2005 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 7-18-2005 

# S tr aining v . AT&T W ireles s S e r P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-2688

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and 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 ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

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

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" S tr ainin g v

. AT&T W

ir e le s s S e r " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 833. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/8331 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. 04- 2688 L I NDA A. S T RA I NI NG, A ppel l ant v. AT&T W I REL ES S S ERVI CES , I NC.

_______ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt fort he M i ddl e D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a ( D . C . N o. 1: C V - 02- 0002) D i s t r i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e Y vet t e K ane Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

D at e: J ul y14, 2005 B efor e: A L I T O , V A N A N T W E R PE N and A L D I SE R T , C i r cui tJ udges ( Fi l ed J ul y18, 2005)

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT A L D I SE R T , C i r cui tJ udge.2

T he ques t i on fordeci s i on i s w hetherthe U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tforthe M i d d l e Di s t r i c to f

Pe n n s y l v a n i a i mpr o p e r l yg r a n t e d s u mma r yj u d g me n ti n f a v o ro f AT& T Wi r e l e s s S e r v i c e s ( “ AWS ” ) i n a n e mp l o yme n td i s c r i mi n a t i o n a c t i o n b r o u g h tb yL i n d a A. St r ai ni ng. She s ued undert he A ge D i s cr i m i nat i on i n E m pl oym entA ct( “A D E A ”) , 27 U . S. C . §§ 621- 634 ( 2000) , t he A m er i cans w i t h D i s abi l i t i es A ct( “A D A ”) , 42 U . S. C . §§ 12101- 12117, and the Penns y l vani a H um an R el at i ons A ct( “PH R A ”) , 43 P. S. §§ 951- 963 (19 9 1 ). T he D i s t r i ctC our tconcl uded thatSt r ai ni ng fai l ed t o es t abl i s h a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e of age ordi s abi l i t ydi s cr i m i nat i on i n herfai l ur e t o obt ai n a C us t om erSer vi ce Repr es ent at i ve ( “C SR ”) orSt at i s t i cal A dm i ni s t r at or( “SA ”) pos i t i on; and al t ernat i vel y , even i f s he had estab li sh ed a p ri m a f

ac ie ca se, she fa il ed to es tablish p retex t. In a d d it ion , the C o u rt g ra n ted su m m a ryju d g m e n t o n a re talia tio n c laim b e c a u se th e re w a s n o e v id e n c e th a t a compl ai ntfi l ed bySt r ai ni ng w i t h t he Penns y l vani a H um an R el at i ons C om m i s s i on m o tiv a te d A W S ’s d e c is io n to c a n c e l h e r h e a lth b e n e f its . St r ai ni ng ar gues t hatt her e ar e genui ne i s s ues of m at er i al fac tthatpr ohi bi tthe e n t r yo f s u mma r yj u d g me n t . W e d i s a g r e e a n d wi l l a f f i r m. I. B eca us e w e w r i t e onl yfort he part i es w ho ar e fa m i l i arw i t h t he fa ct s and the pr ocee di ngs i n t he D i s t r i ctC our t , ourdi s cus s i on w i l l be l i m i t ed. II .3

St r ai ni ng w or ked as a dat a entr ycl erk forV anguar d C el l ul arO ne bef or e the companym er ged w i t h A W S i n M ay1999. I n J une 1999, M aryL ou C ol ar os s i , her i m m ediat e supervis or, i nfo rm ed h er that the o perat i on s depart m ent w ou l d b e cl osed as a re su lt o f a m e rg e r a n d e x p lain e d th a t cu rre n t em p lo y e e s s h o u ld a p p lyf o r p o sitio n s w ith A W S, t he s ur vi vi ng company . St r ai ni ng w as t ol d t hatthe oper at i ons depart m entw oul d be cl os ed byt he end of

M ar ch 2000. I n J anuary2000, St r ai ni ng appl i ed w i t h A W S forboth C SR and SA pos i t i ons . She a rg u e s th a t A W S ’s r e f

u sa l to h ire h e r f

o r e a c h p o sitio n c o n stitu ted leg a l ag e a n d d isa b ili ty di s cr i m i nat i on. T he company ’ s r es pons e w as tw ofol d: ( 1) St r ai ni ng di d notqual i fyfor ei t herpos i t i on; and ( 2) hi r i ng deci s i ons w er e made byi ndi vi dual s w ho w er e unaw ar e of h e ra g e o rh e rr h e u m a t o i d a r t h r i t i s c o n d i t i o n , th e a l l e g e d d i s a b i l i t y. III . A ll three o f th e d iscri m ination statu tes u n d er w h ich S tr ainin g b ri n g s h er c lai m are anal y zed unde rt he M cD onnel l D ougl as fr amew or k w hen ther e i s no di r ectevi dence of di s cr i m i nat i on, as i s t he s i tuat i on i n t hi s cas e. See M cD onnel l D ougl as C orp. v. G r een, 41 1 U . S . 79 2 (197 3). U nd er this fram ew ork, a plai nti ff m ustest abli sh a pri m a facie cas e bys how i ng t hat : ( 1) s he i s a mem berof a pr ot ect ed cl as s ; ( 2) s he w as qual i fi ed forthe j ob; ( 3) t he empl oy err efus ed t o hi r e herdes pi t e thos e qual i fi cat i ons ; and ( 4) the j ob
r emai ned open a nd t he empl oy ers oughtappl i cant s w i t h herqual i fi cat i ons . I d. at802. O nce the pl ai nt i ff pr es ent s a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e, the bur den of pr oduct i on s hi ft s t o t he4

em p loy er to c o m e f

o rw ard w ith legiti m ate n o n d iscri m inato ryrea so n s fo r i ts acti o n s. Id. If t he empl oy erm eet s t hi s bur den, t he bur den of pr oduct i on then s hi ft s back t o t he pl ai nt i ff t o s how t hatt he empl oy er ’ s pr offe r ed nondi s cr i m i nat oryr eas ons ar e pr et extual . I d. I V. Th e CSR p o s i t i o n o f

AW S wa s n o tth e s a me a s i t s c o u n t e rp a r ti n Ce l l u l a rOne . To q u a lify , an a p p lica n t w a s re q u ire d to e a rn p a ss in g sc o re s o n b o th th e H o g a n P e rso n a lity T es tand the “f

ol l ow i ng di r ect i ons ” t es t , cons i s t i ng of 30 m ul t i pl e choi ce que s t i ons . A r aw sc o re o f a t lea st 1 7 o r 2 1 o u t o f

3 0 w a s re q u ire d , d e p e n d in g o n th e a p p lica n t’s p e rso n a lity t es tr at i ng. B as ed on St r ai ni ng’ s per s onal i t yt es ts cor e— and appa r ent l ythi s w as s at i s fac t or y— s he nee ded t o ans w eronl y17 ques t i ons corr ect l y . She acc ur at el yans w er ed onl y16. T o su p p o rth er c o n tention that sh e in f ac t sco red w ell , S tr ainin g reli ed o n an ex p ert re p o rt f ro m T e rryL e slie to a rg u e th a t th e re a re g e n u in e iss u e s o f m a ter ial f

a c t. U n f o rtu n a tely , L e slie e x a m in e d o n lya b lac k a n d w h ite p h o to c o p yo f h e r a c tu a l tes t. B eca us e the copyt hatw as exami ned w as noti n col or , the expe r tw as unaw ar e that St r ai ni ng’ s w r ong ans w er s w er e fi l l ed i n r ed bythe t es tr at ers how i ng the ques t i ons s he
m is s e d . A c c o rd in g ly , S tra in in g d id n o t es tab lish a p rim a f a c ie c a se u n d e r th e M c D o n n e ll D ou gl a s fr a mew ork b e c a us e s he fa i l e d t o s ho w tha ts he w a s qu a l i fi e d f orthe CSR pos i t i on. E ven i f s he coul d es t abl i s h a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e, A W S ar t i cul at es a l egi t i m at e,5

non- di s cr i m i nat or yr eas on fori t s deci s i on: I tr eas onabl ybel i eved s he w as notqual i fi ed f o r t h e C S R p o s itio n . St r ai ni ng pr oduced no e vi dence thatA W S’ s deci s i on nott o hi r e herw as bas ed on age ordi s abi l i t y . A l t hough C ol ar os s i w as aw ar e of he rdi s abi l i t yand s ym pathet i c t o her condi t i on, not hi ng on t he r ecor d i ndi cat es thatR i char d Fi no, the i ndi vi dual w ho s cor ed t he “f ol l ow i ng di r ect i ons ” t es t , act ed w i t h ani m us oreven thathe w as aw ar e of the d i s a b i l i t y. T her e i s no evi dence fr om w hi ch a r eas onabl e fa ctfi ndercoul d bel i eve thatan i nvi di ous di s cr i m i nat or yr eas on w as m or e l i kel ythan nota mot i vat i ng ordet erm i nat i ve caus e of the empl oy er ’ s act i on. See K el l erv. O r i x C r edi tA l l i ance , I nc. , 130 F. 3d 1101, 1 1 0 8 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). V. T o p rove em ploym ent di scr i m i nati on based o n d i sabi l i t y , the p l ai nti ff m ust demonstr at e thats he has a di s abi l i t y . B us ki r k v. A pol l o M et al s , 307 F. 3d 160, 166 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ; O l s on v. G E A s t r os pace , 101 F. 3d 947, 951 ( 3d C i r . 1996) . T hi s C i r cui thas hel d t hatt hi s r equi r ementnece s s ar i l yi m pl i es thatthe pl ai nt i ff a l s o m us tdemonstr at e that the e m p loy er k n ew o f th e d isab il ity . Jo n es v . U P S , 2 1 4 F . 3 d 4 0 2 , 4 0 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) (“It i s , of cour s e, an axi om of anyA D A cl ai m thatthe pl ai nt i ff be di s abl ed and thatthe empl oy erbe aw ar e of the di s abi l i t y . ”) ; s ee a l s o R i nehi m erv. C emcol i ft , I nc. , 292 F. 3d 3 7 5 , 3 8 0 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ).6

I n O l s on, 101 F. 3d at954, w e expl ai ned thatknow l edge of one part ycannotbe i m put ed t o anotherw ho i s m aki ng t he hi r i ng deci s i on. B eca us e Str ai ni ng’ s s ol e al l egat i on i s t hatC ol ar os s i knew of herdi s abi l i t y , and C ol ar os s i w as noti nvol ved i n t he hi r i ng pr oces s fort he SA pos i t i on, St r ai ni ng fai l ed t o es t abl i s h t hatthos e i nvol ved i n t he hi r i ng deci s i on knew of herdi s abi l i t y . T hus , St r ai ni ng fai l ed t o m ake outa nec es s aryel ementof herpr i m a fa ci e ca s e. V I. T o es t abl i s h r et al i at i on a pl ai nt i ff mustdemonstr at e that : ( 1) s he enga ged i n a pr ot ect ed ac t i vi t y ; ( 2) t he empl oy ert ook an adve r s e empl oym entact i on agai ns ther ; and ( 3) t her e w as a ca us al connec t i on betw een he rpart i ci pat i on i n t he pr ot ect ed ac t i vi t yand t he adve r s e empl oym entact i on. R obi ns on v. C i t yof Pi t t s bur gh, 120 F. 3d 1286, 1299 ( 3d C ir. 1 9 9 9 ). A W S e m p h a siz e s th a t itn o tifie d S tra in in g o n A p ril 1 4 , 2 0 0 0 th a t h e r b e n e f its
w oul d be t erm i nat ed on J une 14, 2000 unl es s s he t ook a s ever ance packa ge. She el ect ed nott o. St r ai ni ng di d notfi l e a PH R C compl ai ntunt i l J une 20, 2000, a w eek a ft erher benef i t s had bee n t erm i nat ed. A W S w as nots erved w i t h t he compl ai ntunt i l J ul y27, 2000. I tw as notpos s i bl e fort he empl oy er ’ s t erm i nat i on of bene fi t s t o have be en ca us ed i n anyw aybySt r ai ni ng’ s PH R C compl ai ntbeca us e i ti s undi s put ed thats he had noty et fi l ed hercompl ai ntw hen the t erm i nat i on of bene fi t s occurr ed. See G l anzman v. M etr o. M gm t . C orp. , 391 F. 3d 506, 516 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( not i ng thati ti s notpos s i bl e t o m eett here ta lia tio n s ta n d a rd w h e n th e a d v e rs e e m p lo ym e n t a c tio n p re c e d e s th e p ro te c te d a c tiv ity).

T hats he cont i nued t o r ece i ve i ns ur ance benef i t s aft erthe dat e s he w as not i fi ed that th e yw o u ld b e ter m in a ted , u n les s s h e a p p lied f o r a se v e ra n c e p a c k a g e b e f o re th a t d a te, is notm at er i al . A W S had deci ded i n A pr i l 2000 t hatherbenef i t s w oul d be t erm i nat ed on J une 14 and the PH R C compl ai ntw as notfi l ed unt i l J une 20. * * * * * T he j udgm entof the D i s t r i ctC our tw i l l be af fi r m ed.