2009 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 4-1-2009 

# S u s an S c anlon v

. J e anes H o spit al 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 . 08-1402

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_2009

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 2009 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 " S us an S canlon v

. J e ane s H osp it al " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1605. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1605NOT 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. 08- 1402

__________ S US AN S CA NL ON

vs. J E A N E S H O S P I T A L A / K / A T E MP L E U N I V E R S I T Y H E A L T H S Y S T E M, A ppel l ant

__________ O n 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 E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 06- cv- 02424) D istri ct C o u rtJu d g e: H o n o rab le N o rm a L . S h ap ir o

___________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 34. 1( a)

M ar ch 9, 2009

___________ B efor e: FU E N T E S, C H A G A R E S and A L D I SE R T , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: A pr i l 1, 2009)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ FU E N T E S, C i r cui tJ udge J eane s H os pi t al appea l s fr om an adve r s e j uryver di ctaw ar di ng damages for

### N o su chp ro h ib itiv e p o licy w as ev er inef

f ect. Jean es H o sp ital sub sequ ently 1 

### clarif iedits p o licies to state th at it is ap p ro p riate to p ut a miscarriedf etu s inf o rm alin wh enit is un d er 2 4 w eek s. T h e f etu s h ere w as 1 8 w eek s.

2 t erm i nat i ng Susa n Scanl on i n vi ol at i on of the A ge D i s cr i m i nat i on i n E m pl oym entA ct ( “ ADEA” ) . F o rt h e f

o l l o wi n g r e a s o n s , we wi l l a f f i r m. I. B eca us e w e w r i t e fort he part i es , w e di s cus s onl ythe fa ct s r el evantt o our concl us i on. Scanl on began he rempl oym entatJ eane s H os pi t al i n 1966, and s he bec ame a ful l - t i m e r egi s t er ed nur s e i n 1983, s peci al i zi ng i n l aborand del i very . H err ecor d w as unbl emi s hed thr oughouthercar eeratJ eane s H os pi t al . A tthe t i m e of he rt erm i nat i on, Scanl on w as s i xt y - one y ear s ol d. O n J anuary1, 2005, a pat i enthad a mi s carr i age dur i ng Scanl on’ s s hi ft . T he pl ace nt a, cor d, and fe tus w er e expe l l ed bythe pat i enti nt o t he t oi l et , and thes e w er e then r etr i eved a nd pl ace d i nt o a form al i n bucketbyScanl on and Sus an W acke r , an O B t ech w i t h t w o y ear s ’ exper i ence . F o llo w in g th is in c id e n t, W a c k e r b e c a m e c o n c e rn e d th a t p lac in g th e f e tu s in form al i n w as a mi s t ake a nd t hats he w oul d be bl amed. A ccor di ngl y , s he fi l ed a 1 compl ai ntw i t h K athl een H avi l and, the i nt er i m s upervi s orof the uni t , cl ai m i ng that S c a n lo n h a d f

a ile d to w a rn h e r t h a t th e f e tu s s h o u ld n o t h a v e b e e n p la c e d in f o rm a lin . S he als o ad ded t hat ( 1) Scan l on had been “bickeri ng ” w i t h C hri s M orr el l , the o t her nurse on dut y , and ( 2) Scanl on had bee n uncompass i onat e t ow ar d t he pat i ent . N o compl ai nt

### 3

w a s f i l e d b y t h e p a t i e n to rt h e p a t i e n t ’ s f a m i l y. H avi l and r ece i ved W acke r ’ s compl ai nton M onday , J anuary3, 2005. She and E l i zabe t h W el s h, t he cl i ni cal di r ect or , began i nves t i gat i ng the tw o compl ai nt s r egar di ng bi cker i ng and i nadequa t e pat i entcar e. T hats ame day , H avi l and and W el s h concl uded t hatScanl on and M or r el l i ndeed ha d been bi cker i ng ( des pi t e deni al s byeac h) , and i s s ued t hem a w arni ng s t at i ng t hatt hi s “beha vi ori s gett i ng i n t he w ayof ac hi evi ng s ervi ce exce l l ence s t andar ds and ourcor e pr i nci pl es . ” J . A . at211- 12. I ni t i al l y , H avi l and and W el s h as s er t ed thatt hi s deci s i on w as s uppor t ed bys t at ement s fr om D r . A i r ol di , the ph y si ci an o n d uty , and D r. B i l y ak, t he p at i ent’ s at t end i ng ph y si ci an. B ut on crosse x a m in a tio n , the ya d m itt e d th a t th e yh a d n o t sp o k e n w ith D r. A iro ld i an d D r. B ily a k u n til t he fol l ow i ng day . A ft err eca nt i ng, both cl ai m ed theyhad r el i ed i ns t ead on a uni tcl erk, even though t he cl erk’ s s t at ementw as neverdocument ed i n w r i t i ng orot herw i s e ver i fi ed in c o u rt. O n J anuary4, 2005, H avi l and and W el s h cont i nued w i t h t hei ri nves t i gat i on of the s econd c om pl ai nt . T heyi nt ervi ew ed W acke r , D r . A i r ol di , and D r . B i l y ak; theydi d not r evi ew t he pat i ent ’ s chart , ors peak w i t h t he on- dutys upervi s or , the pat i ent , orScanl on her s el f. B as ed on thes e l i m i t ed conve r s at i ons , W el s h pr epar ed a Corr ect i ve A ct i on R epor ts ugges t i ng t hatScanl on’ s empl oym entbe t erm i nat ed. She al s o pr epar ed a term ination n o ti ce stat ing that S ca n lon ’s “a cti o n s d id n o t adh ere to the ex p ec ted S tand ard of Pr act i ce” and thather“beha vi or s w er e i ncons i s t entw i t h ourC us t om erSer vi ce

### 4

E x p ec tat ion s, o u r S erv ice E x ce ll en ce S tand ard s as w ell as th e [ h o sp it al’s] C o re P ri ncipl es. ” W el sh w as schedu l ed fo r s urgerythe fo l l ow i ng dayso she pa ssed these document s , as w el l as r es pons i bi l i t yforthe i nves t i gat i on, t o D eni s e Fr as ca, the C hi ef N u rsi n g O ff

icer. O n J anuary5, 2005, w hen Scanl on arr i ved forher7 A . M . s hi ft , s he w as i m m edi at el yes cort ed byH avi l and t o Fr as ca’ s offi ce, w her e s he w as handed the pr epar ed not i ce of t erm i nat i on. Scanl on’ s t erm i nat i on opened up thr ee da ys hi ft s perw eek. A tt he t i m e, t w o y oungernur s es had voi ced s t r ong des i r e t o m ove fr om the ni ghts hi ftt o t he day s hi ft , i ncl udi ng K i m C os kery , a thi r t y - y ear - ol d nur s e w ho had bee n hi r ed j us ta fe w w eeks b e f o re .S c a n lo n f

iled su it i n f

e d e ra l d istric t co u rt o n Ju n e 8 , 2 0 0 6 . T h e c a se p ro c e e d e d to a ju rytrial o n f

e d e ra l an d sta te c laim s o f a g e d isc rim in a tio n a n d a sta te c laim f o r u n p a id w ages . O n O ct ober1, 2007, t he j ur yaw ar ded bac k payof $176, 800 and fr ontpayof $40, 000, butdecl i ned t o aw ar d l i qui dat ed damages . T he D i s t r i ctC our taw ar ded an ad d it ion al $4 0 , 0 0 0 fo r pa in an d su ff ering an d ad d ed p re-tr ial interest of $ 1 6 , 5 6 6 . 9 2 fo r a to ta l ju d g m e n t o f

$ 2 7 3 ,3 6 6 .9 2 . J eane s H os pi t al m oved forj udgm entas a mat t erof l aw orfora new tr i al on t he gr ounds t hat( 1) Scanl on fai l ed t o es t abl i s h a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e and ( 2) the j ury ’ s ver di ct w as a g ains t th e w eigh t of the e v iden ce , as w ell as v ariou s claim s o f p roc ed u ral errors i ncl udi ng m i s l eadi ng j ur yi ns t ruct i ons , i m pr opercl os i ng ar gum ent , and err oneous

### 5

ex clus ion o f d o cu m en ts from ev iden ce . T h e D istri ct C o u rtd en ied th e m o ti o n o n Jan u ary 2 3 , 2 0 0 8 . Je a n e s H o sp ital f iled a tim e lyn o tice o f

a p p e a l. II. T he D i s t r i ctC our texer ci s ed j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1331. W e have j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291. W e exerci se pl enaryrevi ew ov er the g rantor denial of a m oti on for j ud gm ent as a m at t erof l aw . B us ki r k v. A pol l o M et al s , 307 F. 3d 160, 165 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . T he mot i on s houl d be gr ant ed onl yw her e, “vi ew i ng the evi dence i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he n o n -m o v a n t, an d g iv in g it th e a d v a n tag e o f e v e ryf a ir a n d re a so n a b le in f

e re n c e , the re is i ns uffi ci entevi dence fr om w hi ch a j urycoul d r eas onabl yfi nd l i abi l i t y . ” G agl i ar do v. C o n n a u g h t L a b s., In c ., 3 1 1 F .3 d 5 6 5 . 5 6 8 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 2 ) (c itatio n o m itt e d ). A ll reas on able i nferences are draw n in favo r of the n on -m ov i ng party , and w e m ust

“ d isre g a rd a ll ev id e n c e f a v o ra b le to th e m o v in g p a rtyth a t th e ju ryis n o t re q u ire d to bel i eve” and “gi ve cr edenc e t o t he evi dence favor i ng the nonmovant . ” R eeve s v. S an d erso n P lum b ing P rod s. , Inc . , 5 3 0 U . S . 1 3 3 , 1 5 0 -51 (20 0 0 ). III . J eane s H os pi t al ’ s m ai n cont ent i on i s thatScanl on fai l ed t o pr oduce s uffi ci ent e v id e n c e th a t h e r te rm in a tio n w a s m o tiv a ted b ya g e a n im u s. Je a n e s H o sp ital in sis ts th a t it “had e veryr i ghtt o acc eptt he ver s i on of the eve nt s thatw as des cr i bed t o t hem [by W acke r ] . ” A ppel l ant ’ s R epl yB r . 6. M or eover , i tar gues thatScanl on fai l ed t o pr ovi de

### 6

anydi r ectevi dence of age di s cr i m i nat i on, s uch as i nappr opr i at e age r emar ks orot her n u rs e s b e in g tr e a te d d if f e re n tly b a s e d o n a g e . A pl ai nt i ff maypr evai l on an A D E A cl ai m ei t her“( 1) bypr es ent i ng di r ect evi dence of di s cr i m i nat i on, or( 2) bypr es ent i ng i ndi r ectevi dence of di s cr i m i nat i on that s at i s fi es t he fa m i l i art hr ee- s t ep fr amew or k of M cD onnel l D ougl as C orp. v. G r een, 411 U .S . 7 9 2 (1 9 7 3 ).” F a s o ld v . J u s tic e , 4 0 9 F .3 d 1 7 8 , 1 8 4 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ). T h e b u rd e n -sh if

tin g f ra m e w o rk se t f

o rth in M c D o n n e ll D o u g las re q u ire s th e p lain tiff to beart he i ni t i al bur den of e s t abl i s hi ng a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e of di s cr i m i nat i on; the def endant t o ar t i cul at e a l egi t i m at e, non- di s cr i m i nat oryr eas on forthe empl oym entact i on; and fin all ythe p lai n ti ff

to “s h o w b ya p rep o n d era n ce o f th e e v iden ce that the e m p loy er’s e x p la n a tio n is p re te x tu a l.” F u e n te s v . P e rs k ie , 3 2 F .3 d 7 5 9 , 7 6 3 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). Si gni fi cant l y , a pl ai nt i ff w ho pr ocee ds bypr es ent i ng i ndi r ect evi dence need not a lso p re se n t di r ect

evi dence . R eeve s , 530 U . S. at148 ( “[A ] pl ai nt i ff’ s pr i m a fa ci e ca s e, c o m b in e d w ith su f

f icie n t ev id e n c e to f

in d th a t th e e m p lo y e r’s a ss e rte d ju stif ica tio n is f a lse , m a yp e rm it th e trier o f f a c t to c o n c lu d e th a t th e e m p lo y e r u n law f u lly di s cr i m i nat ed. ”) . A l t hough t he Supr eme C our tl eftr oom forexce pt i on w her e “no r at i onal fac t fi ndercoul d concl ude thatt he ac t i on w as di s cr i m i nat ory , ” i d. , thi s cas e does not pr es entt hats i tuat i on. Jeanes H ospit al m ayhav e been enti t l ed to accept W acker’s versi on of the even t s, b u t th e e v id e n c e a n d te s tim o n ya t tr ia l s tr o n g ly su g g e s te d th a t th is w a s n o t w h a t o c c u rr e d .

### Spe c i fi c a l ly , the Di s tri c t Court s t at e d that

“ Havi l and’ s a

ppar e nt l a c k of c omm and 2 

### of the fac ts and the contradi ctions in her t es tim ony m ade her a

pp ear incre dible” ; “W el sh’s te stimony

was e vasi ve and p er si st ent e ven w hen con tradic te d b y other evidence” ; and“[Wac ker] answere d questions in a transpare ntly evas ive manner, was c om bat i ve wi th c ouns e l , and a ppe ar e d t o have as haky

r e c ol l e c t i on of the fa c t s . ” Sc anl on v. Je anes Ho sp., No . 06-24 24 , 200 8 WL 1 91 16 9, at *4 , 5, 10 (E.D. Pa. J an. 23, 20 08 ). 7 I ndeed, i f Scanl on’ s t erm i nat i on w as genui nel ym ot i vat ed byW acke r ’ s compl ai nt , J eane s H os pi t al eas i l ys houl d have be en abl e t o pi npoi ntforthe j urythe s peci fi c conduc tw hi ch i tcons i der ed det erm i nat i ve i n j us t i fy i ng the t erm i nat i on. I tcoul d not . A s the D i s t r i ct C our tr epea t edl yobs erved i n i t s opi ni on— and thus as the j urycoul d have de t erm i ned for i t s el f— t he t es t i m onyof A ppel l ant ’ s keys uppor t i ng w i t nes s es w as “eva s i ve” a nd

“ in c re d ib le .” 2 T h e te rm in a tio n n o tic e its e lf c o n ta in e d n o s p e c if

ic s a s to th e c a u s e o f

te rm in a tio n . A pp. 317. A ta s ubs equentunempl oym entbenef i t s hear i ng, how ever , J eane s H os pi t al el abor at ed a ba t t eryof r eas ons , i ncl udi ng thatScanl on had fa i l ed t o s t artan I V t o t r eat heavybl eedi ng, vi ol at ed hos pi t al pol i cybypl aci ng the fe tus i n form al i n, r efus ed t o offe r comfortand s uppor tt o t he pat i ent , fai l ed t o compl et e al l pr ocedur es w i t h t he fe tus byt he e n d o f h e r s h if t, a n d f a ile d to g iv e a f

u ll r e p o rt to th e n e x t s h if t. A p p . 2 9 2 -9 5 ; 3 8 8 -9 5 . E a c h o f th e se p u rp o rte d re a so n s w a s c o n v in c in g lyre f u ted a t trial. P r o v i n g t h e f

a l s i tyo f t h e s e p r o f

f e r e d j u s t i f

i c a t i o n s , wh e n c o mb i n e d wi t h a p r i ma fac i e ca s e, i s s uffi ci entt o fi nd i nt ent i onal di s cr i m i nat i on. R eeve s , 530 U . S. at147- 48 ( “I n appr opr i at e ci r cumst ance s , t he tr i erof fa ctcan r eas onabl yi nferfr om the fa l s i t yof

### 8

th e e x p la n a tio n th a t th e e m p lo y e r i s d is s e m b lin g to c o v e r u p a d is c ri m in a to ry p u rp o s e .” ). Par t i cul ar l yw her e no r eas ons w er e i ni t i al l ygi ven, and al l the var i ous r eas ons gi ven ex pos tfac t o have be en pr oven i m pl aus i bl e, a r eas onabl e j urycoul d concl ude thatthe true r eas on w as a di s cr i m i nat or yone. Jea n es H o sp it al i s co rrect th at i t i s n o t eno u g h to “s im p lysh o w that the e m p loy er’s deci s i on w as w r ong orm i s t aken, s i nce the fa ctual di s put e ati s s ue i s w hether di s cr i m i nat or yani m us m ot i vat ed the empl oy er , notw hetherthe empl oy eri s w i s e, s hr ew d, prudent , orcompet ent . ” Fuent es , 32 F. 3d at765. T he tr oubl e her e, how ever , i s that J e a n e s H o s p i t a l ’ s i n v e s t i g a t i o n w a s s o c u r s o r y, a n d i t s p r o f f e r e d e x p l a n a t i o n s s o f

l i m s y, t hatt he mi s appr ehens i on s ugges t s m or e than mer e mi s t ake. Scanl on’ s couns el h ig h lig h ted c o u n tles s u n e x p lain e d o m iss io n s in th e in v e stig a tio n , an yo n e o f w h ich w o u ld h av e re ad il yv ali d ated the a d eq u ac yo f S ca n lon ’s j o b p erf o rm an ce that d ay . T h u s, there w as a s uffi ci entbas i s fort he j ur yt o concl ude thatJ eane s H os pi t al ’ s pr offe r ed r eas ons w er e nots i m pl yunfounded, buti nt ent i onal l yfal s e. A l t ernat i vel y , J eane s H os pi t al ar gues thatScanl on pr es ent ed an i ncompl et e or w e a k p rim a f

a c ie c a se . B u t as it ac k n o w led g e s in its b rie f , “a f ter a c a se h a s b e e n tried to a j ur yon t he mer i t s , ‘ i ti s unnece s s aryforthe appe l l at e courtt o deci de w hethera p r i ma fa c ie cas e had, i n fac t , been e s t abl i s hed. ’ ” B runo v. W . B . Saunder s C o. , 882 F. 2d 760, 764 ( 3d C i r . 1989) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . N evert hel es s , w e not e i n pas s i ng that( 1) Scanl on w as s i xt y - one y ear s ol d; ( 2) s he w as fi r ed; ( 3) s he w as qual i fi ed forthe j ob fr om w hi ch

### In any event, we al so no tethat

the c urative instr

ucti onwas proper und er H aze n 3 PaperC orp. v. B i ggi ns , 507 U . S. 604 ( 1993) 

### , as requ estedb y Ap p ellant’s trial co un sel. H azensp ecif

ically lef t open the pos s i bi l i t ythat , i n s om e ci r cumst ance s , pens i on s t atus



### 9 sh e w a s f

ire d ; an d (4 ) sh e sh o w e d e v id e n c e th a t sh e “ w a s re p lac e d b ya su f f icie n tly y o u n g e r p e rs o n to c re a te a n in f e re n c e o f a g e d is c ri m in a tio n ,” n a m e ly K im C o s k e ry. F a k e t e v . Ae t n a , I n c . , 3 0 8 F . 3 d 3 3 5 , 3 3 8 n . 3 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 2 ) ( l i s t i n g e l e me n t s o f a p r i ma fac i e ca s e i n an A D E A s ui t ) . T he fa ctthatC os keryw as an exi s t i ng empl oy ee i s not di s qual i fy i ng, s i nce the pr om ot i on of an e xi s t i ng empl oy ee c an cons t i tut e “r epl ace m ent . ” A n d e v e n if

sh e w e re a lre a d yin th e p ro c e ss o f b e in g tra n sitio n e d to th e d a ysh if t, S c a n lo n ’s te rm in a tio n u n d o u b te d ly ac c e le ra te d th a t tr a n s itio n . W e a lso f

ind n o m eritin A p p ell an t’ s rem ainin g arg u m en ts, w h ich e ssen ti all yasse rt t hatt he j ur yw as m i s l ed t o bel i eve thatage di s cr i m i nat i on coul d be mot i vat ed s ol el yby fi nanci al r eas ons , r athert han byage. Fi r s t , J eane s H os pi t al cl ai m s thatoppos i ng c o u n se l’s c lo sin g a rg u m e n t im p ro p e rlyin f lu e n c e d th e ju ryv e rd ict b yre p e a ted ly su g g esti n g that S ca n lon ’s t erm ination w as m o ti v ated b ya d esire f o r co st sav ing s, ap art fr om anyconnec t i on t o age. M or eover , A ppel l antar gues thatthe cur at i ve i ns t ruct i on given byt he D i stri ctC ou rton l yexace rbat ed the problem becau se i ti m pli ed thatcost s a v i n g s c o u l d i n f

a c ts e r v e a s a p r o x yf

o ra g e a n d b e c o n s i d e r e d i n c e r t a i n i n s t a n c e s . We d ef er to a n d ag ree w ith the D istri ct C o u rt ’s j u d g m en t th at i ts cu rati v e ins tru cti o n s w ere s uffi ci entt o expunge a nypr ej udi ci al i m pact . Fi neman v. A r m s t r ong W or l d I ndus . , 980 F . 2 d 1 7 1 , 2 0 7 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 2 ). 3coul d be us ed as a pr oxyforpurpos es of age di s cr i m i nat i on. 

### I d. at 612- 13 ( “ W e do not pr e c lude the pos s ibi l i ty

that an e m pl oye r who t arge t s e m

pl oye e s wi th apart i c ul ar

pe ns i on s t at us . . . the r eby

e nga ge s i n a ge di s c ri mi nat i on. Pe ns i on s t at us m ay be apr oxy

for age . . . in the s ensethat

the e m ployer m ay supp ose a

corr el ation b etween the two fact ors and act ac cordingly .” ). 10 F in a lly , Je a n e s H o sp ital c o m p lain s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in its “det erm i nat i ve fa ct or ” j ur yi ns t ruct i on beca us e i ts peci fi ed that , al t hough age mustbe a d e ter m in a tiv e f

a c to r, itd o e s n o t h a v e to b e th e so le f a c to r. T h is in stru c tio n w a s n o t in err or . See M i l l erv. C I G N A C orp. , 47 F. 3d 586, 595- 96 ( 3d C i r . 1995) ( concl udi ng that

“ b e c a u se o f

” d o e s n o t m e a n “ so lelyb e c a u se o f ” a n d , ind e e d , h o ld in g th a t a “ so le d eterm inative f

ac tor” c h arg e c o u ld b e p rejud ici al error). I V. A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l aff i r m the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s j udgm entof J anuary23, 2008, s ubs t ant i al l yfort he r eas ons s etfor th i n J udge Shapi r o’ s opi ni on.