Female Employee Rejected for Full-Time While Two Men with Less Experience Receive Full-Time.

David ManesLawsuits & Press Releases

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Employee Files Lawsuit against Adams Township for Sex Discrimination

Andra started working part time as a police officer for Adams Township in 2008. She balanced her time between Adams Township and another county in two part-time positions. In February 2016, the township opened testing for full-time positions. Andra applied. According to Andra, another female part-time officer told her that she wasn’t going to apply because she “would not be hired because of her gender.” Three men also applied for full time. According to Andra, another female part-time officer told her that she wasn’t going to apply because she “would not be hired because of her gender.”The day before Andra was scheduled to take her test for full time, her chief informed her that a complaint against her was being investigated, but he assured her that they were “not concerned about it.” She suspects this conversation was done to fluster her and cause her to fail.

Andra passed the test, and she received her first interview. But following that interview, a letter about the investigation was placed into her file. While Andra didn’t receive a second interview for full time, all three men received a full-time position. Only one of the men had more experience than Andra. After this occurred, Andra filed a complaint with the EEOC for sex discrimination.

A month and a half later, Andra was suspended for taking an approved personal day. A week later, Andra was double scheduled. That morning, she woke up with a painful urinary tract infection. Due to Adams Township policy of calling off 8 hours before a shift, she called off. After medication, Andra decided to fill her shift at at the county because she needed the money. The Adams Township chief informed Andra that she was “suspended, pending termination” because she called off for them but worked for the county. Around this time, Andra received the Right to Sue letter from the EEOC for sex discrimination.

Her employer scheduled a hearing for her double scheduling incident, and Andra received a letter from the chief saying, “I have decided to terminate you” and requested that Andra set up a time to return her uniform and equipment. Andra knows that suspended employees are never asked to return equipment since they’re expected to return to work. The hearing occurred and Andra received suspension without pay even though she’d received a letter about termination. She was finally terminated three months later.

Andra thinks that Adams Township discriminated against her due to her sex by not hiring her full time since she had the experience and qualifications. She also believes that they retaliated against her for filing a complaint with the EEOC. As a client of KM&A, Andra is fighting against discrimination and for her employee rights. KM&A advocates for employees like Andra who face workplace discrimination and retaliation.

 

Full text of this complaint, as filed with the District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, is available at docket no: 2:17-cv-01579-DSC

Kraemer, Manes & Associates LLC is an employment law firm with principal offices in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, serving all counties in Pennsylvania, focusing on employment law, business law, litigation, and civil issues. KM&A clients include employees, small businesses, parties in litigation, and people with a variety of legal issues.

For more information about this case, contact Attorney Kayla Drum at 412-626-5594 or at kd@lawkm.com.

NOTICE: All information contained in this statement comes from the Complaint which has been filed as a public record with the court. As dedicated civil rights attorneys, we strongly believe in the public value of telling our clients’ stories: violators can be held accountable, and other silent victims can feel empowered to stand up for their legal rights. Although we make every attempt to verify our clients’ claims, note that the defendant is expected to oppose our client’s position, and the court has not ruled one way or the other as of the date of this statement.