## Facts

- Brian D. Prowel worked for Wise Business Forms, Inc. from 1991 until his termination in December 2004, most recently operating a “nail encoder” machine at a Pennsylvania plant.
- Wise asserted Prowel was laid off due to a lack of work.
- Prowel described himself as an “effeminate man” whose mannerisms and presentation did not match his coworkers’ expectations of how men should act at the plant.
- Prowel alleged coworkers mocked his voice, walk, speech, grooming, and perceived femininity; he was called names such as “Princess” and “Rosebud” and was told he was not a “real man.”
- He alleged additional hostility including graffiti and notes/comments referencing his sexuality and comments framed in religious terms criticizing his “lifestyle,” including prayer notes and references to God and the Bible.
- Prowel alleged Wise failed to stop the harassment and retaliated after he complained, culminating in his termination.
- He sued under Title VII and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, asserting harassment and retaliation because of sex (gender stereotyping) and because of religion.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Wise on all claims, treating the case as non-cognizable sexual-orientation discrimination and rejecting the religion theory; Prowel appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Prowel presented sufficient evidence for a jury to find harassment and retaliation “because of sex” under Title VII and the PHRA based on gender stereotyping, rather than solely because of sexual orientation.
2. Whether religiously framed comments and conduct constituted discrimination and retaliation “because of religion” under Title VII and the PHRA, rather than a repackaged sexual-orientation claim.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit vacated summary judgment on the sex-discrimination (gender stereotyping) claim and remanded, holding a reasonable jury could find Prowel was harassed because he failed to conform to male gender stereotypes.
- The court also revived retaliation to the extent it was tied to complaints about sex-based (gender stereotyping) harassment, because the district court had disposed of retaliation along with the sex-discrimination claim.
- The Third Circuit affirmed summary judgment on the religion-discrimination claim and related retaliation, holding the religious references targeted Prowel’s sexual orientation, not his religious beliefs or practices.

## Legal Principles

- Title VII sex discrimination includes adverse treatment based on an employee’s failure to conform to gender stereotypes (Price Waterhouse theory).
- Evidence suggesting sexual-orientation animus does not automatically defeat a sex-stereotyping claim; when motivations overlap, a jury may be required to decide whether sex-based stereotyping was a motivating factor.
- A plaintiff cannot convert a non-cognizable sexual-orientation discrimination claim (as understood by the court at the time) into a religion claim merely because harassment uses religious language; actionable religious discrimination requires targeting the employee because of religious belief, practice, or non-adherence.
- Retaliation claims dependent on a viable underlying opposition to unlawful discrimination may proceed when the underlying discrimination theory is triable.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit held that Prowel’s evidence of harassment tied to perceived effeminacy could support a Title VII/PHRA sex-stereotyping claim and related retaliation, requiring trial-level proceedings, but it rejected his religion-based discrimination and retaliation theories because the alleged religious content functioned as condemnation of sexual orientation rather than discrimination because of religion.


Prowel v. Wise Bus. Forms, Inc., 579 F.3d 285 (3d Cir. 2009)