Fired mental health worker’s hostile work environment claim reinstated

A federal appeals court reinstated a hostile work environment claim made by a fired mental health worker but affirmed the dismissal of her wrongful termination claim.

Tondalaya Davis was a mental health program specialist at 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 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia in Tondalaya Davis v. Elwyn of Pennsylvania and Delaware.

Shortly after starting work at Elwyn in October 2018, Ms. Davis began to experience racial and sexual harassment from a patient who was diagnosed with mood, impulse and borderline personality disorders, the ruling said.

Other staff members also had problems with the patient, and the police were called several times because of his actions, it said.

In June 2019, Ms. Davis had a dispute with the patient as to who was to change his bedding, which culminated in her supervisor telling her to either make the bed or go home. Ms. Davis went home, and the supervisor began the process of firing her.

Ms. 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 for retaliation for reporting the patient’s behavior.

The district court granted Elway’s motion for summary judgment. 

A three-judge appeals court panel reinstated Ms. Davis’ hostile work environment claim, saying, “A reasonable employee could expect to receive support and protection from her employer rather than instructions to submit to dehumanizing and potentially dangerous behavior.”

The record “contains enough evidence supporting Ms. Davis to ‘find the conduct alleged to be so harmful that it altered (Davis’s) working conditions,’” it said, citing an earlier case and reinstating the claim.

The panel affirmed the dismissal of Ms. Davis’ retaliation claim, saying she had “failed to put forward any evidence demonstrating that her proffered reason” for her termination was pretextual.

Attorneys in the case had no comment or did not respond to a request for comment.