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 9-20-2010 

# T o dd Gl a dysiewsk

i v . Alleghe n y E ne rgy 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 . 09-4680

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_2010

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 2010 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
" T odd Gl a dysiewski v

. Alle ghe n y E ne rgy " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 572. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/572NOT 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- 4680 T O D D G L A D Y S IE W S K I, A ppel l ant

v. AL L E GHE NY E NE RG Y A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 2- 07- cv- 01339) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e D avi d St ew artC er cone 

### Subm itte d U nd er

Th ird C ircuit

LA R 3 4.1(a) Sept ember16, 2010 B efore: S C IR IC A , R E N D E L L and F ISH E R , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: Sept ember20, 2010) OPI NI ON O F THE COURT R E N D E L L , C i r cui tJ udge. Pl ai nt i ff Todd G l ady s i ew s ki appea l s fr om a D i s t r i ctC our tor dergr ant i ng d e f e n d a n t’ s m o tio n f

o r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t o n p la in tif f ’s c la im s o f

re ta lia to ry te rm in a tio n . F o r th e re a so n s s e t f

o rth b e lo w , w e w ill a f

f irm th e ru lin g o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.2 I. G l ady s i ew s ki i s a form erempl oy ee of defe ndantA l l eghenyE ner gySer vi ce C orpor at i on, w her e he w or ked as a t echni ci an. H e w as hi r ed i n 1987 and att ai ned the “Servi ceman A ” cl as s i fi cat i on i n 1994, w hi ch he r et ai ned unt i l O ct ober2004, w hen he w as demot ed t o t he “Servi ceman B ” cl as s i fi cat i on and pl ace d on a per form ance i m pr ovementpl an. G l ady s i ew s ki ’ s s upervi s or , D avi d Sm i t h, gave hi m a l et t erexpl ai ni ng the r eas ons fort he demot i on, w hi ch i ncl uded hi s fai l ur e t o acc eptaft er - hour s s ervi ce cal l s , fai l ur e t o fol l ow A l l egheny ’ s pol i ci es and pr ocedur es , fai l ur e t o payat t ent i on dur i ng w o rk a s s ig n m e n ts , a n d u n w illin g n e s s to p a rt ic ip a te in p roje c ts w ith c o -w o rk e rs . G l ady s i ew s ki fi l ed admi ni s t r at i ve compl ai nt s i n J anuaryand J une 2005 al l egi ng age di s cr i m i nat i on. H e then fi l ed a l aw s ui ti n fede r al cour ton J ul y21, 2005, and the D i s tr i ct Co u r tg r a n t e d s u mm a r yj u d g me n tt o Al l e g h e n yo n Ap r i l 1 1 , 2 0 0 7 . On J u n e 2 6 , 2 0 0 8 , we a f f ir m e d th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s o rd e r. O n M ay15, 2007, G l ady s i ew s ki w as i nform ed thathi s empl oym entw as bei ng t erm i nat ed. H e then br oughta s econd l aw s ui ti n fede r al cour ti n O ct ober2007, as s er t i ng cl ai m s of r et al i at i on under29 U . S. C . § 621 and 43 P. S. § 951. Speci fi cal l y , G l ady s i ew s ki cl ai m s thathe w as t erm i nat ed i n r et al i at i on forfi l i ng the ea r l i eradmi ni s t r at i ve compl ai nt a n d t h e f e d e r a l l a w s u i ta g a i n s tt h e c o m p a n y. Al l e g h e n yf

i l e d a mo t i o n f

o rs u mma r yj u d g me n t . Ch i e f M a g i s t r a t e J u d g e Amy R eynol ds H ayi s s ued a Repor tr ecomm endi ng thatthe mot i on be gr ant ed, and the D i s tr i ctTh e Di s t r i c tCo u r th a d j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 2 9 U. S . C. § 6 2 6 ( c ) , 2 8 U. S . C. 1 § 1367( a) , and 28 U . S. C . § 1331. W e have j ur i s di ct i on overthe appe al pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. 3 C o u r ta d o p t e d t h e R e p o r ta n d e n t e r e d j u d g m e n ti n f a v o ro f A l l e g h e n y. II. G l ady s i ew s ki ar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n gr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm ent fo r A ll eg h en yb ec au se h e ra ised issue s o f m aterial fa ct reg ard ing w h ethe r A ll eg h en y ’s pr offe r ed r eas ons forhi s t erm i nat i on w er e pr et extual . W e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew over the D istri ct C o u rt ’s de cisi o n to g ran t sum m aryjud g m en t, an d w e a p p lythe s am e stan d ard as the D i s tr i ctC our t . W e ther efor e vi ew the under l y i ng fac t s and evi dence i n t he l i ght m o st fav o rab le t o the n o n -m o v ing p arty . M cG ree v yv . S tr o u p , 4 1 3 F . 3 d 3 5 9 , 3 6 3 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) (i n terna l ci tat ion s o m itted). 1 W e ana l y ze G l ady s i ew s ki ’ s r et al i at i on cl ai m underthe thr ee- s t ep bur den- s hi ft i ng fr amew or k es t abl i s hed i n M cD onnel l D ougl as C orp. v. G r een, 411 U . S. 792, 802- 04 (1 9 7 3 ). T h e p la in tif

f h a s th e b u rd e n o f

e s ta b lis h in g a p ri m a f

a c ie c a s e . S e e id . a t 8 0 2 . O nce a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e i s es t abl i s hed, the bur den s hi ft s t o t he def endantt o pr es enta nonr et al i at oryexpl anat i on fort he cha l l enged e m pl oym entdeci s i on. See i d. T he bur den then s hi ft s back t o t he pl ai nt i ff t o pr ove bya pr eponder ance of the evi dence thatthe art i cul at ed r eas on i s pr et extforr et al i at i on. See i d. at804. T o es t abl i s h a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e of r et al i at i on, G l ady s i ew s ki m us tpr ove that( 1) he engage d i n pr ot ect ed conduc t ; ( 2) an adve r s e ac t i on w as t aken; and ( 3) ther e i s a ca us al4

lin k b e tw e e n th e p ro te c te d c o n d u c t a n d th e a d v e rs e a c tio n . W o o d s o n v . S c o tt P a p e r C o ., 109 F. 3d 913, 920 ( 3d C i r . 1997) . Forthe purpos es of i t s s um m aryj udgm entm ot i on, A l l eghenyas s um ed thatG l ady s i ew s ki engage d i n pr ot ect ed ac t i vi t yand s uffe r ed an adver s e empl oym entact i on. H ow ever , A l l eghenydi s put es thatG l ady s i ew s ki can es t abl i s h a ca us al connec t i on betw een hi s fi l i ng of hi s fi r s tl aw s ui t , G l ady s i ew s ki I , on J ul y21, 2005, and the t erm i nat i on of hi s empl oym entnear l ytw o y ear s l at eron M ay15, 2 0 0 7 . W e have r ecogni zed tw o pr i m aryw ay s t o s ubs t ant i at e a c aus al connec t i on betw een the pr ot ect ed ac t i vi t yand an a dver s e empl oym entact i on: s how i ng thatthe t empora l pr oxi m i tybetw een the tw o i s “unus ual l ys ugges t i ve, ” orpoi nt i ng t o an “ongoi ng ant agoni s m ” betw een the pl ai nt i ff a nd defe ndant . Far r el l v. Pl ant er s L i fes aver s C o. , 206 F. 3d 271, 280- 81 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . I n hi s br i ef oppos i ng the m o tio n f o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t, G lad y sie w sk i co n ten d e d b o th th a t th e tem p o ra l p ro x im ity betw een hi s t erm i nat i on and the di s m i s s al of the fi r s ts ui tw as “unus ual l ys ugges t i ve” a nd thatther e w as evi dence of an “ ongoi ng ant agoni s m ” betw een hi m and A l l egheny . T he D i s tr i ctC our tcons i der ed the i s s ue of c aus at i on atl ength, and w as s kept i cal as t o w hether G lady siew sk i had m ad e a n ad eq u ate sh o w ing , esp ec ial lyg iven the p assa g e o f ti m e b ef o re the a ll eg ed retali ati o n , an d G lady siew sk i’ s reli an ce o n au tho ri tythat the D istri ct C o u rt b eli ev ed w as n o t w ell rea so n ed . H o w ev er, “o u t of an ab u n d an ce o f c au ti o n , ” the C o u rt as s um ed thata pr i m a fa ci e ca s e had be en es t abl i s hed. A pp. 25.5

O n a p p e a l, A lleg h e n ya rg u e s th a t w e sh o u ld a f f irm th e D istric t C o u rt’s r u lin g b o th beca us e G l ady s i ew s ki fai l ed t o m ake outa pr i m a fa ci e ca s e and be caus e, even i f he ha d, h e f a ile d to s h o w th a t A lle g h e n y ’s re a s o n s f o r t e rm in a tin g h im w e re p re te x tu a l. C ur i ous l y , G l ady s i ew s ki has fai l ed t o r es pond t o A l l egheny ’ s ar gum entr egar di ng the p rim a f a c ie c a se , req u irin g u s to re lye x c lu siv e lyo n th e D istric t C o u rt re c o rd to under s t and w hyhe pr es um abl ybel i eves thathe di d es t abl i s h a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e of retali ati o n . F o r th e re aso n s ex p lai n ed b elow , w e b eli ev e tha t i t i s clea r fro m the re co rd thatG l ady s i ew s ki fai l ed t o demonstr at e a c aus al l i nk betw een hi s fi l i ng of the di s cr i m i nat i on compl ai ntand hi s s ubs equentt erm i nat i on, and w i l l aff i r m the D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s or deron t hatbas i s . See, e. g. , E r i e Tel ecomm . , I nc. v. C i t yof Eri e, 853 F. 2d 1 0 8 4 , 1 0 8 9 n . 1 0 ( 3 d C i r . 1 9 8 8 ) ( “ A n a p p e l l a t e c o u r tm a y a f f i r m a c o r r e c td e c i s i o n b y a lo w e r c o u rt o n g ro u n d s d if f e re n t th a n th o se u se d b yth e lo w e r c o u rt in re a c h in g its d ec isi o n . ”). G lad y sie w sk i’s f

irst a rg u m e n t re g a rd in g c a u sa tio n w a s th a t th e tem p o ra l p ro x im ity betw een the r es ol ut i on of G l ady s i ew s ki I and hi s t erm i nat i on i s “unus ual l ys ugges t i ve” s in c e h e w a s in f

o rm e d o f h is te rm in a tio n ju s t o v e r o n e m o n th a f te r t h e s u it w a s re s o lv e d . A p p . 2 3 5 -3 6 . “In c e rta in n a rro w c irc u m sta n c e s, a n ‘u n u su a llysu g g e stiv e ’ p ro x im ityin t i m e betw een the pr ot ect ed ac t i vi t yand the adve r s e ac t i on m aybe s uffi ci ent , on i t s ow n, t o es t abl i s h t he r equi s i t e ca us al connec t i on. ” M arr a v. Phi l a. H ous . A uth. , 497 F. 3d 286, 3 0 2 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 7 ) (in ter n a l cita tio n o m itt e d ). W e e n g a g e in a f a c t-b a se d a n a ly sis toL i ke the D i s t r i ctC our t , w e ar e notper s uaded bythe appr oach t aken i n A nnet tv. 2 U ni ver s i tyof K ans as , 371 F. 3d 1233 ( 10th C i r . 2004) , w her e the pl ai nt i ff w as perm i t t ed t o r el yon t he dat e of a j ur yver di cti n an ea r l i ercas e, r atherthan on the dat e s he fi l ed the cas e. 6 determ i ne w hethert he tem po ral proxim i t ybetw een the prot ect ed acti vityand the ad verse act i on es t abl i s hes a ca us al connec t i on, t aki ng i nt o cons i der at i on “how pr oxi m at e the event s actual l yw er e, and the cont exti n w hi ch the i s s ue ca m e bef or e us . ” Farr el l , 206 F. 3d at279. H e re , the f

irst a d m in istra tiv e c o m p lain t th a t led to G lad y sie w sk i I w a s f iled in J anuary2005; t he r es ul t i ng l i t i gat i on w as r es ol ved bythe D i s t r i ctC our ton A pr i l 11, 2007, butw e di d notdeci de G l ady s i ew s ki ’ s appea l unt i l overa y earl at er . G l ady s i ew s ki w as t erm i nat ed on M ay15, 2007. A l t hough ther e i s cert ai nl ys om e “pr oxi m i t y ” betw een th e d ism iss a l o f

h is la w su it an d h is te rm in a tio n , w e typ ica llym e a su re tem p o ra l p ro x im ity f ro m th e d a te o f

f ilin g ra th e r t h a n f

ro m th e d a te a la w s u it is re s o lv e d , s ee, e. g. , J al i l v. A vdel C orp. , 873 F. 2d 701, 703 ( 3d C i r . 1989) , s i nce the “pr ot ect ed ac t i vi t y ” i n w hi ch a l i t i gantengage s i s t he fi l i ng of a c om pl ai nt , noti t s di s m i s s al bya court . I n t hi s cas e, over tw o y e a rs p a ss e d b e tw e e n G lad y sie w sk i’s f ili n g o f h is a d m in istra tiv e c o m p lain t an d h is t e r m i n a t i o n , a p e r i o d t h a ti s t o o l o n g t o c o n s t i tu t e t e m p o r a l p r o x i m i t y. 2 E ven i f w e w er e t o gi ve gr eat erw ei ghtt o t he t i m e of the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s di s m i s s al o f G la d y s ie w s k i I , th e c h ro n o lo g ya c tu a lly u n d e rm in e s G la d y s ie w s k i’ s c la im s . G lady siew sk i’ s p erf

o rm an ce im p rov em en t plan w as im p lem en ted in O ctob er 2 0 0 4 , b ef o re7

he fi l ed ei therhi s admi ni s t r at i ve compl ai nt s orG l ady s i ew s ki I . W hen G l ady s i ew s ki w as ter m in a ted in M a y2 0 0 7 , A lleg h e n ye x p lain e d th a t itw a s b e c a u se o f h is f a ilu re to i m pr ove hi s w or k per form ance . Speci fi cal l y , G l ady s i ew s ki had cont i nued nott o r es pond t o s ervi ce c al l s , m eetcompanys t andar ds , oradequa t el ypart i ci pat e i n companym eet i ngs and tr ai ni ng s es s i ons . T hes e r eas ons ar e s i m i l art o t hos e thatw er e gi ven for G l ady s i ew s ki ’ s demot i on i n 2004, and s ugges tthe s ame cont i nued patt ern of def i ci ent conductbyG l ady s i ew s ki . A s t he Supr eme C ourthas expl ai ned, “[e ] m pl oy er s need not s us pend pr evi ous l ypl anned tr ans fer s upon di s cover i ng thata Ti t l e V I I s ui thas been f i l ed, a n d th e ir p ro c e e d in g a lo n g lin e s p re v io u slyc o n tem p late d , tho u g h n o t y e t d e f in iti v e ly det erm i ned, i s no evi dence w hat everof ca us al i t y . ” C l ark C ount ySch. D i s t . v. B r eede n 532 U . S. 268, 272 ( 2001) . H er e, t he exi s t ence of the per form ance i m pr ovementpl an su g g e sts th a t A lleg h e n yw a s “ p ro c e e d in g a lo n g lin e s p re v io u slyc o n tem p late d ” w h e n it ter m in a ted G lad y sie w sk i. G l ady s i ew s ki al s o ar gued thathi s pr i m a fa ci e ca s e i s s uppor t ed byw hathe su g g e sts a re tw o e x a m p les o f “ o n g o in g a n tag o n ism ” b e tw e e n h im a n d A lleg h e n y . F irst, h e s t a t e d t h a th e wa s s u b j e c t e d t o h e i g h t e n e d s c ru t i n ya f t e rh e f i l e d th e c o mp l a i n t s . He cl ai m ed thathe w as cr i t i ci zed f orhi s w or k and for ced t o r edo pr oj ect s , w hi l e the i dent i cal w or k of a c o- w or kerw as notchal l enged. H ow ever , i n hi s depos i t i on, G l ady s i ew s ki admi t t ed thatt hi s actual l yoccurr ed i n 2004- - befor e he f i l ed hi s fi r s tadmi ni s t r at i ve compl ai nti n J anuary2005. A pp. 24. T hi s “s crut i ny ” thus does nots uppor thi s caus at i on8

ar gum ent . Second, G l ady s i ew s ki cl ai m ed that , dur i ng the l as ty earof hi s empl oym ent , he w as s el ect ed fordrug and al cohol t es t i ng eac h t i m e a r andom drug s cr eeni ng w as conduct ed. A l l eghenyr es ponded thatthe r andom drug t es t s w er e conduc t ed byan i ndepende ntt hi r d- part yvendor . I n anyevent , t o w hat everext entthe drug t es t i ng m i ght sh o w a n tag o n ism b e tw e e n A lleg h e n ya n d G lad y sie w sk i, i t is n o t su f f icie n t to d e m o n stra te thatG l ady s i ew s ki w as t erm i nat ed bec aus e of the compl ai nt s thathe had f i l ed. B eca us e w e conc l ude thatG l ady s i ew s ki has fai l ed t o es t abl i s h a ca us al connec t i on b e tw e e n h is te rm in a tio n a n d h is f ili n g o f a n a d m in istra tiv e c o m p lain t an d f e d e ra l law su it a g a in st A lleg h e n y , w e n e e d n o t d isc u ss th e D istric t C o u rt’s r u lin g a s to p re tex t. W e w ill th e re f o re a f f irm th e o rd e r o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.