2014 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

7-31-2014

Heike Obergantschnig v. Saw Creek Estates

Community As

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 13-4341

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2014

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2014 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Heike Obergantschnig v. Saw Creek Estates Community As" (2014). 2014 Decisions. Paper 786.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2014/786
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

_____________

No. 13-4341

_____________

HEIKE OBERGANTSCHNIG,

 Appellant

v.

SAW CREEK ESTATES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC.; 

JAMES ANDREWS; PEGGY SCHAU; ARTIE FURMAN 

________________________ 

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

District Court No. 2-12-cv-05911

District Judge: The Honorable J. Curtis Joyner 

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

July 10, 2014

Before: SMITH, VANASKIE, and SLOVITER, Circuit Judges

(Filed: July 31, 2014)

_____________________

OPINION

_____________________

SMITH, Circuit Judge.

Heike Obergantschnig worked as a dispatch officer for the public safety 

department of Saw Creek Estates Community Association (Saw Creek) from 

January of 2008 to January of 2011. After Saw Creek terminated 
2

Obergantschnig’s employment, she filed a complaint in the United States District 

Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. She alleged claims of sexual 

harassment and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 

as amended. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2. 

After discovery closed, Saw Creek filed a motion for summary judgment on 

both claims. The District Court granted Saw Creek’s motion. This timely appeal 

followed.1 We will affirm.

We have carefully reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record before 

us. We agree with the District Court that Obergantschnig failed to establish that 

the sexual harassment was sufficiently pervasive. See Mandel v. M & Q Pkg. 

Corp., 706 F.3d 157, 167 (3d Cir. 2013) (listing as an element of a hostile work 

environment claim that “the discrimination was severe or pervasive”). In addition, 

we conclude that summary judgment was properly granted on the retaliation claim.

The District Court appropriately determined that Obergantschnig’s complaints did 

not constitute protected activity. See Wilkerson v. New Media Tech. Charter Sch. 

Inc., 522 F.3d 315, 320 (3d Cir. 2008) (noting elements of prima facie case of 

retaliation under Title VII includes that plaintiff “engaged in a protected activity”).

 

1

The District Court exercised jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. We have final 

order jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review over a 

district court’s order granting summary judgment. Mandel v. M & Q Pkg. Corp., 

706 F.3d 157, 164 (3d Cir. 2013).