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 1-26-2004 

# Ki s sel l v . D i s t C ncl 84 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 . 02-3891

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 . vi 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 . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" Ki s s e l l v . Di s t C ncl 84" (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1073. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/1073NOT PRECEDE NTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT 

### No. 02-3891
MICHAEL

F. KIS SELL
v. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE , COUNTY AND MUNI CIPAL EMPLOYEES, DISTRICT COUNCIL 84, AFL-CIO, COUNCIL 13; PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF C ORRECTI ONS, STATE CORRECTI ONAL INS TITUTE O F GREENSBURG, PA Department o f Correction s, State Correct ional Institution at Greensburg, Appellant
APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DIST RICT COURT FO R T HE WE STE RN DIST RIC T O F PE NN SY LV AN IA

D.C. CivilNo. 97-cv-00786 Distri ct Judge: The Honorable Gary L. Lancaste r

Argued: January 12, 2004
Bef or e: BARRY, SMIT H, and GR EE NB ER G, Circuit Judges (Opinion Fi led: J anuary26, 2004)1 Kis sell a lso a llege d vi olati ons und er 4 2 U .S.C . § 19 83 a nd u nde r Pe nns ylvan ia law
. 1 The Distric t Cou rt dism issed th ese cla ims, an d they are not rele vant to this app eal. 2 2 Howard G. Hopkirk, Esq. ( Argued) Of fice o f A ttorney G enera l of P enns ylvania Strawb erry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Attorneyfor Appellant Leonard E. Sweeney , Esq. ( Argued) 976 PerryHighway Pitt sburgh, PA 15237 Attorneyfor Appelle e

OPI NION

BA RR Y, Circuit

Judge M icha el K issel l wa s, fro m 1 988 unt il he w as te rmin ated on J une 29, 1 994 , a correct ions offi cer employ ed by t he Pennsy lvania

Department of Correcti ons (“DOC”) at the S tate C orrectio nal Ins titution at G reens burg . In resp onse to his term ination , Kisse ll file d a complaint

in the West ern District of Pennsy lvania

against the DOC for violation of the r igh ts af for ded to h im u nde r Titl e V II of the C ivil R igh ts A ct of 196 4. 42 U.S .C. § 2000e et seq . 1 After trial, a juryrejec ted Kisse ll’ s sexualharassment clai m, but re turned a verdict in his favor on his retal iati on clai m. The DOC moved for judgment as a matter of3

law, which was deni ed, and thereafter fil ed a ti mely appeal. We have juris dicti on under 28 U. S. C. § 129 1. We wil l a ffirm. The DOC rais es thr ee iss ues on appeal . Fir st, the DOC asserts t hat theevidence does not suppor

t the j ury ’s fi nding in favor of Kissel l on one component of hi s ret aliation clai m. Second, t

he DOC contest s cert ain of the damages asses sed agains t it . Final ly , the DO C argu es that becau se the jury’s verdict canno t stand, neither can the District Cou rt’s orde r to reins tate K issell. To establ ish a prima faci e case o f retaliatio n in an emp loymen t discrim ination suit brought under

Titl e VII, a pl ainti ff “must show that (1) he was engaged i n protected
ac tiv ity; ( 2) he w as di sc ha rg ed su bs eq ue nt to or co nt em po ra ne ou sly w ith su ch ac tiv ity; and (3) there is a causallink between the prot ected act ivit y and t he discharge.” Woodson v. Scott Paper Co. , 109 F.3d 913, 920 (3d Cir. 1997). The DOC concedes that Kissellat tri al est ablis hed the sec ond and third components of hi s case. They ar gue, however, that the ev idenc e, eve n w hen v iewe d in K issell’s fa vor, d oes n ot sup port a f inding that K issell
wa s en gag ed in a pr otec ted a ctivi ty. “As a preli minarymatter , protesti ng what an employ ee beli eves in good faith to be a discriminat ory practi ce is cl early protected conduct. ” Aman v. Cort Furniture Rental Corp. , 85 F .3d 10 74, 10 85 (3 d C ir. 1996 ) (citing 4 2 U .S.C. § 200 0e-3 (a); Griff ithsv. Cigna Corp. , 988 F.2 d 45 7, 46 8 (3 d C ir. 19 93) ). See also Gri ffi ths , 988 F.2d at

468 (“a plaintiff need not p rove the m erits of th e und erlying disc rimina tion co mp laint, bu t only4

that ‘ he was acti ng under a good fai th, reasonablebelie f that a violation exi sted’ ”) (quoti ng Sumner v. United St ates Post al Servi ce , 899 F.2d 203, 209 (2d Cir. 199 0)). The DO C co nced es that K issell w as actin g in g ood faith w hen h e ma de his complaint. The DO C asserts, however, that Kissell ’s complaint was unreasonable. Thus, the issu e on a ppea l is wh ether a dequ ate ev idenc e w as pre sented to the ju ry to supp ort a finding t hat Kisse ll reasonably

belie ved that

he was engaged in pr otect ed acti vity under Ti tle V II. W e “ vi ew th e e vi de nc e in th e li gh t m os t fa vo ra bl e to th e n on -m ov in g p ar ty, and determine whether t he record c ontains the ‘mini mum quantum of evidence from which a jury

might rea sonablyafford rel ief, ’” Glenn D istri bs. Corp. v. Carlisl e Plastics, Inc. , 297 F.3 d 29 4, 29 9 (3 d C ir. 20 02) (cita tion s om itted ). The evidence suff

icie ntly supports the jur

y’ s findi ng that Kis sellhad a reasonable, good-faith belief to complain that he was harassed because he w as male even as he also had a rea son able , goo d fa ith b elief that h e w as h aras sed bec aus e he wa s a w histle -blo we r. Titl e VII jurisprude nce does not require a plaint iff’s sex to be t

he sole moti vation or

even the p rima ry mo tivat ion for the h aras sm ent. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e- 2(a) ( “It s hall bean unl aw ful e mp loym ent p racti ce f or a n em plo yer . . . to d isch arg e an y indiv idu al . . . beca use o

f such individ ual’s . . . sex ”) (em phas is add ed); Miller v . Cigna Corp. , 47 F.3d 586, 593-594 ( 3d Cir. 1995) (“Congress, by usi ng the phras e ‘becauseof,’ di d not mean ‘sole ly bec aus e of .’”). With regar d to the damages award, we cannot c onclude that $355, 696 is anunre ason able a mo unt to c om pens ate fo r lost ba ck pa y and frin ge be nefits f or the n early

eight years betwe en K issell’s termination and the jury award. M oreover, if the jury should not

have been ins tructed on fringebenefit s, i t behooved the DOC to sayso then, not now. Finally, because we up hold the jury ’s verdict, Kissell’s reinstatement as a correct ions offi cer is , as t

he DOC concedes, appropri ate. Because we find in t

he record t

he “‘mini mum quantum of evidence from which a jury might reasonab ly afford relief,’” we w ill affirm the order o f the D istrict Court den ying th e D OC ’s m otio n fo r jud gm ent a s a m atter of la w. Glenn Distri bs. Corp. , 297 F.3 d at 2 99 ( citatio ns o mitte d).

TO THE CLERK OF THE CO URT: Kindlyfilethe fore going Opinion.

/s / Maryan ne Trump Ba rry Circuit Judge