PITTSBURGH (LN) — Chief Judge Cathy Bissoon on Monday denied in part and granted in part Eat’n Park Hospitality Group’s motion to dismiss, allowing a server’s Title VII sexual orientation discrimination claim to proceed while dismissing his retaliation count for lack of administrative exhaustion.

Bissoon ruled that Joseph Bragg, who "openly identifie[s] with the LGBTQ+ community" according to his complaint, adequately pled that he suffered adverse employment actions, including being taken off his schedule after refusing a new schedule that would have resulted in $1,500 to $2,000 in lost monthly income.

The court held that Bragg’s allegations that manager Shawn Dobrich called him a "little whore" and made other derogatory remarks not directed at straight employees were sufficient to survive dismissal, noting that issues of fact preclude throwing out the discrimination claim at this stage.

"Whether Plaintiff ultimately can meet his burden of demonstrating these claims properly turns on the revelations of the discovery process," Bissoon wrote.

The judge rejected Eat’n Park’s argument that Bragg failed to specify his sexual orientation or identify similarly situated straight employees, stating that it is "impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex."

However, Bissoon granted the motion to dismiss Bragg’s retaliation claim, ruling that his Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge lacked the necessary facts to put the employer on notice of such a claim.

The court noted that Bragg’s EEOC charge contained no facts regarding any protected activity, meaning he failed to exhaust administrative remedies as required by Title VII.

"Simply put, Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies regarding his retaliation claim," Bissoon wrote, adding that amendment would be futile because the 300-day deadline for filing such a charge had passed.

Bragg alleges he worked for Eat’n Park d/b/a The Porch at Schenley for approximately three years without disciplinary warnings discriminatory conduct began.

The case is 2:25-cv-00813 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.