Pepke V. Manor House Kitchens, Inc.

Case Background

William Pepke (the Plaintiff) filed this age discrimination lawsuit against Manor House Kitchens, Inc. (the Defendant), challenging his termination. He sought all available relief under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.

The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh). Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan presided over this employment discrimination case. [Case number: 2:23cv2089]

Cause

William Pepke (the Plaintiff) resided in Donora, Pennsylvania, in Washington County. Manor House Kitchens, Inc. (the Defendant) was a corporation with a registered office at 435 Hunter Road Extension, Greensburg, Pennsylvania.

Defendant owned and operated a business offering services such as kitchen remodeling, including cabinets, appliances, and countertops, as well as bathroom remodeling, home bars, entertainment centers, fireplaces, and commercial casework. Defendant employed Plaintiff, aged 60, as a Lead Granite Installer and Supervisor for over twenty years until terminating him on August 7, 2023. He had maintained an excellent performance record during his employment.

On August 7, 2023, the Defendant’s President, Jeffrey Backus, held an in-person meeting with the Plaintiff. During the meeting, Mr. Backus informed the Plaintiff that his employment was terminated due to his age. Specifically, Mr. Backus told the Plaintiff, “You are 60 years old,” and that he intended to “keep the younger guys working.” He also stated, “You’re no longer on the schedule.”

Damages

As a result of the Defendant’s discriminatory actions, the Plaintiff suffered lost wages, benefits, and emotional distress.

Under this age discrimination lawsuit, the Plaintiff sought recovery of unpaid past wages, benefits, and out-of-pocket expenses. Additionally, Plaintiff sought compensatory damages for emotional pain and suffering, as well as prejudgment interest to the fullest extent allowed by law. The Plaintiff also requested liquidated and punitive damages to the fullest extent permitted by law. Finally, the Plaintiff sought litigation costs, expenses, and attorney fees, along with any other relief the Court deemed just and proper.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal Representation

  • Plaintiff(s): William Pepke
    • Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Mark J. Gottesfeld | Peter Winebrake
  • Defendant(s): Manor House Kitchens, Inc.
    • Counsel for Defendant(s): Sunshine R. Fellows | Paul Shane Miller

Claims

Count I – Alleging Violations of the ADEA

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) prevents employers from taking negative actions against employees because of their age. The Plaintiff was protected under the ADEA and the Defendant was an employer who must follow the ADEA. The lawsuit alleged that the Defendant intentionally violated the ADEA.

Count II – Alleging Violations of the PHRA

The Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA) also prohibits employers from making adverse decisions based on age. The Plaintiff was protected under the PHRA and the Defendant is an employer who must follow the PHRA. The lawsuit also alleged that the Defendant intentionally violated the PHRA.

Defense

The Defendant raised several affirmative defenses against the Plaintiff’s claims. The Plaintiff’s Complaint failed to state a valid claim. Any adverse action taken was based on a reasonable, non-age-related factor. The Plaintiff’s damages were limited due to his failure to mitigate and were restricted to what the ADEA and PHRA allowed, excluding punitive or liquidated damages.

The defense argued that it tacted for legitimate reasons and made good faith efforts to comply with the law. The Defendant maintained that it treated the Plaintiff equally, argued that his termination was lawful, and sought dismissal of the Complaint with prejudice.

Jury Verdict

On October 10, 2024, following a three-day trial, the jury found Manor House Kitchens, Inc. liable for age discrimination. The jury determined that the company’s decision to lay off Pepke was intentional. As a result, the jury awarded Pepke $67,648.50 in damages.

The damages included:

  • Compensatory damages: $30,000
  • Back pay: $11,500
  • Front pay: $26,148.50

Given the jury’s finding that the Defendant’s decision to lay off Pepke was willful, Pepke was awarded liquidated damages of $11,500 under the ADEA. On the same day, Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan issued a final judgment in favor of Pepke, ordering Manor House Kitchens, Inc. to pay a total of $79,148.50.

Post-trial Motions

On October 24, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking Winebrake & Santillo, LLC attorney’s fees of
$213,550.00 and costs of $10,617.22 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54, 29 U.S.C. §§
626(b), 216(b), and 43 P.S. § 962(c.2).

Manor House challenged Pepke’s motion for fees and costs, challenging the reasonableness of Pepke’s counsel’s hourly rates and recovery for travel time, duplicative time, administrative or clerical tasks, and excessive time. The Court partially agreed with Manor House, concluding that some reductions were warranted, and subtracted a total of $8,900 in fees

On December 6, 2024, the Court granted the motion with certain reductions, granting $198,870.00 in fees, and $10,617.22 in costs in this age discrimination lawsuit.

Plaintiff’s attorney, Mark J. Gottesfeld of Winebrake & Santillo in Dresher, stated, “Taking an employment discrimination case to trial is labor-intensive and entails a lot of risk for both the employee and counsel. Fortunately, employment fee-shifting statutes allow employees to find competent counsel to vindicate their rights even where, as in this case, the employee’s potential lost wages are limited.”

Court Documents:

Available for purchase upon request

Press Release:

The Legal Intelligencer