed by Defendant on a full-time, seasonal basis until she resigned from her position on June 17, 2014. (ECF Nos. 25 ¶ 6; 30 ¶ 6.)

In her capacity as a traffic-control person, Plaintiff primarily worked with Mr. Stamm’s crew but also assisted other crews at times. (ECF Nos. 25 ¶ 65; 30 ¶ 65.) Mr. Stamm yelled when he was angry, and he used profanity and other foul language while on the job. (ECF Nos. 25 ¶ 111; 30 ¶¶ 111, 352; 33 ¶¶ 111, 352.) Plaintiff alleges, in part, that Mr. Stamm would use words such as “b-ch” and “c-t” directed at her, that he once pulled his pants down and mooned her in 2010 or 2011, that he yelled at her to “get in the f~ing truck,” and that, after a paint can was knocked over, said that “this is where the f~ing paint goes and if you do this again[,] you will be the first f-ing [flagger] that [Defendant] had.” (ECF Nos. 25 ¶ 66; 30 ¶ 66; 33 ¶ 66.)

In 2011, Plaintiff and two of her coworkers shared their concerns regarding Mr. Stamm, including the mooning incident, with Billie Dick and Bob Flood, Sr., two of Defendant’s employees. (See ECF Nos. 25 ¶¶ 68, 70-72; 30 ¶¶ 68, 70-72, 375; 33 ¶ 375.) In response, Mr. Flood advised Plaintiff to sign a Check of Facilities form to indicate that she had a complaint. (ECF Nos. 25 ¶ 72; 30 ¶ 72.) Plaintiff contends that she told Mr. Flood that she would not sign the form because Mr. Stamm was the individual who had given her the form, and she feared retaliation. (ECF Nos. 25 ¶ 73; 30 ¶ 73.) Plaintiff alleges, in part, that a few days later, Mr. Stamm screamed profanities at her, told her to “keep her f — ing mouth shut,” and told her that she could not go to the office because “that’s how people lose their job.” (See ECF Nos. 25 ¶ 75; 30 ¶¶ 75, 378-379; 33 ¶¶ 75, 378-379.) During the 2012 season, Mr. Stamm yelled at Plaintiff to “[t]ake off your f — ing glasses so you can see!” (ECF Nos. 30 ¶ 368; 33 1368.)

On May 21, 2013, Employee Relations Manager Corey Reffner received a complaint from William Hutchinson, in which he complained that he was not called back to work, when Mr. Stamm had called other employees back to work, and stated that Mr. Stamm had previously yelled at him and said, “If you want to play games, I will play games.” (ECF Nos. 25 ¶¶ 92, 330; 30 ¶¶ 92, 330.) Mr. Stamm also called Mr. Hutchinson names, such as “r-d.” (ECF Nos. 25 ¶ 113; 30 ¶ 113.) Mr. Reffner designated the matter as an Avenues of Appeal complaint for which further investigation had been initiated and scheduled a .meeting with Mr. Stamm, Jim Miller, and Rick Emerick to address the allegations. (ECF Nos. 25 ¶ 331; 30 ¶ 331.)

On May 23, 2013, Plaintiff met with Mr. Mills to discuss Mr. Stamm. (ECF Nos. 30 ¶ 385; 33 ¶ 385.) At the end of the conversation, Mr. Mills stated that he would contact Mr. Stamm, discuss the matters, and get back in touch with Plaintiff. (ECF Nos. 30 ¶ 386; 33 ¶ 386.) Also on May 23, 2013, Mr. Reffner, Mr. Emerick, and Mr. Miller met with Mr. Stamm to investigate the assignment of work for crews that had been called for the season and to address the fears of retaliation expressed by two employees who were reporting complaints. (ECF Nos. 25 ¶ 332; 30 ¶ 332.) During the meeting, Mr. Reffner, Mr. Emerick, and Mr. Miller addressed retaliation with Mr. Stamm, advised him of the need for fair and equal treatment of all of Defendant’s employees, and stated that retaliation is prohibited. (ECF Nos. 25 ¶ 333; 30 ¶ 333.) The investigation into the assignment and work hours in 2013 did not substantiate the complaints that were alleged. (ECF Nos. 25 ¶ 334; 30 ¶ 334.) Mr. Mills later left Plaintiff a voicemail and stated that he had spoken with Mr. Stamm about the matter. (See ECF Nos. 25 ¶¶ 81-82; 30 ¶¶ 81-82; 33 ¶¶ 81-82.) In his voicemail, Mr. Mills stated that Mr. Stamm did not realize that there was a problem and that he felt things would be okay going forward, “but you know how he is.” (See ECF Nos. 25 ¶¶ 83-84; 30 ¶¶ 83-84, 387; 33 ¶¶ 83-84, 387.)

Thereafter, Mr. Stamm asked Plaintiff if she wanted to go to another crew, and she stated that that would be fine. (See ECF Nos. 25 ¶ 76; 30 ¶¶ 76, 388; 33 ¶¶ 76, 388.) Plaintiff alleges that she and Mr. Stamm then got into a truck together, and he squeezed her shoulder, asking if they were okay. (See ECF Nos. 25 ¶ 77; 30 ¶¶ 77, 388; 33 ¶¶ 77, 388.) According to Plaintiff, Mr. Stamm’s behavior calmed down after this incident but worsened after one or two weeks. (See ECF Nos. 25 ¶ 78; 30 ¶ 78; 33 ¶ 78.) In June or July 2013, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), complaining of a hostile work environment, disparate treatment, and a failure to promote. (ECF Nos. 30 ¶ 485; 33 ¶ 485.) Plaintiff later amended her complaint to add claims for wrongful termination and retaliation. (ECF Nos. 30 ¶ 486; 33 ¶ 486.)

On June 25, 2013, Plaintiff again contacted Mr. Mills regarding Mr. Stamm. (See, ECF No. 25 ¶ 87; 30 ¶87; 33 ¶87.) Mr. Mills mentioned the option of moving Plaintiff to another crew run by Carl Stamm, which was operating in Bigler, Pennsylvania. (ECF Nos. 25 ¶ 88; 30 ¶ 88.) Mr. Mills told Plaintiff to remain in her truck until he arrived at the job site. (ECF Nos. 30 ¶ 391; 33 ¶ 391.) After an inordinate amount of time passed, Plaintiff called Mr. Mills again, at which point he told Plaintiff to return to her home and to take some time off from work. (ECF No. 30 ¶ 392; 33 ¶ 392.) Plaintiff also spoke with Mr. Miller about her complaints regarding Mr. Stamm; Mr. Miller stated that he would speak with Mr. Stamm and get back to her that day. (ECF Nos. 25 ¶ 91; 30 ¶ 91.) After speaking with Mr. Miller, Plaintiff contacted Mr. Reffner and left him a message in which she stated that she would like to speak with him. (ECF Nos. 25 ¶ 92; 30 ¶ 92.) By the end of the day on June 25, 2013, Plaintiff had spoken with Mr. Mills, Ms. Dick, Mr. Miller, and Mr. Reffner. (See ECF Nos. 25 ¶ 93; 30 ¶ 93.)

On June 26, 2013, Mr. Reffner returned Plaintiffs call, spoke with her about Mr. Stamm, and scheduled a meeting with Plaintiff for July 1, 2013. (See ECF Nos. 25 ¶ 94; 30 ¶ 94; 33 ¶ 94.) During the call, Plaintiff stated that she did not want to work with Carl Stamm’s crew because she believed that he answered to Mr. Stamm. (ECF Nos. 30 ¶ 411; 33 ¶411.) Plaintiff and Mr. Reffner agreed that, in the meantime, Plaintiff should not report to work. (ECF Nos. 30 ¶ 397; 33 ¶ 397.) On July 1, 2013, Plaintiff met with Mr. Reffner and Mr. Miller to further discuss her complaints about Mr. Stamm and then completed, at least in part, an Avenues of Appeal Initial Review Form. (See ECF Nos. 25 ¶ 96; 30 ¶ 96; 33 ¶ 96.)

After the meeting, Mr. Reffner spoke with Denise Speck, Tom Crain, Jr., Cheryl Davis, Brian Eyerly, Tom Crain, Sr., and Andrea Quick regarding the incidents identified by Plaintiff. (ECF Nos. 25 ¶ 143; 30 ¶ 143.) Mr. Reffner did not speak with Mr. Hutchinson or Carl Stamm. (ECF Nos. 30 ¶¶ 406-407; 33 ¶¶ 406-407.) Ms. Speck contacted Mr. Reffner and stated that the only person she heard swearing during the week of June 25, 2013, was Plaintiff, who told Ms. Speck, “You tell [Mr. Stamm] the f-ing truck is at the quarry and he can take the cell phone and shove it up his a~.” (ECF Nos. 25 ¶ 146; 30 ¶ 146.) During his investigation, Mr. Reff-ner learned that Mr. Stamm screamed at Ms. Quick, a female who was more senior than Plaintiff, and called her names, such as a “f-ing ret~d.” (ECF Nos. 25 ¶¶ 115, 117; 30 ¶¶ 115, 117.)

When Mr. Reffner contacted Mr. Stamm, he was angry and stated that he would not participate in a meeting. (ECF Nos. 25 ¶¶ 147-148; 30 ¶¶ 147-148.) When Mr. Reffner and Mr. Stamm spoke on the telephone on July 3, 2013, Mr. Stamm stated that he was “not going to play with [Plaintiffs] p-y and make her happy like Charlie Taylor did.” (ECF Nos. 25 ¶¶ 149, 151; 30 ¶¶ 149,151, 399-400; 33 ¶¶ 399-400.) Mr. Stamm also stated that “you guys hire these women and tell them to call you if they have a problem[,] and I’m tired of it. Whatever she said it [sic] what its [sic] going to be.” (ECF Nos. 25 ¶ 150; 30 ¶ 150, 399-400; 33 ¶¶ 399-400.) Following their telephone conversation, Mr. Reffner told Mr. Stamm that he was required to participate in a meeting regarding Plaintiffs allegations and stated that he would prepare termination documents if Mr. Stamm did not report. (ECF Nos. 25 ¶ 155; 30 ¶ 155.)

Mr. Stamm participated in a meeting with Mr. Reffner on July 9, 2013. (See ECF Nos. 25 ¶ 156; 30 ¶156; 33 ¶ 156.) During the meeting, Mr. Stamm stated, in part, that he could perform his job without swearing and that he could continue to work with Plaintiff. (See ECF Nos. 25 ¶ 157; 30 ¶ 157; 33 ¶ 157.) Defendant and Mr. Stamm entered into a Last Chance Agreement on July 9, 2013. (ECF Nos. 25 ¶ 160; 30 ¶ 160.) Mr. Stamm was permitted to return to work and was not suspended for any period of time. (ECF Nos. 25 ¶ 162; 30 ¶ 162.) The same day, Mr. Reff-ner contacted Plaintiff and stated that the investigation did not substantiate the use of derogatory terms related to her sex but that he had issued appropriate discipline regarding the tone and profanity of Mr. Stamm’s language. (See ECF Nos. 25 ¶¶ 164-165; 30 ¶¶ 164-165.)

On the following business day, July 12, 2013, Plaintiff informed Mr. Reffner that she heard the people with whom he had spoken lied and stated that she did not believe that she could work for Mr. Stamm but that she would like to work for Defendant in a location that was closer to her home. (See ECF Nos. 25 ¶¶ 166-167; 30 ¶¶ 166-167, 414; 33 ¶¶ 166-167, 414.) Mr. Reffner did not further investigate Plaintiffs contention that witnesses had lied to him and advised Plaintiff that he was unsure whether he could honor her reassignment request. (ECF Nos. 25 ¶ 168; 30 ¶¶ 168, 415; 33 ¶ 415.) Mr. Reffner followed up on Plaintiffs request with Mr. Emerick, stating that Plaintiff requested to be assigned elsewhere and that he advised her that Defendant prefers to have confidence that the measures taken are severe enough to avoid any further incidents. (ECF Nos. 25 ¶ 170; 30 ¶ 170.) As of July 16, 2013, Mr. Reffner had addressed Plaintiffs requests with Mr. Emerick, but they had not reached a decision on whether to accommodate her. (ECF Nos. 25 ¶ 171; 30 ¶ 171.) When Mr. Reffner returned from a vacation on July 22, 2013, he found that Plaintiffs counsel had sent him a letter requesting that Plaintiff be reassigned away from Mr. Stamm in a location that would not be so far away that she would be unable to travel to her work location. (ECF Nos. 25 ¶¶ 172-173; 30 ¶¶ 172-173.) A resolution was reached on or around July 29, 2013, and Plaintiff returned to work on August 5, 2013, with Larry Shields’s crew at a site in DuBois, which was not a significant distance away from her home. (ECF Nos. 25 ¶¶ 175, 177; 30 ¶¶ 175, 177.) Plaintiff received the same rate of pay as a laborer following her reassignment to Mr. Shields’s crew. (ECF Nos. 25 ¶ 181; 30 ¶ 181.) She has not had any contact with Mr. Stamm since June 25, 2013. (ECF Nos. 25 ¶ 176; 30 ¶ 176.)

On October 3, 2013, after Mr. Stamm drove through Plaintiffs job site, Plaintiff advised Mr. Reffner that as long as someone informed her when Mr. Stamm would be on the site, “it would be fine,” and she wanted to know why he was there so she did not feel uneasy. (See ECF Nos. 25 ¶¶ 185-186; 30 ¶¶ 185-186; 33 ¶¶ 185-186.) Plaintiff told Mr. Reffner that the conditions on the crew were otherwise generally favorable. (ECF Nos. 25 ¶ 187; 30 ¶ 187.) Following the conversation, Mr. Reffner spoke with Mr. Miller, who confirmed that Mr. Stamm would be completed with the project. (ECF Nos. 25 ¶188; 30 ¶188.) When Mr. Reffner advised Plaintiff that Carl Stamm would need to come through to pave the project, she stated that she had not had a problem with Carl Stamm. (ECF Nos. 25 ¶ 189; 30 ¶ 189.) Mr. Reffner informed Mr. Miller that he would need to be notified at any point in which Mr. Stamm would be near Plaintiffs job site so that he could notify Plaintiff. (ECF Nos. 25 ¶ 190; 30 ¶190.) On October 4, 2013, Plaintiff left a message for Mr. Reffner, stating that Mr. Shields told her that Mr. Stamm would work at the job site on October 4, 2013. (ECF Nos. 25 ¶ 191; 30 ¶ 191.) Mr. Reffner contacted Mr. Miller, who stated that Mr. Shields was incorrect, and Mr. Reffner notified Plaintiff that Mr. Stamm would not be coming to the job site. (ECF Nos. 25 ¶ 191; 30 ¶ 191.)

On or around October 13, 2013, after receiving an anonymous letter, Mr. Reff-ner began an investigation regarding Mr. Stamm’s behavior and learned through Mark Buynak and Joe Harzinski that Mr. Stamm was swearing and screaming at them on the job. (See ECF Nos. 25 ¶¶ 193-194; 30 ¶¶ 193-194; 33 ¶ 193.) As a result of his investigation, Mr. Reffner determined that Mr. Stamm needed to be terminated because he had violated the Last Chance Agreement, which was issued on July 9, 2013, for a period of twenty-four months, by using profanity on the job. (ECF Nos. 25 ¶195; 30 ¶ 195.) On October 24, 2013, Mr. Reffner contacted Plaintiff, advising her that Mr. Stamm had been terminated and inquiring whether she had any other issues that needed to be addressed. (ECF Nos. 25 ¶ 196; 30 ¶ 196.) In November 2013, Plaintiff was sent home for the 2013 season, which was significantly later than any season during which Plaintiff served on Mr. Stamm’s crew. (ECF Nos. 30 ¶ 421; 33 ¶ 421.)

During the 2014 season, Plaintiffs first day of work was on April 28, 2014. (ECF Nos. 25 ¶ 206; 30 ¶206.) In May 2014, Plaintiff spoke with Chelsea Ankney, Defendant’s employee who was responsible for assigning flagging work, regarding any flagging opportunities that were available. (ECF Nos. 25 ¶ 208; 30 ¶208.) When Plaintiff spoke with Ms. Ankney about a job in Hustontown, Ms. Ankney stated it the job would continue for approximately two weeks, or eight to ten working days. (ECF Nos. 25 ¶ 210; 30 ¶210.) Plaintiff worked in Hustontown for thirteen days, on May 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, and 22 in 2014. (ECF Nos. 25 ¶ 211; 30 ¶ 211.) Ms. Quick, who was also working at the job in Hustontown, occasionally rode with Plaintiff to the job site. (ECF Nos. 25 ¶ 212; 30 ¶ 212.)

While working in Hustontown, Plaintiff learned that younger, less experienced male laborers were working in Clearfield County, near Plaintiffs home. (ECF Nos. 30 ¶430; 33 ¶ 430.) Plaintiff contacted Assistant General Manager Jeff Hileman to express her concern regarding the amount of time that it took her to drive to Huston-town and to report that she had heard that Mr. Eyerly and Mr. Crain, who were less senior than her, were working closer to her home. (ECF Nos. 25 ¶ 214; 30 ¶ 214.) Mr. Hileman contacted Ms. Ankney, stated that Plaintiff had complaints about her assignment, and made arrangements for Plaintiff to be reassigned to work closer to her home beginning on or around May 28, 2014. (ECF Nos. 25 ¶ 218; 30 ¶218.) Within one week of contacting Mr. Hileman, Plaintiff was assigned to work at a location closer to her home. (ECF Nos. 25 ¶ 219; 30 ¶ 219.) The new assignment was for a project occurring in Snyder Township and consisted of two days of work on May 15 and 19 in 2014. (ECF Nos. 25 ¶220; 30 ¶ 220.)

While Plaintiff worked on the project in Hustontown, from May 6, 2014, through May 22, 2014, Plaintiff worked a total of 131 hours, including 11.5 hours of overtime. (ECF Nos. 25 ¶ 221; 30 ¶221.) During this time, Plaintiffs average hourly pay rate for the project in Hustontown was $24,846. (ECF Nos. 25 ¶222; 30 ¶ 222.) While Plaintiff was assigned to the job in Hustontown, Mr. Eyerly and Mr. Crain worked for a total of four days on a project in Bedford, on May 8, 9, 12, and 13 in 2014, and then worked for a total of two days, on May 19 and 20 in 2014, on a project in the Bigler area. (ECF Nos. 25 ¶¶ 223-224; 30 ¶¶ 223-224.) The project in the Bigler area was not “rated,” meaning that it did not pay prevailing wage rates. (ECF Nos. 25 ¶ 225; 30 ¶ 225.) During the time that Plaintiff was assigned to Huston-town, Mr. Eyerly worked a total of 50.5 hours, received no overtime, and had an average hourly pay rate of $22,324; Mr. Crain worked a total of 59 hours, received no overtime, and had an average hourly rate of $22,198. (ECF Nos. 25 ¶¶ 226-227; 30 ¶¶ 226-227.) During the month of May 2014, Plaintiff worked 153 hours, including 11.5 hours of overtime, and had an average hourly pay of $24,601. (ECF Nos. 25 ¶ 228; 30 ¶ 228.) During the month of May 2014, Mr. Eyerly worked 81.5 hours, received no overtime, and had an average hourly pay rate of $21,373; Mr. Crain worked 90 hours, received no overtime, and had an average hourly rate of $20,862. (ECF Nos. 25 ¶¶ 229-230; 30 ¶¶ 229-230.) Over the final years of Plaintiffs employment, specifically from 2010 through 2014, she made progressively less money each year. (ECF Nos. 30 ¶ 459; 33 ¶ 459.)

On May 28, 2014, Plaintiff was assigned to a project in the Lawrence Township/Clearfield area, which was closer to her home. (ECF Nos. 25 ¶231; 30 ¶231.) Carl Stamm oversaw the job, and his crew included some of the members with whom Plaintiff had worked on Mr. Stamm’s crew. (ECF Nos. 25 ¶ 232; 30 ¶ 232.) On May 28, 2014, Bob McClure handed Plaintiff a document entitled the “Hurt Feelings Report,” which was a form that referred to employees making complaints. (See ECF Nos. 25 ¶¶ 233-235, 259; 30 ¶¶ 233-235, 259.) The Hurt Feelings Report asked for the “[rjeasons for filing this report” and listed reasons such as, “I am thin skinned;” “I am a p-y;” “I have women[-]like hormones;” “I am a qu-r;” “I am a little b — h;” “I am a crybaby;” “I want my mommy;” and “ALL OF THE ABOVE.” (ECF Nos. 30 ¶ 435; 33 ¶435.) Plaintiff continued to work a nine-hour day on May 28, 2014, reported for work on May 29, 2014, but was' sent home along with the rest of the crew due to rain, and reported for work on May 30, 2014. (See ECF Nos. 25 ¶ 259; 30 ¶259.) On May 30, 2014, Carl Stamm asked Plaintiff to sign a Check of Facilities form, but she stated that she could not and advised him that Mr. McClure had given her the Hurt Feelings Report. (ECF Nos. 25 ¶235; 30 ¶235.) Carl Stamm contacted Mr. Flood, who came to the job site to speak with Plaintiff on May 30, 2014. (ECF No. 25 ¶ 236; 30 ¶ 236.) Plaintiff stated that she did not want Mr. McClure to lose his job but stated that she wanted to be able to do her job. (ECF No. 25 ¶ 238; 30 ¶ 238.)

On May 30, 2014, Greg Brunnhuber, who had replaced Mr. Refiner on April 21, 2014, after Mr. Refiner resigned in December 2013 to pursue other employment, was advised of the Hurt Feelings Report. (ECF Nos. 25 ¶¶ 240-242; 30 ¶¶ 240-242.) That day, Mr. Brunnhuber discussed the incident with Plaintiff, Carl Stamm, Mr. Flood, and Mr. McClure. (ECF Nos. 25 ¶ 242; 30 ¶242.) On June 2, 2014, Mr. Brunnhuber conducted interviews on the job site with Plaintiff, Mr. McClure, Neal Becker, and Ms. Quick. (ECF Nos. 25 ¶ 243; 30 ¶ 243.) Mr. Becker and Mr. McClure admitted to giving Plaintiff the Hurt Feelings Report. (ECF Nos. 30 ¶ 442; 33 ¶ 442.) While speaking with Mr. Brunnhuber, Plaintiff complained about her previous assignment in Hustontown, claiming that she had heard that less senior men were being paid at a laborer rate in an area closer to her home and stating that she wanted to be on her old crew. (ECF Nos. 25 ¶ 246; 30 ¶ 246.)

After Mr. Brunnhuber interviewed other individuals on June 2, 2014, he spoke with Plaintiff again, at which time she admitted to raising her middle finger and gesturing toward Mr. McClure on the job site in the prior year; Plaintiff agreed with Mr. Brunnhuber that such conduct was not professional or appropriate for the workplace. (ECF Nos. 25 ¶ 255; 30 ¶255.) Mr. Brunnhuber advised Plaintiff that he had spoken with other individuals, including Mr. McClure and Mr. Becker, stated that he would get back to her on the matter, and informed Plaintiff that he would look into the matter of the assignment of laborer versus flagging work. (ECF Nos. 25 ¶ 256; 30 ¶ 256.) Plaintiffs understanding was that Mr. Brunnhuber was investigating the complaint. (ECF Nos. 25 ¶ 257; 30 ¶ 257.)

Plaintiff continued to report to the same job site every day that work was available from June 2 through June 16, 2014, with the exception of one Sunday that she missed due to having water problems at her home. (ECF Nos. 25 ¶ 260; 30 ¶ 260.) Unbeknownst to Plaintiff at the time, Mr. Brunnhuber was released from his employment on June 6, 2014. (ECF Nos. 30 ¶ 445; 33 ¶ 445.) Plaintiff decided to resign from her position on the morning of June 17, 2014, approximately two weeks after Mr. Brunnhuber had visited the site to investigate. (ECF Nos. 25 ¶¶ 264, 266; 30 ¶¶264, 266.) Plaintiff resigned, in part, because she did not believe that Defendant would protect her from retaliation and because, as far as she was concerned, Defendant did not discipline any of the people involved in the Mr. Stamm and Mr. McClure cases. (See ECF Nos. 25 ¶ 265; 30 ¶ 265.) Plaintiff testified that she contacted human resources, told a woman that she wanted to terminate her employment with Defendant, and was connected to a man named Jake, who did not answer his telephone. (ECF Nos. 25 ¶ 270; 30 ¶ 270.) After Plaintiff called the corporate office, which sent her back to the same person, she left a voicemail regarding her resignation. (ECF Nos. 25 ¶ 270; 30 ¶ 270.) Plaintiff received a telephone call from Jake Gathers regarding her resignation but declined his invitation to complete an exit interview. (See ECF Nos. 25 ¶¶ 272-273, 276; 30 ¶¶272-273, 276.) Mr. Gathers and Mr. Emerick, in the absence of Mr. Brunnhuber, continued to investigate by e-mailing Mr. Hile-man and Jeff Miller on June 19 and 20 of 2014, and these messages were forwarded to Mr. Reffner when he returned to work for Defendant as the Human Resources Manager. (ECF Nos. 25 ¶ 277; 30 ¶277.) On June 27, 2014, the EEOC provided a Notice of Right to Sue in relation to Plaintiffs original filing. (ECF Nos. 30 ¶ 487; 33 ¶ 487.)

Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant on June 30, 2014. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff then filed an amended complaint on July 2, 2014, alleging claims of a hostile work environment, constructive discharge, wrongful failure to promote, and retaliation. (ECF No. 2.) Defendant filed an answer to Plaintiffs amended complaint on July 18, 2014. (ECF No. 5.) Following the close of discovery, Defendant filed the present motion for summary judgment on July 31, 2015. (ECF No. 24.) Plaintiff filed a response in opposition on September 17, 2015. (ECF No. 29.) The matter has been fully briefed (ECF Nos. 25, 26, 30, 33, 34), and is ripe for disposition.

IY. Standard of Review

A grant of summary judgment is appropriate when the moving party establishes that ‘“there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’ ” Heffeman v. City of Paterson, 777 F.3d 147, 151 (3d Cir.2015) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)). A genuine issue of material fact is one that could affect the outcome of litigation. Mahoney v. McDonnell, 616 Fed.Appx. 500, 504 (3d Cir.2015) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)). However, “ ‘[wjhere the record-taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party, there is no genuine issue for trial.’ ” Id. (quoting Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986)).

The initial burden is on the moving party to adduce evidence illustrating a lack of genuine issues. Id. (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986)). Once the moving party satisfies its burden, the non-moving party must present sufficient evidence of a genuine issue, in rebuttal. Id. (citing Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., 475 U.S. at 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348). When considering the parties’ arguments, the Court is required to view all facts and draw all inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Id. (citing Armbruster v. Unisys Corp., 32 F.3d 768, 777 (3d Cir.1994)). Further, the benefit of the doubt will be given to allegations of the non-moving party when in conflict with the moving party’s claims. Bialko v. Quaker Oats Co., 434 Fed.Appx. 139, 141 n. 4 (3d Cir.2011) (citing Valhal Corp. v. Sullivan Assocs., 44 F.3d 195, 200 (3d Cir.1995)).

Nonetheless, a well-supported motion for summary judgment will not be defeated where the non-moving party merely reasserts factual allegations contained in the pleadings. Id. (citing Williams v. Borough of West Chester, 891 F.2d 458, 460 (3d Cir.1989)). The non-moving party must resort to affidavits, depositions, admissions, and/or interrogatories to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue. Connection Training Servs. v. City of Philadelphia, 358 Fed.Appx. 315, 318 (3d Cir.2009) (citing Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548).

Y. Discussion

A. Defendant’s Motions to Strike Plaintiffs and Monica Graham’s Affidavits

1. Plaintiffs Affidavit

Because Defendant contends that Plaintiff has submitted two sham affidavits in an attempt to create genuine issues of material fact, the Court will first address Defendant’s motions to strike Plaintiffs and Monica Graham’s Affidavits. Regarding Plaintiffs affidavit, Defendant argues that paragraphs 30, 38, 39, 69, 70, 71, 92, 93, 95, and 97 must be stricken. (ECF No. 35.) Specifically, Defendant asserts that these portions of Plaintiffs affidavit are in direct contradiction to Plaintiffs previous testimony at her unemployment compensation hearing and at her deposition because they contain new material assertions that Plaintiff omitted from her prior testimony. (ECF No. 36 at 19.) In response, Plaintiff argues that her affidavit does not contradict her previous testimony and that she had no affirmative duty to raise facts in her own deposition. (ECF No. 40.)

Under the sham affidavit doctrine, “a court will disregard an affidavit that is inconsistent with an affiant’s prior deposition testimony ... unless the party relying on the affidavit in opposition to the motion can present a legitimate reason for the discrepancies between the deposition and the affidavit.” Smith v. Johnson and Johnson, 593 F.3d 280, 285 n. 3 (3d Cir.2010); see also Cleveland v. Policy Mgmt. Sys. Corp., 526 U.S. 795, 806-07, 119 S.Ct. 1597, 143 L.Ed.2d 966 (1999) (“[A] party cannot create a genuine issue of fact sufficient to survive summary judgment simply by contradicting his or her own previous sworn statement (by, say, filing a later affidavit that flatly contradicts that party’s earlier sworn deposition) without explaining the contradiction or attempting to resolve the disparity.”); Jiminez v. All Am. Rathskeller, Inc., 503 F.3d 247, 251 (3d Cir.2007) (“[A] party may not create a material issue of fact to defeat summary judgment by filing an affidavit disputing his or her own sworn testimony without demonstrating a plausible explanation for the conflict.”) (internal quotations omitted).

The Third Circuit has adopted a “flexible approach” in applying the sham affidavit analysis. Jiminez, 503 F.3d at 254. Specifically, if independent evidence in the record bolsters an otherwise questionable affidavit, courts within the Third Circuit will generally not disregard the affidavit. Id. (citing Baer v. Chase, 392 F.3d 609, 624-25 (3d Cir.2004)). The corroborating evidence may establish that the affiant was mistaken, confused, or did not possess all of the facts during the previous deposition. Id. However, “[w]hen a party does not explain the contradiction between a subsequent affidavit and a prior deposition, it is appropriate for the district court to disregard the subsequent affidavit and the alleged factual issue in dispute as a ‘sham,’ therefore not creating an impediment to a grant of summary judgment based on the deposition.” Id.

Defendant first argues that paragraphs 70 and 71 of Plaintiffs affidavit must be stricken because they contradict Plaintiffs prior testimony. (ECF No. 36 at 3-7.) In paragraphs 70 and 71 of her affidavit, Plaintiff states that in 2011, Ms. Dick called her several days after she revealed that Mr. Stamm had told her to “[g]et in the truck, b-h,” to ask whether Mr. Stamm’s behavior had improved. (ECF No. 30-8 at 12.) Plaintiff states that she told Ms. Dick that Mr. Stamm said that he would treat Plaintiff however he wanted and that she would lose her job if she continued to report him. (Id.) Defendant asserts that Plaintiffs statement contradicts her previous testimony in which she stated that she did not report Mr. Stamm’s behavior until May 2013. (ECF No. 36 at 4-5.)

In response, Plaintiff clarifies, that she testified that she first reported -Mr. Stamm’s behavior to “the HR department” in 2013 and that, to her knowledge, Ms. Dick was a managerial employee who did not work in the central human resources department. (ECF No. 40 at 5-6.) Plaintiff further notes that Ms. Dick initiated the telephone call to her, meaning that Plaintiff did not “go to” Ms. Dick to report Mr. Stamm’s behavior in 2011. (Id. at 7.) Finally, Plaintiff states that Defendant’s counsel did not ask her whether Ms. Dick followed up with her and instead asked whether she contacted anyone from the human resources department. (Id. at 8.) Plaintiff contends that the answer to Defendant’s counsel’s question, during the relevant timeframe of 2011, remains no. (Id.) Having reviewed Plaintiffs testimony, the Court finds that the independent evidence in the record bolsters paragraphs 70 and 71 of Plaintiffs affidavit and that Plaintiffs statements do not have the qualities of patently sham averments. Jiminez, 503 F.3d at 254; see also Heasley v. EchoStar Satellite L.L.C., No. 08-CV-261, 2009 WL 1457733, at *1, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45035, at *3 (W-D.Pa. May 22, 2009) (finding that the issues that the defendant raised “are more properly characterized as gaps or minor discrepancies in [the plaintiffs] testimony, which bear on her credibility and are matters properly reserved for cross-examination” and which “are immaterial to the disposition of [the defendant’s] Motion [for summary judgment]”). Moreover, the Court notes that the parties have agreed that in 2011, Plaintiff and two of her co-workers shared their concerns regarding Mr. Stamm, including the mooning incident, with Ms. Dick and Mr. Flood, Sr., two of Defendant’s employees. (See ECF Nos. 25 ¶¶ 68, 70-72; 30 ¶¶ 68, 70-72, 375; 33 ¶ 375.) The Court will therefore deny Defendant’s request to strike paragraphs 70 and 71 of Plaintiffs affidavit.

Defendant next argues that paragraph 95 of Plaintiffs affidavit must be stricken because it contradicts Plaintiffs prior testimony. (ECF No. 36 at 7-9.) In paragraph 95, Plaintiff states that Mr. McClure and Mr. Becker increased their use of derogatory language, including the word “b-h,” after she received the Hurt Feelings Report. (ECF No. 30-8 at 16.) Defendant asserts that Plaintiff specifically testified that Mr. McClure did not call her any names and made no mention of any name calling or harassing conduct from Mr. Becker. (ECF No. 36 at 8.)

In response, Plaintiff states that she “stands by her initial statement that Mr. McClure did not call her names during that period of time.” (ECF No. 40 at 9.) She states that “the affidavit needs to be clarified” because “it was Mr. Becker and other coworkers who called [her] names during that period of time — Mr. McClure only engaged in non-verbal harassment.” (Id.) In light of Plaintiffs clarification, the Court will strike the portion of paragraph 95 that includes Mr. McClure. The Court rejects Defendant’s argument that Plaintiff made no mention of Mr. Becker’s conduct because Defendant’s counsel’s questioning referred only to Mr. McClure. (See ECF No. 36 at 8.) Plaintiff therefore did not have an opportunity to testify regarding Mr. Becker’s conduct. Accordingly, paragraph 95 will be stricken in part to read, “Additionally, my coworkers, primarily Mr. Becker, increased their use of derogatory language, like ‘b-h,’ as did their mimicking of Andrea Quick and me.”

Defendant argues that paragraphs 92, 93, and 97 of Plaintiffs affidavit must be stricken because they contradict Plaintiffs prior testimony. (ECF No. 36 at 9-15.) In paragraphs 92, 93, and 97, Plaintiff states that in the weeks following May 30, 2014, she repeatedly called Mr. Brunnhuber’s cell phone number, that she called Defendant’s human resources department at least three times to speak to Mr. Brunnhuber, and that no one told her that Mr. Brunnhuber was no longer working for Defendant. (ECF No. 30-8 at 15-16.) Defendant states that Plaintiff testified that she did not contact Defendant’s human resources office until she called to resign on June 17, 2014. (ECF No. 36 at 10.)

In response, Plaintiff states that Defendant’s counsel asked her whether she called Mr. Brunnhuber’s cell phone, to which Plaintiff responded affirmatively. (ECF No. 40 at 10.) Plaintiff notes that Defendant’s counsel did not ask her how many times she called Mr. Brunnhuber’s cell phone. (Id.) Plaintiff argues that Defendant cites to her testimony in which she was asked whether she spoke “to anybody [a]bout the situation with Bob McClure,” to which Plaintiff responded negatively. (Id. at 11.) Plaintiff asserts that her testimony does not contradict her affidavit because she called and asked to speak to Mr. Brunnhuber; she did not speak to anyone about Mr. McClure. (Id.) Having reviewed Plaintiffs testimony, the Court finds that the independent evidence in the record bolsters Plaintiff’s averments and that Plaintiffs statements do not have the qualities of patently sham averments. Jiminez, 503 F.3d at 254; see also Heasley, 2009 WL 1457733, at *1, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45035, at *3. The Court further notes that the parties have agreed to the allegations contained in paragraph 97 of Plaintiffs affidavit because they have agreed that unbeknownst to Plaintiff at the time, Mr. Brunnhuber was released from his employment on June 6, 2014. (ECF Nos. 30 ¶ 445; 33 ¶445.) The Court will therefore deny Defendant’s request to strike paragraphs 92, 93, and 97 of Plaintiffs affidavit.

Defendant next argues that paragraph 30 of Plaintiffs affidavit must be stricken because it contradicts Plaintiffs admission to Mr. Refiner and Mr. Miller. (ECF No. 36 at 15.) In paragraph 30, Plaintiff states that Mr. Stamm did not subject the male employees on the crew to his inappropriate behaviors. (ECF No. 30-8 at 5.) Defendant contends that Plaintiff told Mr. Refiner and Mr. Miller that Mr. Stamm “is not prejudiced, he is like this with everyone, even inspectors.” (ECF No. 36 at 15 (internal quotations omitted).)

In response, Plaintiff states that Defendant relies upon Mr. Refiner’s notes of a conversation from July 2013 and that Plaintiff disputes Mr. Refiner’s notes. Because Mr. Refiner’s notes are not a prior sworn statement and because paragraph 30 does not have the qualities of a patently sham averment, the Court will deny Defendant’s request to strike paragraph 30. Baer, 392 F.3d at 624 (“The ‘sham affidavit’ doctrine refers to the trial courts’ practice of disregarding an offsetting affidavit that is submitted in opposition to a motion for summary judgment when the affidavit contradicts the affiant's prior deposition testimony.”) (emphasis added); see also Heasley, 2009 WL 1457733, at *1, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45035, at *3.

Defendant argues that paragraphs 39 and 69 of Plaintiffs affidavit must be stricken because Plaintiff failed to raise these material facts in her prior testimony. (ECF No. 36 at 16-18.) In paragraph 39, Plaintiff states that Mr. Stamm progressively worsened his behavior toward her, called her a “c-t” on a regular basis, and touched her inappropriately by placing his hands on her back side. (ECF No. 30-8 at 6.) In paragraph 69, Plaintiff states that she told Ms. Dick and Mr. Flood that Mr. Stamm told her to “[g]et .in the truck, b-h,” made comments about having a relationship with her, and, on multiple occasions, inappropriately touched her back side. (Id. at 11.) Defendant contends that Plaintiff never referenced Mr. Stamm touching her back side at the unemployment compensation hearing or at her deposition. (ECF No. 36 at 16.) Defendant also states Plaintiff did not make a report of sexual harassment to Ms. Dick and Mr. Flood in 2011. (Id. at 16-17.)

In response, Plaintiff states that she “cannot rattle off every possible harassment incident on a moment’s notice.” (ECF No. 40 at 13.) Plaintiff notes that Defendant’s counsel asked her, “You indicated that there was actual physical contact,” at the unemployment compensation hearing. (Id.) Defendant’s counsel did not ask Plaintiff to chronicle her experiences or to provide the various forms of physical contact that she encountered. (Id. at 13-14.) Having reviewed Plaintiffs testimony, the Court finds that the independent evidence in the record bolsters Plaintiffs averments and that Plaintiffs statements do not have the qualities of patently sham averments. Jiminez, 503 F.3d at 254; see also Heasley, 2009 WL 1457733, at *1, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45035, at *3. Moreover, the Court notes that Defendant’s argument that Plaintiff did not report Mr. Stamm’s behavior to Ms. Dick and Mr. Flood is meritless. The parties have agreed that in 2011, Plaintiff and two of her co-workers shared their concerns regarding Mr. Stamm, including the mooning incident, with Ms. Dick and Mr. Flood, Sr., two of Defendant’s employees. (See ECF Nos. 25 ¶¶ 68, 70-72; 30 ¶¶ 68, 70-72, 375; 33 ¶ 375.) The Court will therefore deny Defendant’s request to strike paragraphs 39 and 69 of Plaintiffs affidavit.

Finally, Defendant argues that paragraph 38 of Plaintiffs affidavit must be stricken because Plaintiff failed to raise this material fact in her prior testimony. (ECF No. 36 at 18-19.) In paragraph 38, Plaintiff states that she attempted to return to work with Mr. Stamm after she spoke with Mr. Mills but that Mr. Stamm threatened her after he had a conversation with Mr. Mills. (ECF No. 30-8 at 6.)

In response, Plaintiff argues that she did not have an obligation to volunteer information during her deposition. (ECF No. 40 at 15-16.) This Court has previously rejected the argument that a plaintiff must raise issues that are included in an affidavit because “[it] does not read Jiminez to preclude consideration of a plaintiffs affidavit merely because the plaintiff was questioned in some respect by her own counsel at the time of her deposition.” Steward v. Altoona First Savs. Bank, No. 3:12-CV-203, 2014 WL 4415605, at *7 n. 6, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124908, at *23 n. 6 (W.D.Pa. Sept. 8, 2014). The Court will therefore deny Defendant’s request to strike paragraph 38 of Plaintiffs affidavit.

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to strike Plaintiffs affidavit will be granted to the extent that paragraph 95 will be stricken in part to read, “Additionally, my coworkers, primarily Mr. Becker, increased their use of derogatory language, like “b-h,” as did their mimicking of Andrea Quick and me.” Defendant’s remaining requests in its motion to strike will be denied.

2. Monica Graham’s Affidavit

Regarding Ms. Graham’s affidavit, Defendant argues that Ms. Graham’s affidavit must be stricken in its entirety because it is “me too” evidence that is irrelevant and because it states conclusory allegations that lack specific facts and contain inadmissible hearsay. (ECF No. 38 at 3-10.) In response, Plaintiff argues that Ms. Graham’s affidavit should not be stricken because it details the conduct of some individuals with whom Plaintiff worked. (ECF No. 39 at 4-7.) Plaintiff also asserts that Ms. Graham’s affidavit provides direct evidence of Defendant’s knowledge of discrimination complaints that is based upon Ms. Graham’s personal knowledge. (Id. at 7-15.)

In her affidavit, Ms. Graham states that she worked as a part-time traffic flagger for Defendant from March 2008 until August 2010, at which time she transferred to a full-time laborer. (ECF No. 30-15 at 1.) Ms. Graham received “resistance” from her supervisor, Joseph Harzinski, and her male co-workers. (Id. at 1-2.) Her co-workers called her a “r-d,” asked her if she had “slept with somebody” to obtain her position, and told her that “a woman was the last thing [they] needed,” “girls weren’t meant to be here,” and male employees “need[ed] to get the job done.” (Id. at 2.) Mr. Harzinski and Ms. Graham’s eo-work-ers referred to Ms. Graham as “woman,” “b-h,” and “c — t,” Mr. Harzinski verbally and physically abused her, and Mr. Flood asked about her preferred sexual positions. (Id. at 3.) Mr. Harzinski and Mr. Flood required Ms. Graham to complete menial tasks to entertain her male co-workers. (Id. at 4.) Ms. Graham states that Defendant did not address or correct these behaviors after she complained to her supervisors. (Id.) Mr. Flood told Ms. Graham not to complain “to the office” because it would be “a big mistake.” (Id. at 5.) When Ms. Graham provided Defendant’s representatives with the complete chronology of her harassment, including the names of four individuals who harassed her on an ongoing basis, Defendant only took disciplinary action against one individual. (Id. at 6.) When a representative returned to meet Ms. Graham, he stated that he did not wish to address the issue again after Ms. Graham stated that the harassment was continuing. (Id. at 7.) Ms. Graham terminated her employment because Defendant would not address the harassment by her crew members. (Id. at 7-8.) Ms. Graham states that her failure to advance past a laborer job was unusual because male employees received additional advancements. (Id. at 8-9.)

The Third Circuit has explained that “ ‘me too’ ” evidence in an employment discrimination case is neither per se admissible nor per se inadmissible. Mandel v. M & Q Packaging Corp., 706 F.3d 157, 167 (3d Cir.2013). Rather, “the question of whether evidence of discrimination against other employees by other supervisors is relevant is fact based and depends on several factors, including how closely related the evidence is to the plaintiffs circumstances and theory of the case.” Id. The Third Circuit “ ‘afford[s] broad discretion to a district court’s evi-dentiary rulings.’ ” Id. at 167-68 (quoting Sprint/United Mgmt. Co. v. Mendelsohn, 552 U.S. 379, 384, 128 S.Ct. 1140, 170 L.Ed.2d 1 (2008)).

Having reviewed Plaintiffs circumstances and theory of the case, the Court notes that Ms. Graham’s allegations relate to Mr. Harzinski’s and her unnamed co-workers’ conduct. As Defendant has argued, these individuals are not related to the instant matter because Plaintiffs claims do not involve Mr. Harzinski or Ms. Graham’s unnamed co-workers. However, as Plaintiff has noted, Mr. Stamm and Mr. Harzinski reported to Mr. Flood, and the factual circumstances of the case involve Mr. Flood. Additionally, some of the averments in Ms. Graham’s affidavit relate to Plaintiffs circumstances and claims, such as Ms. Graham’s assertion that she was called profane names and that Defendant did not address the issue after she complained. The Court will therefore deny Defendant’s motion to strike and will consider Ms. Graham’s affidavit to the extent that the averments are related to the theory and circumstances of Plaintiffs case. See, e.g., Troy v. State Corr. Inst.-Pittsburgh, No. 11-CV-1509, 2013 WL 5511265, at *7, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144647, at *16 (W.D.Pa. Aug. 14, 2013) (explaining that “me too” evidence “may be relevant to prove intent or to prove whether an employer knew or should have known about the harassment”) (internal quotations and alterations omitted); Kenawell v. DuBois Bus. College, Inc., No. 3:05-CV-429, 2008 WL 768139, at *7-8, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26730, at *21-24 (W.D.Pa. Mar. 20, 2008) (considering affidavit prepared after the affiant met with an employee who reported an incident of sexual harassment).

B. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment

In its motion for summary judgment, Defendant asserts that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because Plaintiff has failed to make a prima facie showing of gender-based discrimination, a gender-based hostile work environment, constructive discharge, or retaliation. (ECF No. 26 at 14-96.) Defendant also argues that Plaintiff cannot recover punitive damages. (Id. at 96-97.) In her Memorandum of Law in Opposition, Plaintiff argues that she adduced sufficient evidence to make out a prima facie case as to each of her claims, including her claim for punitive damages. (ECF No. 29 at 15-81.)

1. Hostile Work Environment

a. Time Bar

Defendant first argues that Plaintiffs allegations regarding incidents that occurred before October 2012 are barred because Plaintiff did not file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC until 2013. (ECF No. 26 at 17-19.) In response, Plaintiff asserts that the Court must consider all acts amounting to a hostile work environment, not only the conduct that falls within the limitations period. (ECF No. 29 at 16-17.)

To bring suit in Pennsylvania under Title VII, a claimant must first file a complaint with the EEOC within 300 days of the alleged unlawful employment practice. See Mandel, 706 F.3d at 165. In National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 122 S.Ct. 2061, 153 L.Ed.2d 106 (2002), the Supreme Court addressed whether an act that falls outside the statute of limitations for filing an administrative charge can support a lawsuit under Title VII. 536 U.S. at 108, 122 S.Ct. 2061. The Court held that the answer depends upon whether the plaintiff seeks recovery for a discrete discriminatory act or a hostile work environment. Id. at 110, 122 S.Ct. 2061. Specifically, the Court explained that because a discrete discriminatory act is a separately actionable unlawful employment practice, a plaintiff seeking recovery for a discrete discriminatory act must file an administrative charge within the statute of limitations. Id. at 113-14, 122 S.Ct. 2061. The Court further stated that “[e]ach discrete discriminatory act starts a new clock for filing charges alleging that act. The charge, therefore, must be filed within the [statute of limitations time period] after the discrete discriminatory act occurred.” Id. at 113, 122 S.Ct. 2061. However, a plaintiff may refer to prior acts that occurred outside the statute of limitations “as background evidence in support of a timely claim.” Id.; see also McCann v. Astrue, 293 Fed.Appx. 848, 851 n. 3 (3d Cir.2008) (explaining that discrete discriminatory acts “may ... be used as background evidence in support of timely claims”).

In discussing hostile work environment claims, the Court explained that such claims exist “ ‘[w]hen the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment.’ ” Morgan, 536 U.S. at 116, 122 S.Ct. 2061 (quoting Harris v. Forklift Sys., 510 U.S. 17, 21, 114 S.Ct. 367, 126 L.Ed.2d 295 (1993)). A hostile work environment “cannot be said to occur on any particular day.” Id. Instead, “[i]t occurs over a series of days or perhaps years and, in direct contrast to discrete acts, a single act of -harassment may not be actionable on its own.” Id. Thus, a “hostile work environment claim is composed of a series of separate acts that collectively constitute one ‘unlawful employment practice.’ ” Id. at 117, 122 S.Ct. 2061. Because a hostile work environment is a continuing violation, the Court concluded that it is only necessary that at least one act contributing to the claim falls within the statute of limitations period. Id. at 117-18, 122 S.Ct. 2061.

The Third Circuit has interpreted the holding in Morgan as “a bright-line distinction between discrete acts, which are individually actionable, and acts which are not individually actionable but may be aggregated to make out a hostile work environment claim.” O’Connor v. City of Newark, 440 F.3d 125, 127 (3d Cir.2006). Discrete acts “must be raised within the applicable limitations period or they will not support a lawsuit,” while a hostile work environment claim “can occur at any time so long as they are linked in a pattern of actions which continues into the applicable limitations period.” Id. The Third Circuit developed “the following non-exhaustive list of discrete acts for which the limitations period runs from the act: termination, failure to promote, denial of transfer, refusal to hire, wrongful suspension, wrongful discipline, denial of training, wrongful accusation.” Id.

Plaintiff has testified that the frequency of Mr. Stamm’s name calling was “[p]robably three times a week at least[,] sometimes more. Sometimes it could be a few times a day[,] just depending on the mood that he was in.” (ECF No. 30-9 at 9.) Under the continuing violations doctrine, “when a defendant’s conduct is part of a continuing practice, an action is timely so long as the last act evidencing the continuing practice falls within the limitations period; in such an instance, the court will grant relief for the earlier related acts that would otherwise be time barred.” Cowell v. Palmer Twp., 263 F.3d 286, 292 (3d Cir.2001) (internal quotations omitted). The Third Circuit has set forth a two-part test to determine whether the continuing violation doctrine applies to a given case. West v. Phila. Elec. Co., 45 F.3d 744, 755 (3d Cir.1995). First, the plaintiff “must demonstrate that at least one act occurred within the filing period.” Id. Second, the plaintiff “must establish that the [alleged wrong] is more than the occurrence of isolated or sporadic acts.” Id.

Here, Defendant does not dispute that at least one act occurred within the filing period. {See ECF No. 26 at 17-19.) As discussed above, Plaintiff testified that the frequency of Mr. Stamm’s name calling was at least three times per week. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court finds that Plaintiff seeks recovery for a hostile work environment rather than for a discrete discriminatory act. Accordingly, because at least one act contributing to Plaintiffs claim fell within the statute of limitations period, the Court finds that Plaintiffs allegations regarding incidents that occurred before October 2012 are not time barred. See, e.g., Cowell, 263 F.3d at 292 (“[W]hen a defendant’s conduct is part of a continuing practice, an action is timely so long as the last act evidencing the continuing practice falls within the limitations period.”); Brown v. Joel Tanis & Sons, Inc., No. 2:13-CV-2984, 2014 WL 2705262, at *2, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80475, at *6 (D.N.J. June 12, 2014) (finding that the plaintiffs claim satisfied the statute of limitations because the defendants frequently subjected him to racial slurs).

b. Prima Facie Case

Under Title VII, an employer cannot “ ‘discharge ... or ... discriminate against any individual with respect to ... compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of such individual’s ... sex.’ ” Huston v. Procter & Gamble Paper Prod. Corp., 568 F.3d 100, 104 (3d Cir.2009) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1)). Presently, Plaintiff claims that her allegations regarding discriminatory practices and actions at her place of employment created a hostile work environment, based on her gender, in violation of Title VII. In order for Plaintiff to make a prima facie showing of a hostile work environment, she must prove that “ ‘(1) she suffered intentional discrimination because of her sex, (2) the discrimination was pervasive and regular, (3) the discrimination detrimentally affected her, (4) the discrimination would detrimentally affect a reasonable person of the same sex in that position, and (5) the existence of respondeat superior liability.’ ” Martinez v. Rapidigm, Inc., 290 Fed.Appx. 521, 524 (3d Cir.2008) (quoting Weston v. Pennsylvania, 251 F.3d 420, 426 (3d Cir.2001) (internal alterations omitted)). In its Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendant takes issue primarily with Plaintiffs ability to meet the first, second, fourth, and fifth prongs of the above test.

i. Prong One

With respect to the first prong, it is well settled that “a plaintiff need not produce direct evidence of an actor’s motivation for conduct that can be found to be discrimination.” Hegyes v. United States Steel Corp., No. 2:04-CV-1283, 2007 WL 218711, at *7, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5368, at *20 (W.D.Pa. Jan. 25, 2007) (citing Abramson v. William Paterson College, 260 F.3d 265, 278 (3d Cir.2001)). Indeed, “it is improper to parse through the plaintiffs evidence in search of a link between the harasser’s conduct and a discriminatory animus in his or her mind” because “a plaintiff is not ‘required ... to demonstrate direct proof that her harasser’s intent was to create a discriminatory environment.’ ” Id. (quoting Abramson, 260 F.3d at 277-78). Instead, “ ‘[t]he proper inquiry at this stage [is ascertaining] whether a reasonable factfinder could view the evidence as showing that [the plaintiffs] treatment was attributable to her [sex].” Id. at *7, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5368, at *20-21 (quoting Abramson, 260 F.3d at 277). The intent to discriminate “can be inferred from the entire context in question and the conduct of the actors involved.” Id. at *7, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5368, at *21. Accordingly, “[r]egardless of what a harasser’s intention is,” a hostile work environment claim will survive summary judgment “if a plaintiff presents sufficient evidence to give rise to an inference of discrimination by offering proof that her ‘work-place is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment.’ ” Id. (quoting Abramson, 260 F.3d at 278-79). Stated another way, “ ‘where ... the evidence tends to show that the harasser’s conduct was intentionally directed toward the plaintiff because of her sex, the first prong of the prima facia [sic] case is met.’ ” Id. (quoting Abramson, 260 F.3d at 279).

To satisfy the first prong, the proffered conduct or statements need not be explicitly sexual. See Andrews v. City of Philadelphia, 895 F.2d 1469, 1484 (3d Cir.1990) (“To constitute impermissible discrimination, the offensive conduct is not necessarily required to include sexual overtones in every instance or that each incident be sufficiently severe to detrimen tally affect a female employee.”); Aman v. Cort Furniture Rental Corp., 85 F.3d 1074, 1083 (3d Cir.1996) (explaining that “overt ... harassment [based upon race or sex] is not necessary to establish a hostile environment”). “All that is required is a showing that [sex] is a substantial factor in the harassment, and that if the plaintiff had been [a male] she would not have been treated in the same manner.” Aman, 85 F.3d at 1083.

Here, Plaintiff alleges that Mr. Stamm used several profanities, including “a-,” “b — h,” “c-t,” and variations of the word “f — k.” The Third Circuit has stated that “b-h” may or may not be a derogatory term indicative of sex-based hostility. Thomas v. Town of Hammonton, 351 F.3d 108, 118 n. 6 (3d Cir.2003) (finding that, given the other evidence in the case, the use of the word was “one piece of evidence among many suggesting hostile work environment sexual harassment”). Case law within the Third Circuit “does not reflect uniform results with respect to whether ‘bitch’ does or does not constitute sexual harassment. However, it appears that where a plaintiff can articulate other instances of explicit sexual harassment, that word can reasonably be interpreted as further evidence of sexual harassment.” Davis v. SEPTA, No. 13-CV-6864, 2016 WL 97922, at *6 n. 9, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2106, at *18 n. 9 (E.D.Pa. Jan. 8, 2016) (emphasis in original) (citing Ivan v. Cnty. of Middlesex, 595 F.Supp.2d 425, 455 (D.N.J.2009) (noting that the term “house b-h” could be interpreted as contributing to a hostile work environment because the plaintiffs male supervisor used the term in conjunction with various other sexually explicit phrases), and Mandel, 706 F.3d at 167 (noting that the female plaintiffs male supervisor’s repeated reference to the plaintiff as a “f-ing b-h,” coupled with various other sexually explicit statements, could give rise to the inference that he used the term because of the plaintiffs gender)).

The Court in Davis further explained that “where ... the word ‘bitch’ makes up [the] majority of the alleged misconduct, courts have concluded that this context more appropriately supports the inference that its use was merely an offensive epithet, and not based on sex.” Id. (citing Kidd v. Com. of Pennsylvania, 37 Fed. Appx. 588, 593 (3d Cir.2002) (noting that a supervisor’s one-time use of the word “b— h” during an argument with the plaintiff was not sexual harassment)); see also Reyes v. McDonald Pontiac GMC Truck, Inc., 997 F.Supp. 614, 617 (D.N.J.1998) (“Name calling and loud arguments do not constitute a sexual harassment claim. The fact that [a co-worker] referred to plaintiff on two occasions as a ‘bitch’ or ‘Miss F**** Queen Bee’ does not show that she was discriminated against because of her sex. Was [the co-worker] rude? Yes. Were [the co-worker’s] comments inappropriate in an employment setting? Yes. But that is all they were. Sometimes words of frustration and anger are only meant in that spirit.”); Koschoff v. Henderson, 109 F.