2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 3-26-2009 

# Li s a B r o wn v

. H a mot M ed C tr 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 . 08-1393

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou 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 a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e 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 2009 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du . Re c omme nde d C it a t ion
" L i s a B r o w n v

. H a mot M e d C tr " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1686. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1686NOT 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
No. 08- 1393
L IS A B R O W N , M .D ., A ppel l ant

v. HA M OT M EDI CA L CEN TER
APP EAL F ROM THE UNI TE D ST ATE S DI S TRI CT C OURT F O R T H E W E S T E R N D IS T R IC T O F P E N N S Y L V A N IA

( D. C. Ci v i l No. 0 5
- c v - 0 0 0 3 2
- E) D ist ri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le M au ri ce B
. C o h il l, Jr.
Subm i t t ed U nder T hi r d C i r cui t L A R 34. 1( a)

M ar ch 3, 2009
B efor e: B A R R Y , W E I S, and R O T H , C i r cui t J udges

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: M ar ch 26, 2009)

OP I NI ON

B A R R Y , C i r cui t J udge L isa B ro w n ap p eals f

ro m th e D istrict C o u rt’s g ran t o f su mm ary j u d g m en t to H am o t M ed ical C en ter (“H am o t”) o n h er claim s f o r g en d er d iscrim in atio n u n d er T itle-2-

VI I of the Ci vi l Ri ght s Ac t of 1964 ( “ Ti t l e VI I ” ) , 42 U. S. C. § 2000e
- 2 e t s e q. , and the Pe nns yl vani aHum an Re l a t i ons Ac t ( “ PHRA” ) , 43 Pa
. Cons
. St a t . Ann. § 951 e t s e q. , and br e a c h of c ontr a c t . Be c aus e the Court c orr e c t l y i nt e r pr e t e d the part i e s ’ c ontr a c t and
co rrectly co n clu d edth at B ro w n ’s d iscrim in atio n claim s f ailedas a m atter o f

law , w e w ill af f irm th e j u d g m en t o f

th e D istrict C o u rt. I. Brow n w as a third-year r es ident i n H am ot’s Orthop ae dics Resi dency Prog ram whe n the Pr ogr am

Di r e c t or not i fi e d he r

on Mar c h 1, 2004 tha t

s he woul d not

be p ro m o tedto th e n ex t lev el o f resid en t train in g du e to acad em ic an dclin ical d ef icien cies. Ham ot em

ploy s i ts re si dents pursuant t o o ne-year c on tr ac ts , which prov ide that: “Either p arty m ay term in ate th is A g reem en t at an y tim e up o n n o tice th ereo f f o r p ro p er cau se,” Agr e e m e nt

§ 3( 1) , and: Upon s a t i s fa c t ory

c om pl e t i on of the r e s i de nt

tr a i ni ng y e ar

a s de t e rm i ne d by the pr ogr am

di r e c t or and fa c ul ty , the Re s i de nt s ha l l be pr om ot e d t o the ne xt lev el o f resid en t train in g requ iredan dap p ro v edf o r h is/h er sp ecialty , u n less e i the r [Ham ot ] or

the Re s i de nt

s ha l l gi ve wr i tt e n not i c e t o the othe r of term in atio n up o n co m

p letio n o f th e cu rren t co n tract y ear. S u ch n o tice m u st be pr ovi de d a t

l e a s t one hundr e d twe nty

( 120) day s be for e c om

pl e t i on of th e co n tract y ear. Ag re em ent § 5. Af

te r bei ng no ti fied that

she wou ld no t be prom oted, Brown continued to w o rkat H am o t u n til Ju n e 3 0 , 2 0 0 4 , th e en dd ate o f h er ex istin g co n tract. Br own ar gue s tha t

he r nonpr om ot i on wa s the r e s ul t of ge nde r

di s c r i m i na t i on. She po ints ou t t

hat only on e other

wo m an has parti ci pate d in the Orthop ae dics Resi dencyIn 20 01 , Brown rank ed in the s ixth perc enti le nati on al ly am on g res idents in her year 1 of tr a i ni ng; i n 2002, s he r anke d i n the t e nth pe r c e nt i l e ; and i n 2003 s he r anke d i n the seco n dp ercen tile. -3- Prog ram at Ham ot, noting als o that wom en m ade up o nly 2.6% of al l ortho paedic s re si dents nat ionall y

in 20 02 . She cl ai m s, m oreover, t hat s he was s ub

ject ed to un wanted gend er -r el at ed and sexual com m ents from

Ham ot ph y si ci ans andthat Ham ot show ed f av o ritism to w ard s m en w h en it allo w edcertain m en to p articip ate in th e p ro g ram d esp ite dem on strate d p er fo rm ance prob le m s andprov ided extr a r em edia l hel p to certa in m en
w h o receiv edlo w ex am

sco res. S h e arg u es th at, to th e ex ten t sh e d idd isp lay acad em ic
and c l i ni c a l de fi c i e nc i e s , i t wa s be c aus e s he r e c e i ve d al a c k of s upport and tr a i ni ng be c aus e s he wa s awom an. Ham ot coun te rs with ob

ject ive e vidence of seri ou s a ca dem ic and cli nica l prob le m s. Whil e Brown did rec ei ve som e posit ive c omm ents and evaluat ions wh il e at Ham ot, e ac h o f h er

annu al and sem i- annu al eval uati on s s tate d that s he needed im p ro v em en t an dn eed edto in crease h er read in g to im p ro v e h er kn o w led g e b ase. S ev eral atten d in g p h y sician s co m p lain edto th e P ro g ram

D irecto r ab o u t sp ecif

ic in cid en ts of de fi c i e nt

c l i ni c a l pe r form anc e , and the Di r e c t or hi m s e l f wi tne s s e d poor

c l i ni c a l and
ac adem ic perform ance on m ore than o ne occas ion. Ev er y y ear, re si dents wer e r equire d to take the Ortho paedic In-Trai ning Ex am inat ion (“OITE”), andBrow n’s s core s wer e c on s i s t e nt l y

e xtr e m e l y

l ow . 1 Brow n chall enged the Prog ram Dire ct or’s deci si on un der Ham ot’s Grie vance-4-

R eso lu tio n an dD u e P ro cess P ro cedu re, an dH am o t’s G riev an ce C o mm ittee u n an im o u sly uphe l d the de c i s i on. The Me di c a l Educ a t i on Comm i tt e e , Me di c a l St a ff Exe c ut i ve C o mm ittee, an dH am o t B o ardo f D irecto rs u n an im o u sly

up h eldth e d ecisio n as w ell. D u rin g th ese rev iew p ro cesses, B ro w n d idn o t co n ten dth at h er n o np ro m o tio n w as du e to ge nde r di s c r i m i na t i on. Th e Di s tr i c t

Co ur t gr ant e d s um

m ary ju dg m e nt

t o H am ot , fi nd i ng that

Br ow n fail ed to st at e a

prim a faci e c as e of g ender dis cr im inat ion b ec ause she fai le d to sho w that she was qu al ifie d to m ov e on to the next y ear of res idency and f ai le d to sho w that sim ilarly situ atedp erso n s w ere p ro m o tedw h ile sh e w as n o t. T h e C o u rt also f o u n dth at, even if Brow n h ad succ ee ded in stati ng a pri m a faci e c as e, she fai le d to rebut Ham ot’s l e gi t i m a t e nondi s c r i m i na t ory r e a s ons for

nonpr om ot i on wi th a de qua t e e vi de nc e of pret ext, and n o rea sonable jury could f ind that s he was not prom oted fo r other than acad em ic reaso n s. T h e C o u rt also rej ectedth e claim s o f b reach o f

co n tract, f

in d in g th at, unde r the pl a i n l angua ge of the c ontr a c t , Ham ot di d not ne e d “ pr ope r

c aus e ” for nonpr om ot i on and wa s not c ontr a c t ua l l y or othe rwi s e bound t o fol l ow i t s Advanc e m e nt
an dD i s m i s s a l P o l i c y. B ro w n ren ew s h er claim s o n ap p eal. We h av e j u risd ictio n p u rsu an t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 12 91 and exerci se plenar

y re view ov er

the Dis tr ic t Cou rt ’s order granti ng summ ar y ju dg m ent. McGreevy

v. Stroup , 413 F.3d35 9, 36 3 (3dCir. 20 05 ).-5- II. A . D is cr imin a ti o n C la ims We in terp ret B ro w n ’s T itle V II an dth e P H RA claim s co ex ten siv ely , as b o th statu tes requ ire an id en tical an aly sis u n d er th e b u rd en -sh if tin g f ram ew o rko f

M cD o n n ell Dougl a s Cor

p. v. Gr e e n, 411 U. S. 792, 802- 05 ( 1973)
. Atki ns on v. La Fay e tt e Col l
. , 460 F.3d44 7, 45 4 (3dCir. 20 06 ). Unde r the Mc Donne l l Dougl a s fr am e work, an e m pl oy e e s e e ki ng t o e s t abl i s h a ge nde r di s c r i m i na t i on c l a i m

ha s the i ni t i a l bur de n of e s t abl i s hi ng apr i m afa c i e c a s e by
s howi ng: ( 1) tha t

s he wa s am e m

be r of apr ot e c t e d c l a s s , ( 2) tha t s he wa s qua l i fi e d for

the job, and ( 3) anothe r

pe r s on, not

i n the pr ot e c t e d c l a s s , wa s tr e a t e d m or e favor abl y . I f the
em p lo y ee su cceed s in statin g a p rim a f acie case, th e b u rd ensh if ts to th e em

p lo y er to state
al e gi t i m a t e , nondi s c r i m i na t ory r e a s on for

i t s a c t i on. The n, the e m

pl oy e e m ay

r e s pond by show ing that t

he em ploy er ’s prof

fered re as on was a ct

uall y a pre te xt fo r gender d iscrim in atio n . T h e D istrict C o u rt f

o u n dth at B ro w n w as n o t qu alif iedto ad v an ce to th e f

o u rth y ear of res idency . Brown disa gree s, and argues that e ven if she was not qu al ifie d, it was beca use s he was “ se t up to f

ai l” du e t o H am ot’s un equal tre atm ent. We have rec og nize d that “when an em

ploy er disc ri m inat oril y

denies tr ai ning and sup po rt , the em ploy er m ay not the n di s favor

the pl a i nt i ff be c aus e he r

pe r form anc e i s a ffe c t e d by the l a c k of op po rt un it y .” Ezold v . W olf, Block, Scho rr and S olis -Coh en, 983 F.2d50 9, 54 0 (3dCir.For

e xam pl e , whi l e Br own de ni e s tha t s he wa s e ve r

l a t e i n r e s pondi ng t o the 2 em er gency

room or inferi or in te rm s of p roviding em er gency care , a s r eporte d b y

se vera l a tt e ndi ng phy s i c i ans , s he doe s not de ny tha t s he wa s unabl e t o r e s pond t o ke y que s t i ons du ri ng a pre se ntat ion, ar gu ing o nly that on e other

re si dent pres ent at t

he pres entati on was s i m i l ar l y unabl e t o do s o. She c onc e de d tha t s he ha d tr oubl e fi ndi ng t i m e t o r e a d, and sh e d o es n o t d isp u te h er p o o r O IT E sco res. -6- 19 92 )
. Su ff

i c e i t t o s ay that we a gr e e wi th the Di s tr i c t Co ur t that Br ow n h a s no t

s ho wn that any si m il ar ly si tuat ed m al e r es ident was tr eate d m ore favorably than she. Th e Cou rt
corr ec tl y concluded that Brown fail ed to es ta blis h a prim a faci e c as e. E v e n a s s u mi n g , h o w e v e r , th a t B r o w n e s t ab l i s h e dap r i maf a c i e c a s e , H amo t

c ame forwar d wi th l e gi t i m a t e nondi s c r i m i na t ory r e a s ons for

he r nonpr om ot i on ( nam e l y , poor acad em ic an dclin ical p erf o rm an ce), an dB ro w n f

ailedto cast d o ub t o n th o se reaso n s. 2 St a t e d s om e wha t

di ffe r e nt l y , and a s the Di s tr i c t Court r e c ogni z e d, Br own di d not pr e s e nt
e vi de nc e fr om

whi c h any

r e a s onabl e jury

c oul d c onc l ude tha t

“ but for ” he r ge nde r , s he
w o u ldh av e b een p ro m o ted . S ee F u en tes v . P ersk ie, 3 2 F .3 d7 5 9 , 7 6 4 (3 dC ir. 1 9 9 4 ). Summ ary judgm e nt

wa s pr ope r l y

gr ant e d t o Ham ot

on Br own’ s ge nde r

di s c r i m i na t i on claim s. B. Breach of

Co ntract B ro w n arg u es th at th e D istrict C o u rt erredw h en it f o u n dth at th e p arties’
e m pl oy m e nt c ontr a c t di d not r e qui r e “ pr ope r

c aus e ” for

he r nonpr om ot i on and di d not bi ndHam ot

t o f ol l ow i t s Advanc e m e nt

andDi s m i s s a l Po l i c y . Un de r Pe nn s yl vani al aw, if the c on tr ac tual lang uage is cl ear ( that is , not am

bigu ou s) , c on struct ion o f the contra ct-7-

is a m atter o f

law o v er w h ich w e ex ercise p len ary rev iew , w h ile, if

th e lan g u ag e is
am bigu ou s, inte rpre tati on of the c on tr ac t i s a

m atte r of f

ac t t hat we r evie w f

or cl ear e rr or. The Di s tr i c t

Court c orr e c t l y c onc l ude d tha t

the c ontr a c t

ua l l angua ge wa s not
am b ig u o u s an d , th eref

o re, th at H am o t d idn o t b reach th e co n tract b y term in atin g its
re lati on ship with Brow n w it ho ut es ta blis hing the “ prop er

ca use” that Brow n all eged was
r e qui r e d. As the Court

r e c ogni z e d, the c ontr a c t

c ont e m pl a t e s two di ffe r e nt

way s by wh ic h the re lati on ship betwee n H am ot and a re si dent can end : ( 1) ei ther party m ay t e rm i na t e the c ontr a c t

i mm e di a t e l y

a t any t i m e for pr ope r c aus e , pur s uant

t o § 3( 1) , or

( 2) eith er p arty

m ay elect n o t to co n tin u e to th e n ex t lev el o f train in g , p ro v id edth at n o tice is g iv en 1 2 0 d ay s b ef

o re co m p letio n o f th e co n tract y ear, p u rsu an t to § 5 , as it w as h ere. Th e Cou rt

al so corr ec tl y

concluded that nothing in the c on tr ac tual lang uage require d H am o t t o f o l l o w i t s o w n A d v an c e m e n t an dD i s m i s s a l P o l i c y. III. We w ill af

f irm th e j u d g m en t o f

th e D istrict C o u rt.