2004 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
1-5-2004 

# Ro ye r v . P A S t at e Uni ve rsit y P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 02-3873

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" Ro ye r v . P A S t at e U nive r sit y " (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1118. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/11181 Honorable Louis F. Oberdorfer, U.S. Dist rict Judge for the District of Columbia, sitting by designation. NOT PRECEDE NTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT
No. 02-3873
MARGO L. ROYER, Appellant
v. PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY *T EA M ST ER S L OC AL UN IO N N O. 8 *(Dismiss ed Pursuant

to Court’ s Order of 7/ 23/03)

ON APPE AL FROM THE UNIT ED STA TES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE

WE STE RN DIST RIC T O F PE NN SY LV AN IA

(Dist. Court No. 00-cv-290J) Distric t Cou rt Judg e: Ho nora ble D . Broo ks Sm ith
Submitte d Under Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

December 5, 2003 Be for e: S LO VI TE R, A LIT O, Circuit Judges , a nd OBERDORF ER, 1 Distri ct Judge
. (Opinion Fi led: J anuary5, 2004)2 OPINI ON OF THE COURT
PER CU RIA M : I App ellant Ma rgo Ro yer challenges the D istrict Court’s decision gra nting sum mary judgment t o her former e mployer on her Title VII cl aim that she was fir ed in ret aliation for complai ning of sexualharassment . We affirm becaus e we agree with t he District Court that

Pennsyl vania State Univers ity (“the Unive rsit

y”) arti culat ed a legi timat e, nondiscriminat ory reason for Royer’ s terminati on and that Royer fai led to present suffici ent evi dence from which a rea sonable j ury could rej ect the Universi ty ’s expl anati on for her term inati on. See McD onnell Dougla s Corp. v. Green , 411 U.S. 792, 802-05 (1973) (s etti ng forth bur den-shi fting f ramework for eval uating di scri minatory treat ment clai ms). As we write only for the parti es, and as Royer conc edes the a ccuracyof the Distri ct Court’ s factua l reci tati on, we will not res tatethe ful l fact s of the ca se. II In essenc e, Roye r’s compl aint i s that her supervisors not only fail ed to take seriouslyher allegati ons that she was being sexually harassed byone of her co-wo rkers – first, by his unwanted sexual attention an d, after she com plained ab out that, by retaliatory cond uct inc luding ridicule and in terfere nce w ith her jo b du ties – bu t that they ultim ately fire d he r fo r ha vin g m ade tho se a llega tion s.3

The Universit

y cl aims that

it pr operlyterminated Roye r, i n accordance wit h the colle ctivebargaini ng agreement t hat governe d her employ ment, because she re ceived three “ warning let

ters ” within a

one-y ear peri od. It

is undi sputed t

hat: ( 1) Royer

recei ved an init ial warni ng letter on November 11, 1998 becaus e she did not comply wit

h the policy requiring her to leave her keys in a campus “l ock box,” despite havi ng recei ved prior noticeof the pol icyand prior complaint s of her fai lure to comply wit h it; (2) Roy er receiv ed a s econ d w arning letter on Feb ruary 15 , 1999 beca use sh e pos ted on the fa culty and e mp loyee elec tronic m essag e boa rd (or “ listserve ”) a letter to the U nivers ity Presiden t regard ing h er dism issal fro m the Un iversity’s oc cupa tional th erapy pro gram , desp ite having rec eived two prior warni ngs that she would be dis cipli ned if she di d not res tri ct her use of t

he lis tserve to employ ment-rel ated i ssues; and (3) Roy er rece ived a third and final warning let

ter on May 5, 1999 after a hidden surveill ance camera r ecorded her looking at

papers on her

supervi sor’s desk without authori zati on while she was suppos ed to be cl eaning hi s office. Bec ause the U nivers ity articulated a legitim ate, no ndisc rimina tory reaso n fo r its acti on, the burden shi fted t o Royer t o produce suffi cient evidence fr om which a reasonabl e jurycould rej ect the proffere d explanation and fi nd the te rminati on a prete xt for disc rimi nato ry actio n. McD onnell Dougla s , 411 U.S. at 804-05. Although Royer atte mpt s t o s atis fyth is burde n by cl ai mi ng t

ha t t he fa ctua l p re di ca te s f

orth e f ir st two
wa rning letters “a re sug gestive of su ch irreg ularity as to e asily supp ort a rea sona ble4

infere nce of pret ext, ” App’t Br. at 17, the record evi dence she ci tes does not provi de an adequate bas is for

a reasonabl e factfi nder to reject the Univers ity ’s proffe red explanation for her term ination. For exa mple, althoug h Ro yer claims (without ap parent evide ntiary support) that t

he co-worker about

whose harassment

she had complai ned may have taken the keyto the l ock box to preve nt her fr om leaving her keys insi de it, this charge of sabotage i s untenabl e in li ght of Roye r’s conc ession t hat she knew of pri or occasi ons on wh ich th at ke y wa s m issin g an d th at sh e ha d be en is sue d he r ow n ke y to the lock box
. Royer’ s charge t

hat her s upervis or “overreached and/or outri ght manufactured bases upon which to dis cipli ne her” byissui ng the second warni ng letter for act ions that “had not

hing whatsoever t o do with her empl oyment, ” rings simil arlyhollow in l ight of t he fact t hat she had twice been warned not t o use the comput er sy stem for i ssues unr elat ed to her emp loymen t and h ad be en ex plicitly told she wo uld fa ce “d isciplina ry action” if she d id not complywith thes e warnings. Not only does thi s history show Royer’s acti on to have been insub ordin ate, the iss uanc e of m ultiple w arning s prior to taking disciplin ary action is flatly in con siste nt w ith h er cla im th at the bas e fo r the wa rnin g lett er w as “ ma nuf actu red .” The re is, quite simp ly, no evid ence to sug gest tha t any of the w arning letters we re issued in ord er to reta liate aga inst R oyer for her co mp laints of sexu al hara ssme nt. In fa ct, Royer’ s onlyargument that theUniversi ty ’s dis cipli nary acti ons were ti ed to her complaint s of haras sment appear s to be her clai m that John Luchi ni, t he supervi sor “who did not t ake Plai ntiff ’s complai nts of di scri minatory harassment

seri ously ,” ei ther i ssuedor “participated in” the is suance of each warni ng letter. Ther e is, of course, nothing

sinister a bou t Luc hini’s h aving been invo lved in each wa rning letter; he w as, afte r all, Royer’ s boss. Thus, Royer ’s argument for pretext boil s down to the si ngle al legation that Luchini di d not takeher complai nts of se xual hara ssment ser iousl y. Regardless of whether thi s is t

rue, t here is no evidence fr om which a jurycould fi nd any l ink between Luchini’ s respons e to Roye r’s al legations and hi s iss uance of warning l ette rs for i mproper condu ct that Royer adm ittedly eng age d in
. III Bec ause Ro yer failed to satisfy her burd en of prod ucing evide nce s uffic ient to de mon st ra te th at th e Un iv er si ty ’s pr of

fe re d r ea so n f

orhe r ter mi na ti on w as pr et ex t, we wil l aff irm t he D istrict Co urt’s dec ision gra ntin g su mm ary jud gm ent f or th e de fen dan t.