NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

____________

No. 12-3756

____________

JANIS STACY,

 Appellant

v.

LSI CORPORATION; AGERE SYSTEMS, INC.

____________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. No. 5-10-cv-04693)

District Judge: Honorable Eduardo C. Robreno

____________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

October 29, 2013

Before: FISHER, JORDAN and SLOVITER, Circuit Judges.

(Filed: November 13, 2013)

____________

OPINION OF THE COURT

____________

FISHER, Circuit Judge.
2

Janis Stacy appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Pennsylvania granting summary judgment in favor of Agere Systems, 

Inc. ("Agere Systems") and its parent company, LSI Corporation ("LSI Corp."), 

(collectively "Defendants") and denying as moot Stacy's motion for partial summary 

judgment. For the reasons that follow, we will affirm.

I.

We write principally for the parties, who are familiar with the factual context and 

legal history of this case. Therefore, we will set forth only those facts necessary to our 

analysis.

Defendants employed Stacy as an engineer from 1998 through 2008. When Stacy 

was hired, she had a traditional masculine appearance, wore male clothing, and went by 

the name "Jim." In 2002, Stacy was diagnosed with a medical condition known as 

gender identity disorder ("GID"), which arises from a profound divergence between an 

individual's assigned birth sex and the person's inner gender identity. Upon being 

diagnosed with GID, Stacy began undergoing treatment, which included, among other 

things, psychological counseling and hormonal therapy. 

In 2005, as part of her treatment, Stacy proceeded to full-time participation in 

what she refers to as the "real world experience," which involved making a full transition 

to one's gender identity. A35. Pursuant to this treatment, Stacy disclosed her gender 

identity at work through a series of conversations and group presentations under the 
3

supervision of Human Resources.1 By mid-2005, Stacy had fully transitioned her 

appearance at work from male to female, at which time she became known as "Janis" and 

wore feminine attire. She also had multiple surgeries to change her physical appearance.2 

In 2006, following a return from one of her GID-related surgeries, Stacy was 

reassigned to a different group. There, Stacy reported directly to Bob Radaker, who in 

turn reported to Mr. Lawrence. Soon after her transfer, Stacy complained to Mr. 

Lawrence that she believed she had been rated unfairly on her performance review and 

unfairly compensated by Mr. Stasak, in 2005. Mr. Lawrence investigated the allegations, 

the results of which revealed that Stacy had received the exact same performance rating 

in 2004, prior to her GID disclosure, and that she received a salary increase as a result of 

her 2005 performance evaluation that placed her in the top ten percent of the highest paid 

engineers in the entire company. 

In 2007, Agere Systems merged with LSI Corp. Agere Systems, the company for 

which Stacy worked, had a policy expressly prohibiting gender identity discrimination, 

 

1

Stacy testified that Norm Lawrence, the director of another group, made negative 

comments toward her during one of her gender identity presentations. She contends that 

Mr. Lawrence invited her to make the presentation to his group and stated that: 

"[Y]esterday he would have been considered a bigot, and today knowing [Stacy] he is 

rethinking things." A58-60. 

2

Stacy provided testimony that it was at this time that she began to experience 

rejection and backlash at work. A38-46, A68-69, A81-83. She alleges that her director, 

George Stasak, suddenly became non-interactive towards her, A35-36, that another 

supervisor referred to her in the male pronoun, even after her transition, A45-46, and that 

other employees made similar negative comments, A68. 
4

but LSI Corp. did not.3 Following the merger, Defendants engaged in a series of layoffs, 

known as the Force Management Program ("FMP"), in response to the declining 

economy. Pursuant to the FMP, Defendants eliminated approximately 3,770 positions 

between April 2007 and December 2007. In December 2007 or January 2008, Mr. 

Lawrence was instructed by a superior to reduce his workforce by eight employees. In 

making his decision, Mr. Lawrence testified that he first determined which job positions 

and functions would be impacted by the FMP. A132-33. He then consulted with human 

resources personnel, who provided him with the names of the affected groups of 

employees so that he could conduct a skills assessment. 

One of the groups selected for the FMP was Stacy's group, which supported a 

certain product line in which Defendants decided to no longer invest. Stacy was the lead 

engineer in the three-member group. In evaluating the group, Mr. Lawrence testified that 

he selected five particular skills critical for the function of his team moving forward: 

execution, teamwork, communication, technical versatility, and customer focus. A357. 

In this assessment, Mr. Lawrence ranked Stacy the lowest of the three. He presented his 

findings to his superiors and discussed his rationale. After the majority of the managers 

agreed with his findings, he made the decision to terminate Stacy. Stacy was notified of 

 

3

Stacy provided a statement that she approached Mr. Lawrence on several 

occasions inquiring as to the potential effect of the merger on Agere Systems' existing 

anti-discrimination policy. She alleges that Mr. Lawrence made no attempt to calm her 

fears and failed to provide her with a direct response as to whether or how the policy 

would be changing. A35. 
5

her termination on January 16, 2008. She testified that, during a conversation regarding 

her termination, Mr. Lawrence informed her that she "was being freed from [her] 

negative history with [Mr. Stasak] and the corporation."4 A520. 

On September 14, 2013, Stacy filed a complaint alleging that Defendants 

committed unlawful discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"); sex and disability discrimination and retaliation in 

violation of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act ("PHRA"); and unlawful genderidentity, sex, and disability discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Allentown 

Human Relations Act ("AHRA"). The District Court approved of partial dismissal of 

Stacy's claims relating to certain allegations of post-termination discrimination. Stacy 

then moved for partial summary judgment on her AHRA claim and Defendants moved 

for summary judgment on all of Stacy's claims. Defendants conceded, for purposes of 

summary judgment, that Stacy established a prima facie case of discrimination. The 

District Court then found that Defendants proffered sufficient evidence that Stacy was 

terminated based upon a legitimate non-discriminatory reason (Mr. Lawrence's skills 

assessment). After concluding that Stacy failed to show that Defendants' proffered 

reason for her termination was a pretext for unlawful discrimination, the Court granted 

Defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied Stacy's motion for partial 

summary judgment as moot. 

 

4

Stacy testified that she was not certain of the exact wording of Mr. Lawrence's 

alleged statement and there were no witnesses present when it was made. A520.
6

Stacy's timely notice of appeal followed. 

II

The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1331, 28 U.S.C. § 

1367(a), and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1291. 

We review a district court's grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the 

same standard as the district court. Viera v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 642 F.3d 407, 413 

(3d Cir. 2011). Summary judgment is appropriate only where the moving party has 

established "that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is 

entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). To meet this burden, "the 

moving party must show that the non-moving party has failed to establish one or more 

essential elements of his or her case." Scheidemantle v. Slippery Rock Univ. State Sys. of 

Higher Educ., 470 F.3d 535, 538 (3d Cir. 2006). The reviewing court should "view the 

facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and make all reasonable 

inferences in that party's favor." Id.

III.

Defendants do not dispute Stacy's prima facie case of sex, disability, or gender 

identity discrimination and Stacy does not dispute the District Court's finding that 

Defendants proffered a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for her termination. 

Accordingly, the only issue presented on appeal is whether a reasonable jury could find 
7

that Defendants' articulated explanation for Stacy's termination was a pretext for 

discrimination. 

Where a plaintiff successfully establishes a prima facie case of employment 

discrimination, courts undertake the burden shifting analysis set forth in McDonnell 

Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973). Under this analysis, once a plaintiff 

establishes a prima facie case, the burden of production switches to the defendant to 

provide a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for its employment decision. See Sempier 

v. Johnson & Higgins, 45 F.3d 724, 728 (3d Cir. 1995). If the defendant provides such 

justification, the burden of persuasion is on the plaintiff to show, by a preponderance of 

the evidence, that the employer's proffered justification is pretextual. Fuentes v. Perskie, 

32 F.3d 759, 763 (3d Cir. 1994). To meet this burden, the plaintiff must either: (1) 

discredit the proffered reason through circumstantial or direct evidence; or (2) adduce 

evidence "that discrimination was more likely than not a motivating or determinative 

cause of the adverse employment action." Id. at 764. 

To support her position that Defendants' proffered justification for her termination 

was pretext, Stacy first points to the facts as presented. Second, she argues that she 

submitted evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that discrimination 

motivated her termination. Third, she argues that reversal of the District Court's grant of 

summary judgment requires reversal of its denial of her motion for partial summary 

judgment. We address each of these contentions in turn.
8

A.

Stacy first argues that a reasonable jury could find that Defendants' proffered 

reason for her termination was a pretext for unlawful discrimination. In support of her 

argument, she alleges that: (1) she was replaced by another employee from outside of her 

work group; (2) she was selected for termination prior to Mr. Lawrence's skills 

assessment; (3) the skills assessment suffered from serious weaknesses; (4) Mr. Lawrence 

chose her group for the purpose of targeting her; and (5) Mr. Lawrence's explanation for 

her termination has changed over time. 

We are unpersuaded by Stacy's allegations. First, Stacy attacks Defendants' 

decision to replace her with another employee, which she believes discredits their 

reduction-in-force argument. However, Stacy does not argue that Defendants hired

another individual to replace her; rather, she argues only that another current employee 

assumed her responsibilities. We find that action to be consistent with Defendants' 

reduction-in-force argument. 

Stacy also attacks the skills assessment conducted by Mr. Lawrence. She argues 

that she was selected for termination prior to the skills assessment, that the assessment 

was biased, and that her group was chosen only for the purpose of terminating her. We 

find these arguments lacking in record support. The record demonstrates that Mr. 

Lawrence was directed by a superior to reduce his workforce. Based upon this 

instruction, he selected several groups of employees that would be impacted. Mr. 
9

Lawrence then chose the skills to be evaluated based upon those he believed would be 

most beneficial to Defendants moving forward. Out of the members in her group, Stacy 

was ranked the lowest. Because Stacy failed to put forth any evidence to contradict these 

facts, her allegations must fail. 

Finally, Stacy challenges Mr. Lawrence's alleged inconsistent explanations for her 

termination. She points to four allegedly different explanations provided by Mr. 

Lawrence, including: (1) to give her a "fresh start;" (2) because of her low ranking in his 

performance evaluation; (3) because another employee who "rated higher" than her in the 

skills assessment assumed her responsibilities; and (4) based upon the skills assessment. 

According to Stacy, these arguments contradict one another and would make Mr. 

Lawrence less believable to a jury. We disagree. The explanations to which Stacy points 

are consistent with one another and with Defendants' proffered reason for her 

termination. Because the allegations upon which Stacy's argument hinges lack record 

support and fail to demonstrate the weaknesses or inconsistencies necessary to place 

doubt upon Defendants' proffered legitimate justification for her termination, Stacy's first 

argument fails. 

B.

Stacy next argues that she submitted evidence from which a reasonable jury could 

find that discrimination motivated her termination. Stacy points to: (1) the fact that her 

termination coincided with a change in corporate policy removing the prohibition on 
10

gender identity discrimination; (2) the alleged negative comments made by Mr. 

Lawrence; (3) the backlash she experienced under Mr. Stasak and other employees; and 

(4) the alleged discriminatory reason Mr. Lawrence provided her for her termination. 

We find these arguments lacking in record support. As previously mentioned, 

Defendants have set forth a legitimate explanation for Stacy's termination, which she 

does not dispute. Therefore, in order to prevail, she must either discredit Defendants' 

reason or prove that discrimination was more likely than not a motivating factor in her 

termination. Fuentes, 32 F.3d at 764. Here, the record reveals that Defendants were 

engaging in a series of layoffs due to the declining economy and, as a result, had already 

laid off more than three thousand employees prior to Stacy's termination. The record also 

indicates that Stacy supported a product line in which Defendants decided to no longer 

invest and it was only at that point that Stacy's group was selected for the FMP. Stacy's 

argument in support of her pretext claim appears to consist of nothing more than baseless 

allegations. We find no discriminatory connection between the merger, the alleged 

changes in policy, and her termination. We also find no evidence in the record, beyond 

her own testimony, to support any of the assertions she makes regarding discriminatory 

comments and backlash. Accordingly, we find Stacy's argument insufficient to rebut 

Defendants' justification for her termination.

Because Stacy is unable to point to any inconsistencies or contradictions in 

Defendants' proffered reason and has failed to adduce any other evidence that would 
11

permit a reasonable factfinder to find that this explanation was a pretext, she has failed to 

meet her burden under the McDonnell Douglas framework. Thus, the District Court's 

grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants was proper. 

C.

Finally, Stacy argues that reversal of the District Court's grant of summary 

judgment in favor of Defendants requires reversal of the District Court's denial of her 

motion for partial summary judgment. Because we conclude above that the District 

Court's grant of summary judgment was proper, Stacy's final argument fails.

V.

For the reasons stated above, we will affirm the order of the District Court.