Fayette man claims religious, sexual discrimination
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Wednesday, Nov. 28, 2012, 12:01 a.m.
A Fayette County man claims he was terminated from his job when he complained of religious discrimination and sexual harassment at his North Union workplace.
In a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Pittsburgh, Patrick Haines, of 25 Oak St., Dunbar, said his co-workers at Brand Builders Associates began to harass him in 2010, approximately three years after he first started working at the company's facility at 714 Braddock View Drive, Mt. Braddock.
According to the lawsuit, Haines “was subjected to profane speech, expletives and sexualitybased remarks and name calling that were highly offensive and/or blasphemous” to his religious beliefs. Haines is a devout, practicing Christian, according to the lawsuit.
In addition, Haines' said in the filing that his co-workers sexually harassed him.
Haines asked management to stop the harassment, but nothing was done, according to the lawsuit. In July 2011, Haines was let go from his job after an incident in which another employee spat on him. The other employee was recalled to work, according to the lawsuit, but Haines was not.
Through his attorney, Joseph H. Chivers of Pittsburgh, Haines is seeking an unspecified amount in monetary damages and a court order requiring the company to end sex- and religious-based discrimination practices.
No one from the company, which according to the lawsuit manufactures specialty automotive products, returned a phone call seeking comment.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.