NORTH MYRTLE BEACH, S.C. (WMBF) - The city of North Myrtle Beach is facing another lawsuit from a former employee alleging discrimination and retaliation.
This comes after another woman filed a suit against the city alleging employee discrimination in mid-April.
The new suit, filed April 29, 2021, names Tracy Scola as the plaintiff. It says she worked as an assistant clerk of court since May 2008. The suit says the non-religious, 51-year-old performed the type of duties of an assistant municipal judge, though she was not compensated for that position.
The suit says that Scola was ‘preached to’ by other employees, and excluded from department correspondence “due to the employees and her supervisor’s opinions of the Plaintiff’s religious beliefs.”
Scola was treated differently from another co-worker when it came to job benefits, who had the same religious views as their supervisors, which she brought to the attention of multiple supervisors, the suit reads.
RELATED COVERAGE | Former employee files discrimination suit against North Myrtle Beach
The suit also says that Scola experienced a hostile work environment, and was told on occasion that she was one of her supervisor’s “type.”
Scola was discharged from her job in May of 2020 after weeks of furlough. According to the lawsuit, she believes the termination and furlough were “pretext for discrimination and retaliation for complaining about the disparate treatment.”
The suit says Scola was discriminated against and “subjected to adverse employment actions, furloughed and terminated due to her sex, age and religion in violation of Title VII and the applicable law.”
The suit names five causes of action: discrimination, retaliation, breach of contract, breach of contract accompanied by fraudulent act, and breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
The suit requests a jury trial and is seeking $50,000 from the city.
WMBF News requested a statement from the City. Monday afternoon, city spokesperson Pat Dowling said, “As of this writing, the City has not been served with the lawsuit. Additionally, the City does not comment on pending litigation.”
The suit does not directly name the alleged supervisor involved.