2010 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 4-6-2010 

# Am y Krieb el v . Atty Ge n U SA 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 . 09-1154

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght 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 sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 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 sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

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

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Am y Kr iebe l v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1562. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1562

### The Honor abl e Robe rt B. Kugl e r , Uni t e d St at e s Di s tri c t Judge for

the Di s tri c t

of * 

### N ewJersey , sittin g b y

d esig n atio n . NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_____________ N o. 09- 1154

_____________ AM Y K RI EBEL, A ppel l ant

v. A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES,

U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof J us t i ce, F ederal B ureau o f P ri sons, U S P A llen w o o d , P e n n sy lv a n ia

_____________ O n A p p e a l f

ro m th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 4: 07- cv- 00012 (H o n o rab le M alco lm M u ir )

_____________ S u b m itted U n d er T h ir d C ir cu itL . A . R . 3 4 . 1 (a),

M ar ch 26, 2010 B e f o re : R E N D E L L a n d F U E N T E S , C ir c u it J u d g e s , a n d K U G L E R , D is tr ic t J u d g e . * ( O pi ni on Fi l ed: A pr i l 6, 2010) OPI NI ON O F THE COURT FU E N T E S, C i r cui tJ udge:

### - 2-

T hi s i s an empl oym entdi s cr i m i nat i on cas e br oughtbya B ur eau of Pr i s ons ( “B O P”) empl oy ee a gai ns therempl oy er , A t t or neyG ener al E r i c H . H ol der 

### , Jr . ( the

“ Att orne y Ge ne r a l ” ) . Appe l l ant

Amy Kri e be la s s e rt s c l a i m s pur s uant t o Ti t l e VI I of the Ci vi lRi ght s Ac t

of 1964, 42 U. S. C. §§ 2000e e t s e q. , and the Re habi l i t at i on Ac t , 29 U.S.C. § 7 01 et

se q., all eging that s he was dis criminat ed agai nst on the basi s of (1) se x and (2) her as soci ation w it h h er disa bled chil d. Th e Dis tric t Court grante d the Attorney Ge ne r a l ’ s m ot i on for

s umm ary judgm e nt , fi ndi ng that

Kri e be lfa i l e d t o s how that the e xpl anat i on for

the Att orne y

Ge ne r a l ’ s e m

pl oy m e nt de c i s i ons wa s apr e t e xt

for unl awful d iscrimin atio n . We w ill af f irm . I. We writ e prim arily

fo r the part ie s, and so w e s et fo rth o nly

the fac ts and h is tory th at are relev ant to o ur co n clu sio n . K r i ebel i s an empl oy ee of t he U ni t ed St at es Peni t ent i aryi n A l l enw ood, Penns y l vani a ( “U SP A l l enw ood”) . H erhus band w or ks t he ni ghts hi ftatU SP A l l enw ood. T he K r i ebel s have a s ever el ydi s abl ed s on. A ft erhavi ng w or ked i n m ul t i pl e pos i t i ons att he pr i s on, K r i ebel beca m e an SI S T ech ( i n t he Speci al I nves t i gat i ve Super vi s or ’ s offi ce) i n 2003. H ow ever , due t o budgetcut s , t he SI S offi ce w as dow ns i zed i n 2004, and K r i ebel ’ s pos i t i on w as cut ; s he w as t r ans ferr ed bac k t o her p rio r p o sitio n o f

E d u c a tio n T e c h b u t allo w e d to k e e p h e r G S -8 sa lar yg ra d e . A f ter th is tr an sfe r, h er su p erv isor in the S IS o ff ice, Sp ec ial Inv esti g ati o n s A g en t M att h ew s (“S IA M at t hew s ”) , gave he ran above - aver age e val uat i on; M at t hew s hi ghl i ght ed, among ot her

### - 3-

th in g s , K ri e b e l’ s u tilit yin th e f ie ld o f in te llig e n c e g a th e ri n g a n d in v e s tig a tio n . In O c to b e r 2 0 0 5 , the D O J h u m a n re so u rc e s o f f ice iss u e d a m e m o ra n d u m to a ll p ri s o n w a rd e n s n o tif

y in g th e m o f

a n in c re a s e in S IS s ta f

f e f f e c tiv e D e c e m b e r 2 5 , 2 0 0 5 . T he mem or andum st at ed thatforpr i s ons t hathad had one SI S T ech di s pl ace d by re a ss ig n m e n t, su c h a s U S P A llen w o o d , “th e [ re a ss ig n e d ] e m p lo y e e sh o u ld b e re tu rn e d to th e p o s itio n .” (A p p . 2 3 7 a .) K ri e b e l w a s n o t, a t f ir s t, n o tif ie d o f th is m e m o ra n d u m . N el s on A l l eman, an A l l enw ood hum an r es our ces empl oy ee, i nfor m ed M at t hew s t hatt he w ard en w o u ld b e sp ea k ing to K ri eb el ab o u t her interes t i n return ing to h er o ld S IS p o s itio n . M a tth e w s , in tu rn , in f o rm e d A lle m a n th a t h e d id n o t w a n t ju s t “ a n o th e r T e c h ,” buti ns t ead w ant ed s om eone w ho coul d do i nves t i gat i ve w or k, w hi ch he f el tK r i ebel w as unabl e t o do. ( I d. at242a. ) M at t hew s al s o s ai d t hathe had i nt ended t o pos tt he pos i t i on as a n “e v en ing w atch ” p o sit ion (i . e., ev en ing sh ift ), w h ich K ri eb el ha d ref u sed to w o rk ( due t o t he nee d t o car e forherdi s abl ed s on) ; M at t hew s w ant ed t o us e the new pos i t i on “t o m oni t organg and otheri l l i ci tact i vi t yoccurr i ng dur i ng t he eve ni ng and on the w e e k e n d s .” (I d . a t 1 6 0 a .) K r i ebel l earned of the new SI S posi t i on and the O ct ober2005 m emo, and on D ece m ber19, 2005, s he i nfor m ed the w ar den thats he w oul d acc eptt he SI S posi t i on. She r ei t er at ed thi s poi nti n an emai l t o A l l eman, buts he cl ar i fi ed thats he w oul d onl yacc ept t he pos i t i on i f s he coul d keep he r8: 00 a. m . - 4: 00 p. m . s hi ft . O n J anuary6, 2006, t he w ar den form al l yoffe r ed K r i ebel t he SI S posi t i on buts t at ed thatt he j ob r equi r ed

### - 4-

“ irre g u lar ” w o rk h o u rs th a t “in c lu d e e v e n in g s a n d /o r w e e k e n d s.” (Id . at 2 4 6 a .) B yth is t i m e, K r i ebel had comm ence d E E O pr ocee di ngs w hi ch had l ed t o an uns ucce s s ful m edi at i on; t he SI S posi t i on w as keptopen dur i ng t hi s t i m e. I n N ovember 2006, K r i ebel i nfor m ed the w ar den byl et t ert hats he coul d notw or k t he eve ni ng and w eeke nd hour s he had i dent i fi ed ( T ues day - T hur s dayeveni ngs , Fr i daydays hi ft , and Satur dayeveni ng) , and decl i ned the pos i t i on. T he pos i t i on w as offe r ed t o L arr yH i cks , a mal e par entof a nondi s abl ed chi l d. H i cks ’ s t i m e/ at t endanc e r ecor ds s how t hat , s i nce a cce pt i ng t he SI S T ech po si t i on , he h as w orked so m e even i ng s ( app roxi m at el y13 % of shift s) and w orked a tl east o n e w e e k e n d d a ya b o u t h a lf o f th e w e e k s . K r i ebel s ued, as s er t i ng cl ai m s pur s uantt o T i t l e V I I ( s ex and s ex- pl us d iscri m ination ) an d the R eh ab il it ati o n A ct (discrim ination o n ac co u n t of K ri eb el’s as s oci at i on w i t h a di s abl ed per s on, s ee D oe v. C ount yof C entr e, PA , 242 F. 3d 437, 446- 47 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ) . T he D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed the A t t or neyG ener al ’ s m ot i on for s um m aryj udgm ent , and K r i ebel t i m el yappea l ed. 

### II. The Di s tri c t

Court ha d juri s di c t i on pur s uant t o 28 U. S. C. §§ 1331, 1343, and 1367. W e have juri s di c t i on pur s uant t o 28 U. S. C. § 1291. “ W e r e vi e w agr ant of summ ar y ju dg m ent de nov o, and thu s a pp ly the s am e s tand ard as that use d b y the Dis tric t Co urt. ” Am eric an Eagle Outfitt er s v. Lyle& Scott Ltd., 584 F.3d57 5, 58 0-81 (3d C ir . 2009) . Summ ary

judgm e nt

i s a ppr opri at e onl y

whe r e the r e ar e no ge nui ne i s s ue s of

### - 5-

m at e ri a lfa c t

and whe r e the m ovant

s hows that

i t i s e nt i t l e d t o judgm e nt

a s am att e r

of law . S ee F ed . R . C iv . P . 5 6 (c). Kriebel’ s e m

ploy m ent dis crimination cla im s are analy ze d und er the famil iar bur de n- s hi ft i ng fr am e work s e t forth i n Mc Donne l lDougl a s Cor p. v. Gr e e n, 411 U. S. 79 2, 79 3-94 (197 3), andit s progeny . SeeWi shkin v . Potte r, 47 6 F .3d 1 80 , 185 (3d C ir . 2007) . Unde r

that fr am e work, i n or de r

t o pr ove that

the Att orne y

Ge ne r a l ’ s e m

pl oy m e nt de c i s i ons we r e the pr oduc t of di s c ri mi nat i on, Kri e be lwoul d fi r s t have t o e s t abl i s h a pri m afa c i e c a s e by

the pr e ponde r anc e of the e vi de nc e . Se e , e . g. , Makky v. Che rt off, 541 F. 3d 205, 214 ( 3d Ci r . 2008) . “ I f apl a i nt i ff e s t abl i s he s apri m afa c i e c a s e of d iscrimin atio n , th enanin f eren ce o f d iscrimin ato ry

m o tiv e arises an dth e b urd ensh if ts to th e d ef en d ant to articu late a leg itim ate, n o n -d iscrimin ato ry reaso nf o r th e adv erse e m pl oy m e nt a c t i on. ” I d. ( c i t at i on omi tt e d) . Fi na l l y , i f the Att orne y Ge ne r a loffe r s s uc h a no n-disc ri minat ory

explanat ion f

or the c on du ct

in qu es ti on , the burden wo uld shift back to Krieb el to p ro v e th at th e exp lan atio nis a p retex t f o r d iscrimin atio n . S ee id . T h e o n lyiss u e p re se n ted o n a p p e a l is w h e th e r th e D istric t C o u rt c o rre c tly concl uded, att he thi r d s t age of t hi s anal y s i s , t hatK r i ebel fai l ed t o pr ove thatt he A t t or ney G ener al ’ s expl anat i on fort he empl oym entdeci s i on w as a pr et extforunl aw ful dis cri m i nati on . In order t o p revai l , K ri ebel w as r equ i red t o sho w “such w eakn esses , i m pl aus i bi l i t i es , i ncons i s t enci es , i ncoher enci es , orcontr adi ct i ons i n [ea ch of] t he e m p lo y e r’s p ro f

f e re d leg iti m a te r e a so n s f o r its a c tio n th a t a r e a so n a b le f a c tf in d e r c o u ld

### - 6-

r at i onal l yfi nd t hem unw or t hyof cr edenc e, and henc e i nfert hatt he empl oy erdi d notact fort he as s er t ed non- di s cr i m i nat or yr eas ons . ” Fuent es v. Per s ki e, 32 F. 3d 759, 765 ( 3d C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). W e agr ee w i t h t he D i s t r i ctC our tt hatK r i ebel has notdemonst r at ed thateac h of t he A t t or neyG ener al ’ s expl anat i ons fort he empl oy m entact i ons ati s s ue her ei n i s a pr et ext forunl aw ful di s cr i m i nat i on. T he A t t or neyG ener al s oughtt o j us t i fyt he empl oy m ent deci s i on on t w o gr ounds : fi r s t , M at t hew s w ant ed s om eone w i t h i nt el l i gence and i nves t i gat i ve expe r i ence t o fi l l t he SI S T ech pos i t i on, and, s econd, he w ant ed s om eone w h o c o u l d w o r k e v e n i n g s a n d w e e k e n d s t o m o n i t o rg a n g a c t i v i t yd u r i n g t h a tt i m e . We concurw i t h K r i ebel t hatt he fi r s tof thes e j us t i fi cat i ons i s unavai l i ng— K r i ebel r ece i ved a pos i t i ve eva l uat i on fr om M at t hew s w i t h r es pectt o heri nt el l i gence and i nves t i gat i ve s ki l l s , w hi ch, i n t he abs ence of a more per s uas i ve non- di s cr i m i nat or yexpl anat i on fort he e m p lo ym e n t d e c is io n , m ig h t b e s u f f ic ie n t to ra is e a ju ry q u e s tio n . H ow ever , “t o avoi d s um m aryj udgm ent , [K r i ebel ’ s ] evi dence r ebut t i ng t he [ A tto rn e yG e n e ra l’s] p ro f f e re d leg iti m a te r e a so n s m u st a llo w a f a c tf in d e r re a so n a b lyto i nfer t hat each of the em ploy er’ s proffered no n-di scr i m i nator yreas on s w as ei t her a po st hoc fa br i cat i on orot herw i s e di d notactual l ym ot i vat e the empl oy m entact i on. ” I d. at764 (in ter n a l cita tio n o m itt e d , em p h a sis in o rig in a l). W e c o n c lu d e th a t K rie b e l’s e v id e n c e is i ns uffi ci entt o under m i ne the A t t or neyG ener al ’ s s econd non- di s cr i m i nat or ybas i s fort he empl oym entact i on— i . e. , t he nee d foran SI S T ech w ho coul d w or k w eeke nd and eve ni ng

### - 7-

h o u rs. K rie b e l p o in ts to th e f a c t th a t th e O c to b e r 2 0 0 5 m e m o ra n d u m w a s n o t d isc lo se d to heras evi dence of an i m per m i s s i bl e mot i ve, butt he fa i l ur e t o i nform K r i ebel of the m emora ndum does notr enderi m pl aus i bl e the A t t or neyG ener al ’ s s t at ed nee d conce r ni ng th e h o u rs o f

th e S IS T e c h , w h ich K rie b e l m a d e c lea r sh e w o u ld n o t w o rk . A n d w h ile K rie b e l m a k e s m u c h o f th e f a c t th a t H ick s, to w h o m th e S IS T e c h p o sitio n w a s u lti m a tely offe r ed, di d notw or k al l w eeke nds and al l eveni ngs , hi s s hi ft s cert ai nl yi ncl uded many w eeke nds and eve ni ngs , w hi ch i s cons i s t entw i t h t he w ar den’ s des cr i pt i on of the pos i t i on i n hi s J anuary6, 2006 m emora ndum t o K r i ebel . K r i ebel ’ s ow n s t at ement s t o A l l eman m a k e c le a r t h a t s u c h h o u rs w e re o u t o f th e q u e s tio n f

o r h e r. 

### Insum , w e co n clu d e th at Krieb el f ailedto ad du ce su f

f icient ev id en ce to un dermine “ e a c h o f

th e e m p lo y e r’s p ro f

f e re d n o n -d isc rim in a to ryre a so n s” f o r its empl oym entact i on, and w e w i l l t her efor e af fi r m t he j udgm entof the D i s t r i ctC our t . I d. (e m p h a s is in o ri g in a l) . 

### III. F o r th e f o reg o in g reaso n s, w e w ill af f irm th e j u d g m ent o f

th e D istrict C o urt.