B L D

- 1 2 7 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED S TATES COU RT OF APPEALS

FOR T HE THIRD CIRCUI T

___________

No. 1 9

- 2 9 9 7

__________

DAVID MUNOZ

,

A ppellant

v.

WORLD FLAVORS, INC.; ON SITE PERSONNEL, LLC

____________________________________

On Appeal from the U nited States District Court

f or the E a s t e r n Distri c t o f P e n n s y l v a n i a

(D.C. Civ il Act ion No. 2

- 17

- cv

- 02350 )

District Judge: Ho norable Berle M. Schiller

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible D ismissa l Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 191 5(e)(2 )(B) or

Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27 .4 and I.O.P. 10.6

February 27, 2020

Before: A M B R O

, G R E E N A W A Y

, J r

. , a n d B I B A S

, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed April 10, 2020 )

__ ___ ___ _ _

OPINION *

__ ___ ___ _ _ PER CURIAM

* This d ispo sition i s not an opinion of t he ful l C our t and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not

cons titute binding precedent.2

Pro se app ellant D a v i d M u n o z appeals f r o m th e District Court’s order g r a n t i n g

s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t t o t h e d e f e n d a n t s i n h i s e m p l o y m e n t discrimination l a w s u i t

. For the

reasons d i s c u s s e d below, we will s u m m a r i l y affir m

.

I

.

Because we w rite pri marily for the parties, we will reci te only the facts necessar y

for our discussion

. I n O c t o b e r 2 0 1 5

, M u n o z w a s h i r e d b y On Site Personnel, LLC ( “ O n

S i t e ” )

, a temporary employment agency

. I n N o v e m b e r 2 0 1 5

, h e w a s assigned to work as

a temporary em ployee at World Flavors, Inc. H e w o r k e d a t W o r l d F l a v o r s f o r t w e l v e

d a y s b e f o r e h e w a s f

i r e d o n N o v e m b e r 2 0

, 2 0 1 5

. Rather than reassign Munoz to another

wo rk site, On Site Personnel also fired him.

O n t h e m o r n i n g o f N o v e m b e r 2 0

, M u n o z h a d a n a r g u m e n t w i t h a c o w o r k e r a b o u t

a t a b l e t h a t h e w a n t e d t o u s e f o r h i s w o r k

. M u n o z r e p o r t e d t h e a r g u m e n t t o h i s

s u p e r v i s o r

, A n t h o n y R o s s

, w h o i n s t r u c t e d M u n o z t o u s e a d i f f e r e n t t a b l e

. R o s s l a t e r

r e p o r t e d t o h i s s u p e r v i s o r

, R u s s e l l P e r r y

, t h a t M u n o z w a s b e i n g a r g u m e n t a t i v e

, r e f u s e d t o

f o l l o w i n s t r u c t i o n s

, a n d r e f u s e d t o w o r k

. A r o u n d 1 0 : 3 0 a

. m

. , P e r r y f i r e d M u n o z a n d t w o

o t h e r t e m p o r a r y e m p l o y e e s w h o w e r e i n v o l v e d i n t h e a r g u m e n t

. P e r r y d o c u m e n t e d t h e

c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h e f

i r i n g i n a c o n t e m p o r a n e o u s m e m o

.

A l t h o u g h M u n o z d o e s n o t d i s p u t e t h a t h e w a s d i s m i s s e d a t 1 0 : 3 0 a

. m

. o n

N o v e m b e r 2 0

, h e m a i n t a i n s t h a t h e w a s f i r e d b e c a u s e he reported sexual h a r a s s m e n t to

World Flav ors ’ Human Resources Department i n the afternoon of November 20

. M u n o z3

t e s t i f i e d t h a t P e r r y harassed h i m b y

, a m o n g o t h e r t h i n g s

, b r u s h i n g M u n o z ’ s s h o u l d e r

,

f l i r t i n g w i t h M u n o z

, t e l l i n g M u n o z t h a t h e w a s a t t r a c t i v e

, a n d a s k i n g t o s e e M u n o z ’ s

t a t t o o s

.

I n M a y 2 0 1 7

, M u n o z f

i l e d a c o m p l a i n t against World Flavors and On Site i n t h e

D i s t r i c t C o u r t

, r a i s i n g c l a i m s o f s e x discrimination, retaliation, an d a hostile work

environment u nder T itle V II of the Civil Right s Act ( “ T i t l e V I I ” ) a n d the Penns ylvania

H uman Rel a tio ns Act (“PHRA”)

. T h e d e f e n d a n t s f i l e d v a r i o u s c r o s s

- c l a i m s a n d m o v e d

f o r s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t

. T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t g r a n t e d s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f t h e

d e f e n d a n t s o n M u n o z ’ s c l a i m s a n d d i s m i s s e d t h e d e f e n d a n t s ’ o u t s t a n d i n g c r o s s

- c l a i m s

.

T h i s a p p e a l e n s u e d

.

I I

.

W e h a v e jurisdiction p u r s u a n t t o 28 U .S.C. § 1 291

. W e exe rcise plen ar y r ev iew

o ve r th e Dist rict Court’s order granting summary judgment. See Kaucher v. County o f

Bucks , 455 F.3d 418 , 422 (3d Cir. 2006) . Summary judgment is prop er when, v iewin g

th e e vidence in t he light mos t f avorable to the n onmoving par t y and drawing a ll

in fe rence s in f

avor o f that party, there is no genuine dispute as to any materia l fact and

t he moving party is e ntitled to judgment as a matter of law. S e e i d

. at 422

– 2 3 ; Fe d . R

.

Civ. P. 56(a)

. A genuine dispute of material f a ct exists if th e evidence i s s uf ficient for a

rea sonable factfinder to return a verdict for the no n

- moving pa r ty. S e e Anderson v.

Lib erty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). We may summarily af firm “on any basis4

supported by the record” if the appeal fails to present a substantial question. See Mur ray

v. B ledsoe , 650 F.3d 246, 247 (3d Cir. 2011) (per curiam); Third C ircuit LAR 27.4 and

I.O.P. 10.6

.

I I I

.

The District Co urt prope rly e n t e r e d s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t a g a i n s t M u n o z o n h i s

d i s c r i m i n a t i o n a n d r e t a l i a t i o n claims

, according to the burd en

- shifting fr am ework

established by McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Gr een , 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973). See Jones

v. Sch . Dist . of Phila. , 198 F.3d 403, 410 (3d Cir. 1999 ) ( e x p l a i n i n g t h a t t h e f r a m e w o r k

g e n e r a l l y a p p l i e s t o c l a i m s u n d e r T i t l e V I I a n d t h e P H R A )

. Under th a t fr amework,

M u n o z h a d the initial burden of establishing a prima facie ca se of dis c r i m i n a t i o n o r

r e t a l i a t io n

. See McDonnell Douglas

, 411 U.S. at 802. If h e su cceeded, the burde n then

would shif

t to the d efe ndants to articulate a l e g i t i m a t e non

- discriminator y o r non

ret al iatory reason for t a k i n g a n a d v e r s e e m p l o y m e n t a c t i o n ag ainst h i m

. See id. ; Mo ore

v. City of Philadelphia , 461 F.3d 331, 342 (3d Cir. 2 006 ) ( d i s c u s s i n g r e t a l i a t i o n c l a i m s )

.

M u n o z would then have an opportunity to prove by a prep onderance of the evide nc e that

the legitimate reason offered by the defendants for t h e a d v e r s e a c t i o n w as a pretext

. See

Jones , 198 F.3d a t 41 0 ; M o o r e

, 4 6 1 F

. 3 d a t 3 4 2

.

H e r e

, a t t h e v e r y l e a s t

, a n d assum ing without d ecidin g that M u n o z established a

prim a facie case o f discri mi nation a n d r e t a l i a t i o n

, w e a g r e e w i t h t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t h a t

t h e d e f e n d a n t s p o i n t e d t o l e g i t i m a t e

, n o n

- d i s c r i m i n a t o r y a n d n o n

- r e t a l i a t o r y r e a s o n s f o r5

f i r i n g M u n o z

— h i s a r g u i n g w i t h a c o w o r k e r a n d h i s r e f u s a l t o f o l l o w h i s s u p e r v i s o r ’ s

i n s t r u c t i o n s

. See Ross v. Gilhuly , 75 5 F.3d 185, 193 (3d Cir

. 2014) ( h o l d i n g t h a t “ [ e ] v e n

a s s u m i n g

, a r

g u e n d o

, t h a t [ p l a i n t i f

f ] e s t a b l i s h e d a p r i m a f

a c i e c a s e

, ” h i s “ demonstrably

poor job performance” w a s a “ legi timate, non

- discriminatory rea son ” for h is

terminatio n)

. M u n o z failed to adduce evidence from which a reas onable f a c t f i n d e r could

conclude “that the empl oyer’s proffered r easons were merely a pretext for

d i scr imination, ” Sarullo v. U.S. Postal Serv. , 352 F. 3 d 789, 797 (3d Cir. 2003) (per

curiam)

, o r t h a t t h e r e w e r e “ weaknesses, implausibilitie s, inconsistencie s, incoherencies

,

or contradictions from which a reasonable juror could conclude that the Defendant s ’

e xplanati on is unworthy of credence, and hence in f er that the employer did not act for the

asserted ” n o n

- r e t a l i a t o r y reason

, Carvalh o

- Grevious v. De l

. State Univ. , 851 F. 3d 249,

262 (3d Cir. 2017) ( q u o t a t i o n m a r k s a n d c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d )

. W e ag r e e w i t h t h e D i s t r i c t

C o u r t ’ s a n a l y s i s o f t hi s i s s u e

, i n c l u di n g i t s dis c u s si on o f t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s s u r r o u n d i n g

M u n o z ’ s f

i r i n g

. T h e r e i s n o g e n u i n e d i s p u t e t h a t M u n o z ’ s p o o r p e r f o r m a n c e w a s t h e

d o c u m e n t e d r e a s o n f

o r h i s f i r i n g a n d t h a t h e w a s f

i r e d b e f o r e h e r e p o r t e d t h e harassment

b y P e r r y

. A n d

, w h i l e M u n o z t e s t i f i e d a b o u t i s o l a t e d i n c i d e n t s o f harassment t h a t a r e

h i g h l y o f f e n s i v e

, n o r e a s o na bl e j u r or c ou ld find t h a t th e y e s t a bl i sh p r e t e x t u n d e r t h e

c i r c u m s t a n c e s h e r e

. T h u s

, t h e def e n d a n t s w e r e e n t i t l e d t o s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t o n t h e

d i s c r i m i n a t io n a n d r e t a l i a t i on c l a i ms u n d e r T i t l e V I I a n d t h e P H R A

.6

T h e d e f e n d a n t s w e r e a l s o e n t i t l e d t o s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t o n M u n o z ’ s c l a i m o f a

h o s t i l e w o r k e n v i r o n m e n t

. T o p r e v a i l o n s u c h a c l a i m

, “ a pl aintiff must show that 1) the

emp l oye e suffered intentional discrimination

. . . 2) the discrimination was severe or

pervasive, 3) the d iscrimination d etrimenta ll y affected the plaintiff, 4) the discriminat ion

would detrimentally affect a reasonable perso n in like circumstances, and 5) th e ex istence

of respondeat superior liability [meaning the employer is responsible]

. ” Castleberry v.

ST I Grp. , 863 F.3d 259, 26 3 (3d Cir. 2017) ( q u o t a t i o n m a r k s a n d c i t a t i o n o m i t t e d )

.

A g a i n

, t h e i s o l a t e d harassment h e r e

, w h i l e h i g h l y o f f e n s i v e

, i s i n s u f

f i c i e n t f o r a

r e a s o n a b l e j u r o r t o f

i n d t h a t M u n o z s u f

f e r e d d i s c r i m i n a t i o n t h a t w a s s e v e r e o r p e r v a s i v e

.

C f

. i d

. a t 2 6 5

. T h u s

, t h e d e f e n d a n t s w e r e e n t i t l e d t o s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t o n t h e h o s t i l e

w o r k e n v i r o n m e n t c l a i m s

.

A c c o r d i n g l y

, w e w i l l a f

f i r m t h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t

. M u n o z ’ s m o t i o n

f o r a p p o i n t m e n t o f c o u n s e l i s d e n i e d

. See Tabron v. G race , 6 F.3d 147, 158 (3d Cir.

1993).