Source: http://pa.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20150717_0001314.EPA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 16:19:43+00:00

Document:
FindACase | Ingram v. Vanguard Group, Inc.
Ingram v. Vanguard Group, Inc.
THE VANGUARD GROUP, INC., et al., Defendants.
Plaintiffs Donna Ingram, Jo DiGiovanni, and Wendy Kenworthy bring this lawsuit against the Vanguard Group, Inc. (“Vanguard”) and several individuals who supervised them during their tenure at Vanguard. They allege that during their employment at Vanguard they were subjected to employment discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (“Section 1981”), the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., (“Title VII”), the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, 43 Pa. Stat. § 951, et seq., (the “PHRA”), and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq., (the “ADEA”).
• Count I: Plaintiff Ingram against Defendants Vanguard, Christopher Hammond, Martin Schamis, Tracy Richards, and Christopher Schmidt for race discrimination based on disparate treatment,  a hostile work environment,  and disparate impact in violation of Section 1981.
• Count II: Plaintiff Ingram against Defendants Vanguard, Hammond, Schamis, Richards, and Schmidt for retaliation in violation of Section 1981.
• Count III: Plaintiff Ingram against Defendant Vanguard for race discrimination based on disparate treatment, a hostile work environment, and disparate impact in violation of Title VII.
• Count IV: Plaintiffs Ingram and DiGiovanni against Defendant Vanguard for retaliation for their complaints of race discrimination in violation of Title VII.
• Count V: All Plaintiffs against Defendant Vanguard for gender discrimination based on disparate treatment and a hostile work environment, as well as retaliation, in violation of Title VII.
• Count VI: Plaintiff Ingram against Defendant Vanguard for race discrimination based on disparate treatment and a hostile work environment, as well as retaliation, in violation of the PHRA.
• Count VII: Plaintiffs Ingram and DiGiovanni against Defendant Vanguard for retaliation for their complaints of race discrimination in violation of the PHRA.
• Count VIII: All Plaintiffs against Defendant Vanguard for gender discrimination based on disparate treatment and a hostile work environment, as well as retaliation, in violation of the PHRA.
• Count IX: Plaintiff DiGiovanni against Defendant Vanguard for age discrimination and retaliation in violation of the ADEA.
• Count X: Plaintiff DiGiovanni against Defendant Vanguard for age discrimination" and retaliation in violation of the PHRA.
• Count XI: All Plaintiffs against Defendants Hammond, Richards, Schamis, and Schmidt, and additional Defendants Brian Hamilton, Bob Smith, and Bob Arata for aiding and abetting liability under the PHRA.
Defendants have filed a Motion to Dismiss Partially the Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 26.) In the Motion, they seek to dismiss: (1) Plaintiffs’ claims asserted in paragraphs 48-58, 75, 134-53, and 192-208 of the Amended Complaint because they are time barred; (2) Plaintiffs’ hostile work environment claims; and (3) Plaintiffs’ disparate impact claims. Defendants’ Motion is now ripe for a decision. For reasons that follow, Defendants’ Motion (Doc. No. 26) will be granted in part and denied in part.
4. Defendant Vanguard Group, Inc.
In May 2011, Fafara was promoted and Ingram began reporting to Tracy Richards. (Id. ¶ 58.) Ingram alleges that Richards was immediately hostile toward her. (Id. ¶ 60.) Richards asked Ingram if she “needed a hug” when Ingram told her about Fafara’s discrimination. (Id. ¶ 62.) At some point, Richards disbanded Ingram’s team. (Id. ¶ 63.) After the team was disbanded, Richards transferred the lowest-performing employees to Ingram’s new team (id. ¶ 86), and Richards instructed Ingram to “manage out” and terminate African American employees (id. ¶¶ 91-98).

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 1981
 § 2000
 § 951
 § 621