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
3-25-2004 

# Kidd v . MBN A Ame r B a nk N

A 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 . 02-4011

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 sity 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 sity 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
" Kidd v . MBNA Ame r B a nk NA" (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 915. 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_2004/9151 In Ki dd’s orig inal comp laint, she

based he r charges of disc

rimination on national origin instead of race. For purposes of the motion for summar y judgment, MB

NA did not contest that Kidd had exhausted her administrative remedies with respect to her cla ims of racial discrimination. NOT PRE CEDENT IAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT No: 02-4011 ALERO A. KIDD, Appellant

v. MBNA AMERI CA BANK, N. A. Appellee Appeal from the final order entere d on September 30, 2002 in the United S tates District Court fo r the District of D elaware

Civil Act ion No. 01-205 Distri ct Court: The Hon. Sue L. Robinson Submitte d Pursuant to Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

November 3, 2003 Before: M cK EE and SM ITH , Circuit Judges and W EIS , Senior Cir cuit J udge
. (Fil ed March 25, 2004) OPI NION M cK EE , Circuit

Judge
. Plaintiff, Alero Kidd appeal s the di stri ct court ’s grant of summary j udgement for the de fend ant, M BN A A meric a Ba nk. K idd su ed he r emp loyer, M BN A, alle ging that it denied her

various promotions and trans fers becaus e of her rac e 1 , sex, ag e and /or in2

retaliation for having raised discrimination claims. Kidd also alleged discrim inatory haras sme nt and a hos tile wo rk en viron men t. I. Bec ause we write o nly for the parties, it is n ot nec essary to re cite the facts of this
cas e in d etail. O ur re view of th e dis trict c our t’s gr ant o f su mm ary jud gm ent is plen ary. W e ap ply the sam e tes t the d istrict cou rt sho uld hav e ap plied initia lly. Farrell v. Planters Lifes avers Co. , 206 F .3d 27 1, 278 (3d C ir. 2000 ). “W e mu st review all of th e evid ence in the rec ord, dr awing allreasonabl e infer ences in f avor of the nonmoving party , but maki ng
no c red ibility de term inati ons or w eigh ing any e vid enc e.” Reeves v. Sande rson Plumbing Products, Inc. 530 U .S. 133, 135 . (1986). Summary judgment

is appr opriat e A if the p leadin gs, de positio ns, an swe rs to interrogatories, and ad missions on file, together with the a ffidavits, if any, show th at there is no genui ne issue as to any materi al fact

and that the moving par

ty is entitl ed to a ju dgm en t a s amat

te r o f l aw. @ Fed. R. Civ. P. 56; see a lso C elotex Co rp. v. C atrett , 477 U.S. 317, 322- 323 (1986). The moving party bears t he burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of materi al fact . To be a genuine issue, the evi dence must be

A su ch th at a re as on ab le j ur y co ul d r etu rn a v er di ct for th e n on -m ov in g p ar ty. @ Anderson v. Libert y Lobby, Inc. 477 U.S . 242 , 248 (19 86)
.2 Although this analysis was or iginally for

mulated for cases brought under Title VI I it has been adapted for use in ADEA cases as well. See eg ., Maxfield v. Sinclair International , 766 F.2d 788 (3d Cir.1985) 3 II . D is cr imi nat io n Cl ai ms Disp arate tr eatment

cl ai ms br ought

unde r Ti tl e VII and t

he ADEA 2 are anal yzed using t he burden shi fting analy sis es tabli shed in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green , 411 U.S. 792 (1973) . Under thi s analy sis, the pla inti ff must fi rst make a prima facie showing of discriminat ion by

establ ishi ng that ( i) she belongs t o a protec ted cl ass; ( ii) she appli ed for and was quali fied for a job the e mployer

was try ing to fi ll; (ii i) t hough qualif

ied, she was reject ed; and (iv) cir cumstances give ris e to an i nference of unl awful discriminat ion
suc h as mig ht o ccu r w hen the p ositio n is f illed by a p erso n no t of th e pr otec ted c lass. Jones v. Sc hool Dist

rict of Philadelphia, 198 F .3d 403 (3 d. Cir. 1999 ). Once the plaintiff

has est ablis hed a prima fac ie case of discriminat ion the burden shift s to t he defendant “to arti culat e some legi timat e nondiscriminat oryreason for the employe e’s re

ject ion.” McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green , 411 U.S. at 802. The bur den then shi fts back to the pla inti ff who must show that t he nondiscriminat oryreason artic ulate d by th e de fen dan t is in fact a pre text for d iscrim inati on. Id. at 80 4. To avoid summaryjudgment i n a Titl e VII or ADEA action after the employ er has proffered a

legitimate, nondiscr iminat oryreason for an adverse e mployment acti on, the plaintiff must produce evidence which: (1) casts suffici ent doubt upon e ach proffer ed4

reason so t

hat a fact finder c ould reas onably conclude t

hat each r eason was fabri cati on, or (2) al lows a fact

finder to infer t

hat dis crimination was more l ikely than not a

motivat ing or deter minati ve cause of action. See F uente s v. Pe rskie , 32 F .3d 7 59 ( 3d C ir. 19 94)
. This burden is met through a demonstration that such “weaknesses, implausibilities, incon sistenc ies, inco heren cies, or c ontrad ictions in the em ployer’s p roffe red leg itimate reasons f or it s acti on are such t

hat a re asonable f

actfi nder could rationa lly find the m ‘unworthy

of credence’ ” Id. We find that Kidd only es tabli shed a pri ma facie i n one inst ance of denialof promotion; the S.A. Coach pos iti on. We agree with t he dist rict court’ s deter

minati on that Kidd failed to provide any evidence that s imilarl y si tuated persons not in a protect ed class were treated more favor ably in any of her othe r denial s of promoti on. Kidd is a member of a prote cted cl ass, and was rejec ted for various pos iti ons, however, the ci rcumstance s do not give rise to an inference of discrimination even when v iewed in a light most fav ora ble to Kid d. Although Kidd did es tabli sh a pri ma facie cas e of discriminat ion with r egard to t he S.A. Coach position, MBNA provided a l egitimate nondisc riminatorybusiness reason for its de cisio n. Fue ntes v. P erksie 32 F.3d 759 (3 rd Cir. 1994) . MBN A explains her dispar ate treatment

by as sert ing that

it mere ly

made a mistake and forgot t o check the
correc tive ac tion statu s for th e em ployee p rom oted to the S .A. C oach positio n. K idd fa ils to resp ond to that e xplan ation w ith anythin g that w ould create an issu e of fact as to5

pre text for d iscrim inati on. Left un rebutted, the fact that M BN A claim s it made a m istake on on e emp loyee’s application do es not sugg est a wea kness, imp lausability or incoherency in M BN A’s proffered e xplanat ion. Ther efore, we find ther e is no genuine issue as to any materi al fact reg ard ing M BN A’ s fa ilure to p rom ote K idd
. III. R etaliatio n C laim Like discrim ination claim s brou ght u nder Title V II and the A DE A, in o rder to establ ish a pr ima facie case of retaliation, a plai ntiff must demonstr ate that: ( i) she engaged in protected activit y; ( ii) t he defendant took adverse emp loyment acti on against her ; and (iii) a c aus al lin k ex ists b etw een the p rote cted activ ity and the a dve rse a ction
. Kachmar v. Sungard Data System 109 F. 3d 1 73 ( 3d Ci r. 199 9) . I n suppo rt of h ercl ai m, Kid d as serts that s he o ver hea rd m ana ger s dis cus s the com plain t she ma de to the E EO
. However, she fai led to present any evidence t o link t

hese managers to MB NA’s decision not to pr omote her. Accordingly , she di d not show the r equired c ausal l ink between her
com plain t and M BN A’ s su bse que nt d enia ls of pro mo tion
. IV. Host il e Work Environment In ord er to es tablish h er claim for em ployme nt discr imina tion du e to a h ostile work environment, Kidd had to est ablis h, (1) that s he suffered intenti onal dis crimination because of ra ce; (2) the dis crimination was per vasive and r egular; (3) the discriminat ion detrim entally affected her; (4 ) the dis crimin ation w ould detrim entally affect a re ason able6

person of t

he same race in that pos iti on; and (5) the exi stence of respondent

superi or liabi lity. See Am an v. Cort Furniture , 85 F.3d 1 074, 108 1 (3d. Cir. 199 6), West v. Philadel phia Elec. Co. , 45 F.3d 7 44, 753 (3 d Cir.199 5). In analyzing a ho stile work environment

clai m, we must look at the totalit

y of t he circ umstances including t he frequency

of the conduct , it s severity , whether it is physi call y t hreate ning or humil iating, and wh ethe r it un reas ona bly inte rfer es w ith th e w ork per for ma nce of th e em plo yee. Id. Kid d pre sents e viden ce tha t a ma le co-w orke r mad e sev eral disp aragin g rem arks to her w hich re feren ced h er natio nal orig in and that he mad e othe r threate ning com men ts inclu din g re fere nce s to a gun . The co mm ents we re certainly obnoxiou s and ha d no plac e in the w ork environment . However, these comments by a singl e coworker do not e stabl ish t hat discr iminat ion was pervas ive and re gular. Although Kidd argues that t he harass ment she suffered w as co ntinuo us an d lasted until he r co-w orke r wa s term inated , she o nly present ed evidence of a few isolat ed inci dents. That is insuffici ent to e stabl ish a caus e of actio n fo r a h ostile wo rk e nvi ron me nt u nde r Titl e V II. III. Fo r the abo ve r eas ons , we wil l aff irm t he r ulin g of

the d istrict cou rt.