NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES CO URT OF A PPEA LS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 19

- 1934

__________ _

SHE IDA HUKMAN

,

Appellant

v.

AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC ., f/k/a US Airways

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

fo r the E a s t e r n Dist rict of P e n n s y l v a n i a

( E .D. Pa. Civil Action No. 2

- 17

- cv

- 00741 )

District Judge: Honorable Juan R Sánchez

______________________ ____ __________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

D e c e m b e r 2 3

, 2 0 1 9

Befor e: J O R D A N

, B I B A S a n d P H I P P S

, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : December 31, 2019 )

___________

OPINION *

_______ ____

PER CURIAM

P r o s e a p p e l l a n t S h e i d a H u k m a n a p p e a l s t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s d i s m i s s a l o f h e r

c l a i m s a g a i n s t Republic Airw ays Holdings ( “ R epub l i c ” ) a n d t h e g r a n t o f s u m m a r y

j u d g m e n t f

o r A m e r i c a n A i r l i n e s ( “ A m e r i c a n ” )

. H u k m a n a l l e g e s d i s c r i m i n a t i o n a n d

* This dispos ition is not an o pinion of the full C ourt and pursuant t o I .O.P. 5.7 doe s not

c onstitute binding prece dent.2

r e t a l i a t i o n c l a i m s u n d e r Title VII of the Civil Righ ts Act of 19 64, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et

seq

. For the reason s that follow, w e will affirm the District Court’ s j ud gm e n t

.

I.

H u k m a n i d e n t i f

i e s a s a w o m a n o f M i d d l e E a s t e r n K u r d i s h d e s c e n t f r o m I r a q

. 1 I n

2 0 0 7

, H u k m a n b e g a n w o r k i n g a s a c u s t o m e r s e r v i c e a g e n t w i t h A m e r i c a n A i r l i n e s in L a s

V e g a s

, N e v a d a

. 2 I n e a r l y 2 0 1 0

, H u k m a n w a s t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h e P h i l a d e l p h i a I n t e r n a t i o n a l

A i r p o r t

, w h e r e s h e c o n t i n u e d t o w o r k a s a c u s t o m e r s e r v i c e a g e n t u n t i l s h e w a s

t e r m i n a t e d i n 2 0 1 5 a f

t e r a t h r e e

- y e a r m e d i c a l l e a v e

. H u k m a n w a s a u n i o n m e m b e r

, a n d

t h e u n i o n o p e r a t e d u n d e r a C o l l e c t i v e B a r g a i n i n g A g r e e m e n t ( “ C B A ” ) w i t h A m e r i c a n

.

H u k m a n s o u g h t t o b e p r o m o t e d s e v e r a l t i m e s d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e o f h e r

e m p l o y m e n t

. I n J a n u a r y 2 0 1 1

, s h e a p p l i e d f o r a n o p e n p o s i t i o n

. A m a n a g e r g a v e h e r a

p e r f e c t s c o r e o n t h e a p p r o v e d A p p l i c a n t R a t i n g F o r m ( “ A R F ” ) b u t d i d n o t gi v e a re a s o n

f o r h i s s c o r e

. A shi f

t m a n a g e r a s k e d f

o r a n e x p l a n a t i o n a n d

, w h e n n o n e w a s p r o v i d e d

, a

d i f f e r e n t s h i f t m a n a g e r c o m

p l e t e d a s e c o n d A R F f

o r H u k m a n

, i n w h i c h s h e w a s r a t e d

“ b e l o w e x p e c t a t i o n s ” i n s e v e r a l c a t e g o r i e s

.

A t h e r i n t e r v i e w

, H u k m a n p r o v i d e d u n r e s p o n s i v e a n s w e r s t o n u m e r o u s q u e s t i o n s

a s k i n g h e r h o w s h e w o u l d ha n d l e v a ri o u s s i t u a t i o n s

. H u k m a n b e l i e v e d t h a t s h e h a d d o n e

w e l l

, ho w e v e r

. A f

t e r H u k m a n w a s i n f

o r m e d t h a t s h e h a d n ot r e c e i v e d a sufficiently hi g h

1 The following facts are undisputed unless ot herwise noted

.

2 At the time of Hu km an ’ s employme nt, sh e was emp loyed by US Airwa ys, which has

sin c e merg ed with Ame rican Airlines a nd no longer exis t s. A ccording ly, Amer ican is

identified as Hukma n ’ s former employer thr oughout

.3

s c o r e to p a s s t h e t h r e s h o l d t o b e e l i g i b l e f o r a p r o m o t i o n

, s h e s u b m i t t e d a h a n d w r i t t e n

c o m p l a i n t s t a t i n g t h a t s h e b e l i e v e d s h e h a d n o t b e e n “ t r e a t e d r i g h t ” at th e i n t e r v i e w

b e c a u s e s h e h a d b e e n a s k e d

, “ w h e r e d o y o u c o m e f r o m ? ” S e e S u p p

. A p p ’ x a t 4 6 1

. T h e

i n t e r v i e w e r w h o h a d a s k e d t h i s question s u b m i t t e d a l e t t e r i n d i c a t i n g t h a t b e c a u s e

H u k m a n ’ s r e s u m e w a s n o t a v a i l a b l e

, h e h a d s o u g ht t o f i n d o u t w h e r e s h e h a d w o r k e d i n

t h e p as t ; h e i n d i c a t e d t h a t a f t e r H u k m a n o f

f e r e d h e r e t h n i c b a c k g r o u n d i n r e s p o n s e t o t h e

q u e s t i o n

, h e i m m e d i a t e l y e x p l a i n e d t h a t h e w a s l o o k i n g f o r h e r t o d is c u s s he r w o r k

h i s t o r y

. A n i n t e r n a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n c o n c l u d e d i n J u l y 2 0 1 1 t h a t t h e r e w a s n o s u p p o r t f o r

H u k m a n ’ s a l l e g a t i o n t h a t s h e h a d b e e n a s k e d a d i s c r i m i n a t o r y q u e s t i o n

. H u k m a n r e

a p p l i e d f o r a s u p e r v i s o r p o s i t i o n i n J u n e 2 0 1 2 a n d w a s a g a i n r a t e d “ b e l o w e x p e c t a t i on s ”

b y a d u t y m a n a g e r i n s e v e r a l k e y c a t e g o r i e s o n a n A R F

. H u k m a n u l t i m a t e l y c a n c e l e d a n

i n t e r v i e w t h a t w a s s c h e d u l e d f o r h e r i n O c t o b e r 2 0 1 2

.

H u k m a n a l s o m a d e s e v e r a l r e q u e s t s i n 2 0 1 2 t o t r a n s f e r t o a d i f f e r e n t a ir p o r t

. P e r

C B A p o l i c y

, a n e m p l o y e e w as g i v e n o n e d a y t o r e s p o n d t o a t r a n s f e r o f f e r a n d i f th e

e m p l o y e e r e f

u s e d t h e o f

f e r o r c o u l d n o t b e r e a c h e d

, t h e o f f e r w a s g i v e n t o a n o t h e r

e m p l o y e e

. H u k m a n w a s o f f e r e d t r a n s f

e r s i n F e b r u a r y

, M a r c h

, a n d S e p t e m b e r 2 0 1 2 ; s h e

d i d n o t t i m e l y r e s p o n d t o t h e f i r s t t w o o f

f e r s a n d r e j e c t e d t h e t h i r d

, a c c o r d i n g t o

A m e r i c a n ’ s r e c o r d s

. H u k m a n c l a i m s t h a t s h e k n e w o n l y a b o u t t h e l a s t o f f e r

. H u k m a n

h a s a l l e g e d w i t h o u t s u p p o r t t h a t o t h e r e m p l o y e e s w i t h l e s s sen iority w e r e a p p r o v e d f o r

t r a n s f e r s a n d s h e w a s n o t

. H u k m a n a l s o a p p l i e d f o r s e v e r a l t r a n s f

e r s i n 2 0 1 5 t h a t w e r e

n o t c o n s i d e r e d b e c a u s e s h e w a s o n l e a v e a t t h e t i m e

, a s e x p l a i n e d f u r t h e r b e l o w

.4

H u k m a n h a d n u m e r o u s c o n f l i c t s w i t h h e r c o

- w o r k e r s d u r i n g h e r e m p l o y m e n t a t

t h e P h i l a d e l p h i a a i r p o r t

, c u l m i n a t i n g i n a n i n c i d e n t t h a t l e d t o h e r t e r m i n a t i o n

. H u k m a n

t e s t i f i e d a t a d e p o s i t i o n t h a t s h e b e l i e v e d t h a t a s e a r l y a s 2 0 1 0

, c e r t a i n c o

- w o r k e r s w e r e

t a p p i n g h e r p h o n e s

, s p r e a d i n g r u m o r s a b o u t h e r

, t u r n i n g i n v i s i b l e a n d w a l k i n g t h r o u g h

s o l i d o b j e c t s

, s t a l k i n g h e r

, s p y i n g o n h e r a t h e r a p a r t m e n t c o m p l e x a n d t a k i n g h e r m a i l

,

s p e a k i n g a “ r e v e r s e ” l a n g u a g e

, p r a c t i c i n g w i t c h c r a f t

, a n d s t e a l i n g h e r c l o t h e s a n d b u r y i n g

t h e m i n a cemetery

. S e e i d

. a t 9 7

- 1 3 9

, 2 6 5

.

I n 2 0 1 1

, H u k m a n r ep o r t e d b e h a v i o r b y n u m e r o u s c o

- w o r k e r s

, i n c l u d i n g K e v i n

B a i l e y

, t h a t s h e b e l i e v e d w a s i n t e n d e d t o harass h e r

. A s e n i o r m a n a g e r i n v e s t i g a t e d

H u k m a n ’ s c o m

p l a i n t s a n d f

o u n d t h a t m o s t o f t h e m c o u l d n o t b e s u b s t a n t i a t e d

, b u t d i d

c o n c l u d e t h a t B a i l e y h a d a u t h o r e d a n d c i r c u l a t e d a p e t i t i o n a s k i n g t h a t H u k m a n b e f i r e d

.

H u k m a n a l l e g e d t h a t t h e p e t i t i o n s a i d t h a t s h e s h o u l d b e “ s e n t b a c k t o P h o e n i x w h e r e v e r

[ s i c ] s h e c a m e f

r o m

. ” S e e i d

. a t 2 6 7

. A t t h e e n d o f h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n

, t h e s e n i o r m a n a g e r

i n f o r m e d H u k m a n t h a t t h e p e t i t i o n h a d n o i m p a c t o n h e r e m p l o y m e n t s t a t u s a n d t h a t s h e

h a d r e m i n d e d t h e o t h e r e m p l o y e e s i n v o l v e d o f A m e r i c a n ’ s a n t i

- d i s c r i m i n a t i o n p o l i c i e s

.

H u k m a n n e x t c l a i m e d t h a t a c o

- w o r k e r h a d a s k e d h e r i n M a r c h 2 0 1 2 i f s h e h a d

b r o u g h t a b o m

b t o t h e a i r p or t w h e n h e s m e l l e d s o m e t h i n g b u r n i n g

. H u k m a n t h e n h a d

a l t e r c a t i o n s w i t h c o

- w o r k e r D e b b i e Z a n i k o s i n M a y a n d S e p t e m b e r 2 0 1 2

. H u k m a n

b e l i e v e d t h a t Z a n i k o s h a d a c c u s e d h e r o f d e l i v e r i n g d r u g s b e c a u s e H u k m a n w a s M i d d l e

E a s t e r n

. H u k m a n f

u r t h e r a s s e r t e d t h a t Z a n i k o s w a s s t a l k i n g a n d t h r e a t e n i n g h e r

, s t e a l i n g

h e r f i n a n c i a l i n f

o r m a t i o n

, a s k i n g o t h e r s t o s p y o n h e r

, a n d p r a c t i c i n g w i t c h c r a f t

. Z a n i k o s5

r e p o r t e d t h a t H u k m a n h a d m a d e a c c u s a t i o n s a g a i n s t h e r a n d t h r e a t e n e d t o s u e h e r

.

H u k m a n c l a i m e d l a t e r i n S e p t e m be r t h a t u n i d e n t i f

i e d i n d i v i d u a l s w e r e c h a n g i n g t h e l o g i n

i n f o r m a t i o n a n d l a n g u a g e s e t t i n g s f o r h e r w o r k a c c o u n t a n d a c c e s s i n g h e r a c c o u n t

w i t h o u t a u t h o r i z a t i o n

. A d d i t i o n a l l y

, H u k m a n m a i n t a i n e d t h a t a n o t h e r c o

- w o r k e r h a d

c a l l e d h e r a t e r r o r i s t

, b u t s h e p r o v i d e d n o further d e t a i l s a b o u t w h e n o r h o w t h a t o c c u r r e d

.

F i n a l l y

, o n N o v e m b e r 1 5

, 2 0 1 2

, H u k m a n h a d a n a l t e r c a t i o n w h i l e s h e w a s

b o a r d i n g p a s s e n g e r s f

o r a d e p a r t i n g Re p u b l i c f l i g h t

. W h e n H u k m a n b e g a n b o a r d i n g

p a s s e n g e r s w i t h t r a v e l p r i v i l e g e s

, a R e p u b l i c f l i g h t a t t e n d a n t s o u g h t t o b o a r d t h e p l a n e

b e f o r e a n o t h e r p a s s e n g e r w h o h a d a l o w e r b o a r d i n g p r i o r i t y u n d e r R e p u b l i c ’ s p o l i c y

.

H u k m a n w o u l d n o t a l l o w h e r t o b o a r d

. A R e p u b l i c p i l o t s o u g h t t o i n t e r v e n e

, a n d h e a n d

H u k m a n l o u d l y a r g u e d a b o u t t h e b o a r d i n g p r i o r i t y p o l i c y i n f r o n t o f o t h e r p a s s e n g e r s

.

S e v e r a l w i t n e s s e s c o r r o b o r a t e d t h e i r h e a t e d e x c h a n g e

.

A f t e r a n i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o t h e a b o v e i n c i d e n t

, H u k m a n w a s i s s u e d a d i s c i p l i n a r y

l e t t e r a t t h e l o w e s t l e v e l o f w r i t t e n d i s c i p l i n e ; t h e p i l o t w a s a l s o f o u n d t o h a v e a c t e d

u n p r o f e s s i o n a l l y

. A t a m e e t i n g a b o u t h e r d i s c i p l i n a r y l e t t e r o n D e c e m b e r 2

, 2 0 1 2

,

H u k m a n w a s e r r a t i c

, c o m b a t i v e

, a n d n o n

- r e s p o n s i v e t o b a s i c q u e s t i o n s about h e r

s c h e d u l e a n d h e r p o s i t i o n ; s h e a l s o g a v e i n c o n s i s t e n t a n s w e r s t o s e v e r a l q u e s t i o n s a n d

s t a t e d t h a t s h e b e l i e v e d t h e r e w a s a c o n s p i r a c y b e h i n d t h e i n c i d e n t

. S h e a l s o i n s i s t e d t h a t

s h e c o u l d b o a r d p a s s e n g e r s i n t h e o r d e r s h e b e l i e v e d w a s r i g h t

, r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e b o a r d i n g

p r i o r i t y p o l i c y

. H u k m a n b e l i e v e d t h a t t h e c o n f l i c t t h a t l e d t o h e r b e i n g p l a c e d o n l e a v e

h a d b e e n a “ s e t u p ” b y h e r c o

- w o r k e r s

. S e e i d

. a t 1 2 4

. S o o n a f t e r

, o n e o f H u k m a n ’ s c o

-6

w o r k e r s r e p o r t e d t o m a n a g e m e n t t h a t H u k m a n h a d a c c u s e d h e r o f w i r e t a p p i n g h e r

c e l l p h o n e u n d e r t h e d i r e c t i o n o f t h e F e d e r a l B u r e a u o f Investigat ion ; s h e a l s o i n d i c a t e d

t h a t s h e h a d h e a r d H u k m a n m a k e derogatory c o m m e n t s a b o u t o t h e r c o

- w o r k e r s

.

A f t e r t h e m e e t i n g

, s e v e r a l m a n a g e r s e x p r e s s e d c o n c e r n a b o u t H u k m a n ’ s b e h a v i o r

.

O n D e c e m

b e r 1 0

, 2 0 1 2

, H u k m a n w a s i s s u e d a l e t t e r i n f o r m i n g h e r t h a t

, p u r s u a n t t o t h e

C B A

, s h e w o u l d b e r e q u i r e d t o u n d e r g o a n i n d e p e n d e n t m e d i c a l e x a m i n a t i o n b e f o r e s h e

c o u l d r e t u r n t o w o r k

. H u k m a n w a s p l a c e d o n a n u n p a i d l e a v e o f a b s e n c e

. I n J a n u a r y

2 0 1 3

, H u k m a n s a w a p s y c h i a t r i s t s e l e c t e d b y A m e r i c a n

. T h e d o c t o r co nc l u d e d t h a t

H u k m a n n e e d e d t o o b t a i n m e n t a l h e a l t h t r e a t m e n t a n d u n d e r g o p s y c h o l o g i c a l t e s t i n g

b e f o r e s h e c o u l d r e s u m e h e r d u t i e s a t w o r k

.

O n F e b r u a r y 2 0

, 2 0 1 3

, H u k m a n w a s s e n t a l e t t e r c o n f i r m i n g t h a t h e r u n p a i d l e a v e

o f a b s e n c e w o u l d c o n t i n u e u n t i l s h e c o u l d s a f e l y r e t u r n t o h e r p o s i t i o n

. T h e l e t t e r

i n d i c a t e d t h a t H u k m a n c o u l d a p p e a l t h e d e c i s i on b y h i r i n g a m e d i c a l e x a m i n e r t o c o n d u c t

a n a d d i t i o n a l e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e s a m e i s s u e s a d d r e s s e d b y t h e d o c t o r s e l e c t e d b y

A m e r i c a n

. H u k m a n d i d n o t a p p e a l o r s e e k t r e a t m e n t

. O n D e c e m b e r 1 0

, 2 0 1 5

, H u k m a n

w a s t e r m i n a t e d f

r o m h e r p o s i t i o n af

t e r s h e d i d n o t c o m

p l y w i t h t h e t r e a t m e n t p l a n

.

H u k m a n f

i l e d f o u r c o m p l a i n t s w i t h t h e Equal Employ ment Opportunity

Commi ssion (“ EEOC”) a l l e g i n g d i s c r i m i n a t i o n a n d r e t a l i a t i o n : i n A u g u s t 2 0 1 1

, J u n e

2 0 1 2

, D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 2

, a n d J u n e 2 0 1 6

. H u k m a n w a s i s s u e d ri g h t

- t o

- s u e l e t t e r s r e g a r d i n g

h e r c h a r g e s i n N o v e m b e r 2 0 1 6

.

H u k m a n t h e n c o m m e n c e d t h i s a c t i o n i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i n F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 7

. S h e7

c l a i m e d t h a t s h e h a d f

a c e d d i s c r i m i n a t i o n a n d r e t a l i a t i o n b y A m e r i c a n d u e t o h e r n a t i o n a l

o r i g i n ; s h e a l s o n a m e d R e p u b l i c a s a d e f e n d a n t in se v era l in it ia l c om pl ain ts

. T h e D i s t r i c t

C o u r t g ra nte d Re p u bl ic ’ s mot ion to dis mis s af t e r H u k ma n fi l ed a thi rd am en de d

com p la int

, a l t h ou g h it w a s un c l e a r w h e t h e r H u k m a n wa s c o n t in u i n g t o p u r s u e c l a i m s

a g a i n s t R ep ub li c in th a t la tes t co mpl ai n t. Th e Dis tri c t Co ur t p e r m i t t e d h e r c l a i m s a g a i n s t

A m e r i c a n t o p r o c e e d

. 3 A f t e r t he par t i e s c om p le t e d d i sc ov e ry

, A m e r i c a n a n d H u k m a n

f i l e d c r o s s

- m o t io ns f

o r s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t

. T h e D i st r i c t C o u rt he l d a he a r i ng o n t he

mo t io n s an d ult i mat el y g r a n t e d A m e r ic a n ’ s m o ti o n a n d d e n i e d H u k m a n ’ s

. H u k m a n t h e n

m o v e d t o d i s q u a l i f

y th e D i s t ri c t J u d g e, a n d t h a t m o t i o n w a s a l s o d e n i ed

. H u k m a n t i m e l y

a p p e a l e d

, challenging t h e d i s m i s s al of h e r c l a i ms ag a i ns t R e p u b l i c

, t h e g r a n t o f s u m m a r y

j u d g m e n t f

o r A m e r i c a n

, a n d t h e d e n i a l o f h e r m o t i on t o d i s q u a l i f y t h e D i s t r i c t J u d g e

.

II.

We have jurisdiction over this appeal pur suant to 28 U.S. C. § 1291

. We exercise

plenary review over the District C o urt’s d i s mi s s a l a n d summary judgment d e c i s i o n s

.

See Fowler v. UP MC Shadyside , 578 F.3d 203, 20 6 (3d Cir. 2009); Blunt v. Lo wer

Meri on Sch. Dist. , 767 F.3d 247, 265 (3d Cir. 2014). Summary judgm e nt is appropriate

“ if the movan t shows that there is no ge n uine di spute as to any ma terial fact and the

movant is e ntitled to judgment as a matter of law.” F ed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A g en uine

d ispute of mate rial fact exists if the evidence is sufficient fo r a re asonable factfinder to

3 T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a l s o d i s m i s s e d c l a i m s H u k m a n b r o u g h t a g a i n s t n u m e r o u s i n d i v i d u a l

d e f e n d a n t s i n a n e a r l y c o m

p l a i n t ; H u k m a n d o e s n o t c h a l l e n g e t h a t d e c i s i o n o n a p p e a l

.8

ret urn a verdict for the non mo v ing par ty. Anderson v. L iberty Lobby , I n c. , 477 U.S. 24 2,

248 (19 86).

II I. 4

F i r s t

, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t p r o p e r l y d i s m i s s e d R e p u b l i c a s a d e f e n d a n t b e c a u s e

H u k m a n w a s n o t e m p l o y e d b y R e p u b l i c

. A l th ou g h H u k m a n w a s h e lp i n g a n o t h e r a ge n t

4 We a g r e e w i t h t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t h a t H u k m a n ’s T i t l e V I I c l a i m s a r e n o t p r e c l u de d b y

t h e R a i l w a y L a b o r A c t ( “ R L A ” )

, 4 5 U

. S

. C

. § 1 5 1 e t s e q

. Th e R L A d o e s n o t p r e c l u d e t h e

l i t i g a t io n o f T i t l e V I I r i g h t s m e r e l y b e c a u s e A m e r i c a n h a d p o l i c i e s i n p l a c e p u r s u a n t t o a

C B A

. Th e R L A p r o v i d e s a mandatory a r b i t r a t i on f r am e w o r k f

o r r e s o l v i n g “ [ m ] i n o r

d i s p u t es involv [ i n g ] controversies over the meaning of an e xisting collective bargaining

agreement in a partic ular f act situatio n.” Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. v. Norris , 512 U.S. 246,

253 (19 94) (internal quotation marks and c itation omitted)

. H o w e v e r

, “ p urely factual

questio ns about an employee ’ s conduct or an e mployer ’ s conduct and motives do not

requir[e] a c ourt to inter pret any term of a collective

- ba rgaini ng agr eement. ” I d

. a t 2 6 1

(intern al qu otation marks and citation omitte d) ; s e e a l s o In re C ont ’ l Airlines, Inc. , 484

F.3d 173, 183 (3d Ci r. 2007) ( “ Minor disputes are those which relate either to the

meaning or proper applica tion of a particular provis ion of a collective bargainin g

agreem ent. ” ) ( i n t e r n a l q u o t a t i o n m a r k s an d c i t a t i on o m i t t e d )

. T h e r e s o l u t i o n of H u k m a n ’ s c l a i m s c e n t r a l l y re q u i r e s a n a l y z i ng h e r c o n d u c t a n d

American ’ s c o n d u c t a n d m o t i v e s ; H u k m an d o e s n o t c h a l l e n g e a n y p r o v i s i o n o f t h e C B A

a s d i s c r i m i n a t o r y

. S e e Ra be v. United Air Lines , Inc. , 636 F.3d 866, 873 (7th Cir. 2011)

(concl uding that Title VII and other discriminat ion claims were not p recluded by the

RLA where a CBA was “relevant” to a litigant’s claims b ut her claims did “not call the

policy itself into d ispute”) ; Fe lt v. Atch ison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. , 60 F.3d 1416,

1 420 (9th Cir. 1995) (e xpl aining that where the merits of a liti gant’s “Title VII claim

cannot be ‘ conclusively resolved ’ merel y by con sulting [a] CBA, . . .

. [t]he RLA does

not preclude l itigation of Title VII right s”)

. A m e r i c a n ’ s i n s i s t e n c e o n a p p e a l t h a t

H u k m a n ’ s c l a i m s a r e b a r r e d b y t h e R L A b e c a u s e t h e C B A i n c l u d e s p r o v i s i o n s a b o u t

p r o m o t i o n s

, t r a n s f

e r s

, a n d t h e ind e p e n d e n t m e d i c a l e x a m i n a t i o n r e q u i r e m e n t

, a m o n g

o t h e r s

, l a c k s s u p p o r t

. S e e Carls on v. CSX Transp., Inc.

, 758 F.3d 819, 8 33 (7t h Cir.

2014) ( “ [ A ] cla im is not barre d [by t h e R L A ] simply because the acti on challeng ed by the

p laintiff is arguably justified by the ter ms of th e CBA.” ) ( i n t e r n a l q u o t a t i o n m a r k s a n d

c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d )

. A c c o r d i n g l y

, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t c o r r e c t l y c o n c l u d e d t h a t i t h a d s u b j e c t

m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n t o consider H u k m a n ’ s T i t l e V I I c l a i m s

.9

in b o a r d i n g a R e p u b l i c f

li g ht o n N o vem

b er 1 5

, 2 01 2

, a t n o p o i n t h a s H u k m a n a l l e g e d

s u f f i c i e n t f a c t s t o i n d i c a t e t h a t R e p u b l i c e x e r c i s e d a n y l e v e l o f c o n t r o l o v e r h e r

e m p l o y m e n t

. S e e Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Darden

, 503 U.S. 318

, 3 2 3 (1992)

( c o n c l u d i n g i n t h e E R I S A c o n t e x t t h a t “ w hether a h ired party is an employ e e under the

gen eral commo n law of agency ” depends u p o n “ the hiring party ’ s right to control the

manner and means by w hich the product is accomplished ” ) ( c i t a t i o n o m i t t e d ) ; Covington

v. Int ’ l Ass ’ n of Approved Baske t ball Officials , 710 F.3d 114, 119 (3 d Ci r . 2013)

( e x p l a i n i n g t h a t “ [ i ] n order to state a Title VII claim, [ a p l a i n t i f f ] must allege a n

employment relationship with th e defendant [ ] ” u n d e r t h e factor s set o u t in Darden )

.

T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a l s o p r o p e r l y g r a n t e d A m e r i c a n s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t o n

H u k m a n ’ s d i s c r i m i n a t i o n a n d r e t a l i a t i o n c l a i m s

. F i r s t

, H u k m a n f a i l e d t o s t a t e a p r i m a

f a c i e c a s e o f d i s c r i m i n a t i o n b a s e d o n A m e r i c a n ’ s d e c i s i o n s r e g a r d i n g h e r a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r

p r o m o t i o n

, h e r t r a n s f

e r a p p l i c a t i o n s

, t h e d i s c i p l i n e s h e f a c e d i n N o v e m

b e r 2 0 1 2

, a n d h e r

u l t i m a t e t e r m i n a t i o n

. E v e n a s s u m i n g t h a t H u k m a n c o u l d e s t a b l i s h t h e f i r s t t h r e e

e l e m e n t s o f a p r i m a f

a c i e c a s e

, 5 s h e h a s p r o d u c e d n o e v i d e n c e t h a t w o u l d c r e a t e a n

i n f e r e n c e o f n a t i o n a l o r i g i n d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i n A m e r i c a n ’ s p rom o t i o n

, tr a n sf e r

,

d i s c i p l i n a r y

, a n d ter m i n a t i o n d e c i s i o n s

. S e e Sarullo v. U.S. Postal Serv.

, 352 F.3d 789,

5 To state a prima facie case of nati onal origin discri mination p r e m i s e d o n a n a d v e r s e

e m p l o y m e n t a c t i o n

, a plain tiff must esta blish that: (1) she is a membe r of a prote cted

class; (2) she was qualified for h er posit ion; (3) she su ffere d an adverse employment

act ion; and (4) the adverse employment action occur red unde r circums tances that give

rise t o an inference of un lawful discr imination. See St. Mary’s Hon or Ctr. v. H icks , 509

U.S. 5 02, 506

- 07 (1993); Tex. D e p’t o f C mty. A ffairs v. B urdine , 450 U.S. 248, 2 53

( 1981); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green , 411 U.S . 79 2, 8 02 ( 1973)

.10

798 ( 3d Cir. 2003) ( p e r c u r i a m ) ( “ The central foc us of the prima facie case i s always

whether the employer is treating some people less favorably than others becaus e of thei r

[ m e m b e r s h i p i n a p r o t e c t e d c l a s s ]

. ” ) ( i n t e r n a l q u o t a t i o n m a r k s a n d c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d )

.

T h e o n l y a c t i o n b y H u k m a n ’ s s u p e r i o r s t h a t c o u l d p o s s i b l y b e c o n st r u e d a s h a v i n g

t o d o w i t h H u k m a n ’ s n a t i o n a l o r i g i n w a s t h e q u e s t i o n p o s e d d u r i n g h e r 2 0 1 1 p r o m o t i o n

i n t e r v i e w r e g a r d i n g w h e r e s h e “ c a m e f r o m

. ” H o w e v e r

, g i v e n t h e c o n t e x t o f t h e q u e s t i o n

— w h e r e h e r i n t e r v i e w e r s d i d n o t h a v e i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t h e r p r i o r w o r k e x p e r i e n c e a n d

i m m e d i a t e l y c l a r i f

i e d t h a t t h e y w e r e a s k i n g a b o u t t h a t e x p e r i e n c e w h e n s h e v o l u n t e e r e d

h e r n a t i o n a l o r i g i n

— H u k m a n ’ s s u b j e c t i v e b e l i e f t h a t s h e w a s n o t p r o m o t e d b e c a u s e o f

h e r n a t i o n a l o r i g i n i s i n s u f f i c i e n t t o m ake o u t a p r i m a f a c i e c a s e o f d i s c r i m i n a t i o n

. S e e

Ramara, Inc. v. Westfield Ins. Co. , 81 4 F.3d 660, 666 (3d Cir. 201 6) ( e x p l a i n i n g t h a t a

l i t i g a n t “ may no t re st on speculatio n a nd conjecture in opposin g a motion fo r summar y

judgment.” )

. H u k m a n ’ s u n s u p p o r t e d a l l e g a t i o n s o n a p p e a l t h a t c o

- w o r k e r s o f a d i f f e r e n t

n a t i o n a l o r i g i n w e r e t r e a t e d m o r e f a v o r a b l y i n r e c e i v i n g p r o m o t i o n s a n d t r a n s f e r s a r e

s i m i l a r l y i n s u f

f i c i e n t

. 6

H u k m a n a l s o f

a i l e d t o s t a t e a p r i m a f

a c i e c a s e o f a h o s t i l e w o r k e n v i r o n m e n t c l a i m

b e c a u s e s h e d i d n o t s e t f

o r t h s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t h e r w o r k p l a c e w a s

6 Hukman also argued in the District Court that sh e had been subjected to discrimination

because she : (1) d id not receive supervisor ov ertime pay wh en she temporari ly filled in as

a s upervisor ; (2) was not paid a language premium ; and ( 3) was n ot recalled to the Las

Vegas airport wh en she was on lea ve. Bec ause Hukman produced no evidenc e that these

act io ns had an y connection to her natio nal origi n, the District Cour t p roperl y concluded

that she could not state a prima facie case of disc riminati on based on t hese allegations

.11

“ perm eated with discriminatory int imidation, r i dicule, and insult

. . . that [ w a s ]

sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the co nditions of [ h e r ] employment and create an

abusive work ing environment

. ” 7 S e e H arris v. Forklift Sys., Inc. , 510 U.S. 17, 21 (199 3)

( i n t e r n a l q u o t a t i o n m a r k s a n d c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d )

. H u k m a n a r g u e s o n a p p e a l t h a t h e r w o r k

e n v i r o n m e n t w a s h o s t i l e b e c a u s e B a i l e y ’ s p e t i t i o n h a d a s e v e r e e f f e c t o n h e r

. A l t h o u g h

B a i l e y ’ s p e t i t i o n w a s i n a p p r o p r i a t e

, a n d H u k m a n h a s a l l e g e d t h r e e o f f e n s i v e c o m m e n t s

b y o t h e r c o

- w o r k e r s b e t w e e n h e r t r a n s f e r t o P h i l a d e l p h i a i n 2 0 1 0 a n d h e r p l a c e m e n t o n a

m e d i c a l l e a v e a l m o s t t h r e e y e a r s l a t e r

, H u k m a n h a s n o t p o in te d t o e v i d e n ce

d e mo n st r a t i n g t h a t t h o s e i n s t a n c e s o b j e c t i v e l y c h a n g e d t h e c o n d i t i o n s o f h e r

e m p l o y m e n t

. S e e Abramson v. W illiam Paterson Co l l. of N

. J

. , 260 F .3d 265, 280 (3d

Cir. 2001) ( “ Title V II is not violated by the mere utteran ce of an

. . . epithet which

engenders offensive feelings in an employee or by mere discourtesy or rudeness, unless

[ i t i s ] so sev ere or pervasive as to constitute an objective change in th e conditions of

employment. ” ) ( i n t e r n a l q u o t a t i o n m a r k s a n d c i t a t i o n o m i t t e d )

.

F u r t h e r

, H u k m a n h a s n o t p o i n t e d t o a n y e v i d e n c e s u g g e s t i n g a c a u s a l c o n n e c t i o n

b e t w e e n a n y o f h e r E E O C f i l i n g s a n d a n y a d v e r s e employment a c t i o n s t a k e n a g a i n s t h e r

7 To s tate a p r i m a f

a c ie c a s e o f d i s c r i m i n a t i o n b a s e d o n t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a h o s t i l e w o r k

e n v i r o n m e n t , “a plaintiff must show that 1) the em ployee suffer e d intentio nal

discrimination . . . 2) the discrimination was se vere or pervasive, 3) the discrimination

detrimentally affecte d the plai ntiff, 4) the discrimination would detrim entally affect a

reasonable person in like circumstances, and 5) t he existence o f responde at superior

liability [meaning the employer is respon sible].” Castleberry v. S TI Grp. , 863 F.3d 259,

263 (3d Cir. 2017) (quo tation mar ks and citation omitted)

.12

s u c h t h a t s h e c o u l d e st a b l i s h a p r i m a f a c i e c a s e o f r e t a l i a t i o n

. 8 A pl aintiff asserti ng a

retaliation claim under Tit le V II “ must est ablish th at his or h er protected activity was a

b ut

- for cause of th e alleged adverse action by the e mployer. ” Univ. of Tex

. Sw. Med.

Ctr. v. Nass ar , 570 U.S. 338, 3 62 (2013)

. A plaint i f f can make thi s showi ng “ by

proffering evidence o f an emp loyer’s inco nsistent exp lanation for taking an adverse

employ ment action, a pat tern of antagonism, or temporal p roximity ‘ unusua lly s uggestive

of retaliatory motive.’ ” Carvalho

- Grevious v. Del

. Sta t e Univ

. , 851 F .3d 249, 260 (3d

Cir. 2017) (interna l ci tati ons omitted)

. Other “ pr offered evidence, looked at as a whol e,

may [also] suf

fice to raise the inference ” of a n employ e r’s reta liatory motive. K achmar

v. Su nGard Data Sys., In c.

, 109 F.3d 173, 17 7 ( 3d C i r. 1997 ).

H u k m a n f

i l e d f o u r E E O C c o m

p l a i n t s : ( 1 ) o n A u g u s t 3 1

, 2 0 1 1

, r e g a r d i n g h e r

p r o m o t i o n a p p l i c a t i o n t h a t w a s d e n i e d i n J u n e 2 0 1 1 ; ( 2 ) o n J u n e 7

, 2 0 1 2

, r e g a r d i n g h e r

i n

- p r o g r e s s p r o m o t i o n a p p l i c a t i o n a n d h e r M a y 2 0 1 2 a l t e r c a t i o n w i t h Z a n i k o s ; ( 3 ) o n

D e c e m b er 1 1

, 2 0 1 2

, r e g a r d i n g h e r N o v e m b e r 2 0 1 2 d i s c i p l i n e f o r t h e a l t e r c a t i o n b o a r d i n g

t h e R e p u b l i c f

l i g h t ; a n d ( 4 ) o n J u n e 2

, 2 0 1 6

, r e g a r d i n g h e r D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 5 t e r m i n a t i o n

a n d t h e process l e a d i n g u p t o i t

. T h e p e r i o d s o f t i m e t h a t p a s s e d b e t w e e n H u k m a n ’ s

E E O C c o m p l a i n t s a n d A m e r i c a n ’ s d e c i s i o n s r e g a r d i n g p r o m o t i o n s

, t r a n s f e r s

, a n d h e r

u l t i m a t e t e r m i n a t i o n a r e n o t “u nusually suggest ive of retaliatory motive ” s u c h t h a t t h e y

8 A prima facie case of retaliation requires a plaintiff to establ ish that: “(1) she engage d

in activity protected by Title VII; (2) th e e mploy er t ook an a dve rse employment ac tion

agains t he r; and (3) there was a causal connection between her participatio n in the

protected act ivity and the adverse emp loyment action.” Mo ore v. City of Phi ladelph ia

, 4 61 F.3d 331, 340

- 41 (3d Cir. 2006) ( c i t a t i o n o m i t t e d )

.13

c o u l d e s t a b l i s h b u t

- f

o r c a u s a t i o n

. See Williams v. Phil a. Hous. Auth. Polic e Dep’ t

, 380

F.3 d 751, 760 (3d Cir. 2004) (concludi ng that a gap of over t wo mon ths to be insufficient

alo ne t o be “unduly suggestive” of reta liation). T h e r e i s n o e v i d e n c e t h a t w o u l d i n d i c a t e

a p a t t e r n o f a n t a g o n i s m o r i n c o n s i s t e n t e x p l a n a t i o n s f o r A m e r i c a n ’ s a c t i o n s ; r a t h e r

,

H u k m a n h a d opportuni t i e s t o p u r s u e p r o m o t i o n s

, a c c e p t t r a n s f e r s

, a n d e i t h e r a p p e a l t h e

d e t e r m i n a t i o n a b o u t h e r m e n t a l h e a l t h o r s e e k m e d i c a l c a r e t h a t w o u l d h a v e p e r m i t t e d h e r

t o r e t u r n t o w o r k a f

t e r N o v e m

b e r 2 0 1 2

. A c c o r d i n g l y

, H u k m a n h a s n o t m a d e o u t a p r i m a

f a c i e c a s e o f r e t a l i a t i o n

.

F i n a l l y

, t h e D i s t r i c t J u d g e d i d n o t e r r i n d e n y i n g H u k m a n ’ s p o s t

- j u d g m e n t m o t i o n

f o r d i s q u a l i f

i c a t i o n

, w h i c h w a s p r i m a r i l y d r i v e n b y h e r d i s a g r e e m e n t w i t h t h e o u t c o m e i n

h e r c a s e

. S e e Securacomm Consu lting, Inc. v. Securacom Inc. , 224 F.3d 273, 278 (3 d

Cir. 2000). “ [ A ] party ’ s displeasure with legal rulings does not form an adequate b asis

for recusal

. ” I d

.

A c c o r d i n g l y

, w e w i l l a f

f i r m t h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t

. 9

9 A dditionally, we deny Hukman ’ s and A merican ’ s motions to strike

.