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 9-9-2009 

# M a so o d Ahmed v

. Lowes H ome C tr Inc 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 . 08-3422

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 authori 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 " M as ood Ahme d v

. L owe s H ome C tr Inc " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 690. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/6901 NOT 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- 3422 M AS OOD AH M E D, A ppel l ant

v. LOWE’ S HOM E CE NTE RS , I NC. A p p e a l f ro m th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt forthe East ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a

N o. 2- 06- cv- 04798 ( D i s tr i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e M i chae l M . B ay l s on) B e f o re : M c K E E , H A R D IM A N a n d V A N A N T W E R P E N , C i rcui tJud ges. Subm i t t ed pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J une 11, 2009 ( O pi ni on Fi l ed: Sept ember9, 2009)

OP I NI ON M c K E E , C i r cui tJudge M as ood A hm ed appe al s the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof L o w e ’s H o m e C e n ter s, In c . o n A h m e d ’s c laim s o f re talia tio n , d isc rim in a tio n , h o stile w or k envi r onm ent , and i nt ent i onal i nfl i ct i on of emot i onal di s tr es s ( “I I E D ”) . Forthe2

re a s o n s th a t f

o llo w , w e w ill a f

f ir m . I. A s w e w r i t e pr i m ar i l yforthe part i es , w ho ar e fa m i l i arw i th the fa ct s of thi s cas e, w e n e e d n o t r e c ite th e f a c tu a l o r p ro c e d u ra l h is to ry in d e ta il. W e re v iew th e d istric t co u rt’s g ra n t o f su m m a ryju d g m e n t de novo and appl yt he s a m e te s t o n re v ie w a s th e d is tr ic t c o u rt . See M B I A I ns . C or p. v. R oyal

I ndem . C o. , 426 F. 3d 204, 209 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . Sum m aryj udgm enti s appr opr i at e w her e ther e ar e no g e n u in e iss u e s o f

m a ter ial f

a c t. F e d . R . C iv . P . 5 6 (c ); s ee al s o Fas old v. Jus t i ce, 409 F. 3d 1 7 8 , 1 8 3 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). G e n u in e iss u e s o f f a c t ex ist w h e re “ th e e v id e n c e is s u c h th a t a r eas onabl e j urycoul d r eturn a ver di ctforthe nonmovi ng party . ” Id . ( quot i ng A nders on v. L ib e r ty L o b b

y In c ., 4 7 7 U . S . 2 4 2 , 2 4 8 (19 8 6 )). In re v iew ing a g ran t of su m m ary ju d g m e n t, w e v ie w a ll f a c ts in th e lig h t m o s t f

a v o ra b le to A h m e d a s th e n o n m o v in g p a rt y . S ee B o w ers v . N

a t’ l C o lleg iate A thleti c A ss’n , 4 7 5 F .3 d 5 2 4 , 5 3 5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). A hm ed argu es that the d i stri ctcou rterr ed in con cl ud i ng that he fai l ed to a est abli sh a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e as t o r et al i at orydi s char ge, and di s m i s s i ng hi s r et al i at i on cl ai m for f a ilu re to e sta b lish th a t h e w a s th e v ictim o f a re talia to ryd isc h a rg e th a t re su lted f ro m h is c o m p lain ts to th e H u m a n R e so u rc e s D e p a rtm e n t ab o u t alle g e d u n f a ir tre a tm e n t b yh is su p e rv iso r, D o u g S c h m id t. T o es t abl i s h a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e of r et al i at orydi s char ge, A hm ed musts how that : ( 1) he en gag ed in con du ctprot ect ed b yT i t l e V II ; (2) he w as subj ectt o an adv ers eAhmed’s own te stimony as to his previous meeting s with L owe’ s Human Resourc es 1 reve als the g eneral, unspec ific natureof his complaints: “DougSchmidt called me a liar and 3 empl oym entact i on; and ( 3) ther e i s a ca us al nexus betw een the pr ot ect ed conduc tand the a d v e rs e a c tio n . See W

i lker s on v. N ew Medi a Tech. C har t erSch. I nc. , 522 F. 3d 315, 320 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 8 ); s ee als o Mo o re v . C ity o f P h il. , 461 F. 3d 331, 340- 41 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . T he di s tr i ctcourthel d t hatA hm ed fa i l ed t o pr es entevi dence s uffi ci entt o r ai s e anygenui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac tas t o t he fi r s tpr ong of hi s r et al i at orydi s char ge cl ai m , i . e. w hether A h m e d ’s c o n d u c t w a s p ro te c te d u n d e r T itle V II . T o qual i fyas pr ot ect ed conduc tunderT i t l e V I I , A hm ed musts how thathe made L o w e ’s a w a re th a t h e f

e lt h e w a s b e in g d isc rim in a ted a g a in st s p e c if ica llyb e c a u se o f

h is ra c e o r n a tio n a l o ri g in . See Slagl e v. C ount y of C lar i on , 435 F. 3d 262, 268 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( hol di ng thata compl ai ntthatdoes notexpl i ci t l yori m pl i ci t l yal l ege thatm ember s hi p i n a pr ot ect ed cl as s w as the r eas on form i s tr eatm enti s t oo gener al t o cons t i tut e pr ot ect ed c o n d u c t u n d e r T itle V II ). A hm ed cont ends thathi s compl ai nt s t o the H um an R es our ces D epart m entof L o w e ’s s h o u ld b e c o n sid e re d a p ro tec ted a c tiv ityu n d e r T itl e V II. H o w e v e r, th e re is nothi ng t o s uppor ta fi ndi ng thatA hm ed ment i oned mi s tr eatm entdue t o hi s r ace and nat i onal or i gi n dur i ng hi s empl oym entw i th L ow e’ s . R ather , the r ecor d i ndi cat es that w hi l e A hm ed di d compl ai n t o t he H um an R es our ces D epart m entaboutSchm i dton at l eas ttw o s epar at e occ as i ons , A hm ed neve ral l eged thatSchm i dt ’ s tr eatm entw as bas ed on A hm ed’ s r ace ornat i onal or i gi n. 1hy

po c ri tein his o ff

ic e , a nd a bo ut cha ng ingsc he dule s o f empl oye e s. .. ,”“ Do ugis n ot t re atin gme very well...,” a

nd “Dougis mistreating me a nd callingme a liar

and he thinks I ’m not capa ble of doing a ny thing.”App. at 399:5-400:21, 404:12-407:16, 408:4-409:15 (Dep. Tr . of Ahmed) . To makeout a prima facie c ase of employ ment discrimination based on race or national 2 orig in, a plaintif f m us t sh ow : ( 1) heis a

me mber o f a

prote c te d c la ss; (2 ) h ewa s q ualif ie d f or his position; (3) hewas subjec t to an adver se employ ment action; and ( 4) he w as discharg ed under circumstances that raise a n inference of

discrimination. See Sarullo v. U .S. Postal Serv. , 352 F.3d 789, 797 ( 3d Cir. 2003). 4 A b sen t anysu ch ev iden ce there is no thing to su p p o rtA h m ed ’s retal iat o ry d is c h a rg e c la im . II. A hm ed al s o ar gues thatthe di s tr i ctcourterr ed i n di s m i s s i ng hi s cl ai m of d is c ri m in a tio n b a s e d o n ra c e a n d n a tio n a l o ri g in . T he di s tr i ctcourtfound thatal though A hm ed had s ucce s s ful l ym ade outthe el ement s of a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e of i l l egal empl oym entdi s cr i m i nat i on bas ed on r ace , he 2 f a iled to a d d u c e e v id e n c e th a t th e p ro f f e re d re a so n s f

o r te rm in a tin g h im w e re p re tex tu a l. See McD onnel l
- D ouglas C or p. v. G r een , 4 1 1 U . S . 7 9 2 (19 7 3 ). U nderthe s hi ft i ng bur dens anal y s i s of McD o n n e ll- D o u g la s , once a pl ai nt i ff e sta b lish e s a p rim a f

a c ie c a se o f

d isc rim in a tio n , “th e b u rd e n [ sh if ts] to th e e m p lo y e r to a rt ic u la te s o m e le g itim a te , n o n d is c ri m in a to ry re a s o n f o r” th e a d v e rs e e m p lo ym e n t a c tio n . Id . at 802. T her eaf

t er , the pl ai nt i ff musts how bya pr eponder ance of the evi dence that the l egi t i m at e, nondi s cr i m i nat oryr eas ons offe r ed byL ow e’ s ar e mer el ypr et extfor d is c ri m in a tio n . S e e J

o n e s v . Sc h . D ist. o

f P h il. , 198 F. 3d 403, 410 ( 3d C i r . 1999) ( ci t i ngO n one occ as i on, A hm ed al l egedl ygr abbed M adar a bythe fa ce, ki s s ed herchee k, 3 a n d th e n g ra b b e d b o th s id e s o f h e r b u tto c k s w h e n s h e a tte m p te d to le a v e th e v ic in ity. See A pp. at 7 5 4 . M a d a ra a lso a lleg e s th a t A h m e d m a d e se x u a llyin a p p ro p ria te c o m m e n ts c o n c e rn in g h e r a n d a n o th e r f e m a le c o -w o rk e r. Id . a t 8 3 3 .

5 Tex. D ep’ tof

C m t y. A f f ai rs v. B ur di ne , 4 5 0 U .S . 2 4 8 , 2 5 2 -5 3 (1 9 8 1 )). T o su c c e ss f u lly m ake a s how i ng of pr et ext , A hm ed mustpr es entevi dence thatei ther : ( 1) cas t s s uffi ci ent d o u b t u p o n e a c h o f

th e leg iti m a te r e a so n s p ro f f e re d b yL o w e ’s s o th a t a f a c tf in d e r c o u ld re a so n a b lyc o n c lu d e th a t ea c h re a so n w a s a f a b ric a tio n ; o r (2 ) a llo w s th e f a c tf in d e r to i nferthatdi s cr i m i nat i on w as m or e l i kel ythan nota mot i vat i ng ordet erm i nat i ve ca us e i n te rm in a tio n . S e e Fu e n tes v . P e rs k ie , 3 2 F .3 d 7 5 9 , 7 6 2 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). H er e, ther e i s nothi ng t o r ebutthe empl oy er ’ s cl ai m thatA hm ed w as t erm i nat ed becau se he viol at ed the com pan y ’s s exual har as s m entpol i cy . O n J ul y6, 2004, an A r ea H u m a n R e s o u rc e s M a n a g e r f o r L o w e ’s , D i ane Chuprun c onduct ed an i nves t i gat i on r egar di ng compl ai nt s fi l ed byD aw n M adar a. M adar a cl ai m ed thatA hm ed had made sexuall yi nap propri at e com m ents and adv ances t ow ards her on t w o separat e occa si on s. 3 A fter m ee ti n g w ith sev era l em p loy ee s sep ara tel y , inclu d ing A h m ed , to co n firm M ad ara ’s ac co u n t of

the in cide n ts, C h u p run fo rw ard ed h er inv esti g ati v e m aterial s to h er su p erv isor, R e g io n a l H u m a n R e so u rc e s M a n a g e r K e n n e th Z ro w k a . Z ro w k a su b se q u e n tlym e t w ith C h u p ru n a n d a n o th e r H u m a n R e so u rc e s m a n a g e r o n Ju ly7 , 2 0 0 4 a n d d e c id e d to te rm in a te A h m e d ’s e m p lo ym e n t. A hm ed al l eges thatthe H um an R es our ces D epart m entfas t - tr acke d the s exual6

har as s m enti nves t i gat i on agai ns thi m butfai l ed t o addr es s s ever al compl ai nt s he l odged a b o u t u n f

a ir tre a tm e n t w ith re g a rd to a c itatio n h e re c e iv e d f ro m S c h m id t f

o r a lleg e d ly u sin g p ro f

a n ityin th e w o rk p lac e . A h m e d a ss e rts th a t th e a lleg e d d isp ro p o rtio n a te tr eatm entof the tw o cl ai m s byH um an R es our ces cr eat es an i nfer ence of pr et extual di s cr i m i nat i on. H ow ever , L ow e’ s has neverci t ed A hm ed’ s al l eged us e of pr ofani ty , or th e re late d c itatio n h e re c e iv e d f ro m S c h m id t, as h a v in g a n yb e a rin g o n its d e c isio n to d is c h a rg e h im . A hm ed mustpr es entevi dence s how i ng thatthe s exual har as s m enti nves t i gat i on r es ul t i ng i n hi s t erm i nat i on w as s om ehow t ai nt ed bydi s cr i m i nat orym ot i ves . R athert han offe ranys uch evi dence t o r ai s e an i s s ue of f actaboutthatcruci al ques t i on, A hm ed choos es t o att ack M adar a and h e r m o tiv e s f o r l o d g in g th e s e x u a l h a ra s s m e n t c o m p la in t. T he rel evan tqu est i on , ho w ever, i s the int egri tyof the decis i on m aking process le a d in g u p to th e d e te rm in a tio n th a t A h m e d h a d v io la te d th e s e x u a l h a ra s s m e n t p o lic y . H er e, A hm ed fa i l s t o poi ntt o anyfac t s t o r ebutthe cor e fa ct s s urr oundi ng the in v e s tig a tio n o f

M a d a ra ’s s e x u a l h a ra s s m e n t c o m p la in ts . See Kaut zv. Met- P r o C or

p. , 412 F. 3d 463, 467 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( not i ng that“cor e fa ct s ” behi nd empl oy er ’ s pr offe r ed r eas on m us tbe cha l l enged, r atherthan the dec i s i on i t s el f, t o es t abl i s h exi s t ence of genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac t ) . A ccor di ngl y , he cannots us t ai n hi s bur den under McD o n n e ll- D o u g la s , and w e w i l l ther efor e af firm the d istri ct co u rt ’s ord er o f su m m ary j u d g me n ta s t o Ah me d ’ s d i s c r i mi n a t i o n c l a i m.7 III . A h m ed also o b

jects t o the d istri ct co u rt ’s dism issal of h is ho sti le w o rk e n v ir o n m e n t c la im . T o es t abl i s h a hos t i l e w or k envi r onm entcl ai m underT i t l e V I I , A hm ed mustpr ove ( 1) he s uffe r ed i nt ent i onal di s cr i m i nat i on beca us e of hi s r ace ornat i onal or i gi n; ( 2) the di s cr i m i nat i on w as “pervas i ve and r egul ar ”; ( 3) the di s cr i m i nat i on detr i m ent al l yaff ect ed hi m ; ( 4) the di s cr i m i nat i on w as s uffi ci ent l ys ever e t o have de tr i m ent al l yaff ect ed a r eas onabl e per s on i n hi s pos i t i on; and ( 5) a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e of r es pondeats uper i or lia b ility a g a in s t h is e m p lo y e r. A n dr e w s v . C ity o f P h ila ., 8 9 5 F . 2 d 1 4 6 9 , 1 4 8 2 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 0 ). A h m e d a ss e rts th a t as th e o n lyn o n -w h ite s u p e rv iso r in a m a n a g e ria l ro le a t h is l ocat i on, he w as tr eat ed di ffe r ent l ybyhi s s upervi s or . Speci fi cal l y , A hm ed al l eges that S ch m idt call ed h im inco m p eten t, a h yp o crit e, an d a li ar, an d that h e w as d isci p li n ed m o re s ever el ythan otherm anage r s . H ow ever , even i f w e ac cepts uch gene r al compl ai nt s as fac t , theydo notr i s e t o the l evel r equi r ed t o es t abl i s h a hos t i l e w or k envi r onm entunder T itle V II . See H

ar r is v. Forkl i

f tSys . , I nc. , 5 1 0 U .S . 1 7 , 2 1 (1 9 9 3 ). W e f u rth e r a g re e w ith the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s concl us i on thathad Schmi dtoranyof A hm ed’ s co- w or ker s “us ed ra c iallyin se n sitiv e lan g u a g e o r th re a ten e d h im b e c a u se o f h is ra c e ,” th is c a se m a yw e ll h a v e b e e n v e ry d if

f e re n t. A hm ed v. Low e’s C o. , I nc . , 2008 W L 2967061, at* 7 ( E . D . Pa. J ul y31, 2008) . H ow ever , thati s notthe r ecor d her e.8 I V. F in a lly, A h m e d c o n te n d s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt e rr e d in d is m is s in g h is II E D c la im . T h e d istric t co u rt h e ld th a t A h m e d ’s I IE D c laim w a s p re e m p ted b yth e P e n n sy lv a n ia W o rk e rs’ C o m p e n sa tio n A c t (“ P W C A ” ), 7 7 P a . C .S . § 1 , et s e q ., a s it d o e s n o t f a ll w ith in th e ‘p e rs o n a l a n im u s ’ e x c e p tio n u n d e r t h a t A c t. T h e P W C A b a rs II E D c la im s th a t a ri s e o u t o f a n e m p lo ym e n t r e la tio n s h ip . See Mat cz ak v. Fr ankf

or d C andy & C hocolat e C o. , 1 3 6 F . 3 d 9 3 3 , 9 4 0 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). T h ere i s , how ever , a narr ow per s onal ani m us exce pt i on w her e the al l eged i nj uryw as m ot i vat ed byper s onal r eas ons as oppos ed t o gener al i zed c ont empt orhatr ed and di d notar i s e i n t he c o u rs e o f e m p lo ym e n t. See 7 7 P .S . § 4 1 1 ; s ee al s o Fug ari no v. U

niv. Servs. , 12 3 F. S u p p . 2 d 8 3 8 , 8 4 4 (E . D . P a. 20 0 0 ). O n appea l , A hm ed ar gues thatthe al l eged ha r as s m entand di s cr i m i nat i on he exper i ence d atL ow e’ s ar os e outof Schm i dt ’ s , and other s ’ , “pur el yper s onal ” cont empt f o r A h m e d ’s ra c e a n d n a tio n a l o ri g in . See A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at 3 0 . E v e n if w e w e re to acc eptthi s ar gum ent , how ever , the al l egedl ydi s cr i m i nat oryconductdoes nots uppor tt he c l a i m th a ta n y h o s t i l e a c t i o n a g a i n s th i m w a s u n r e l a t e d t o h i s j o b . O n th e c o n tr a ry, A h m e d d o e s n o t co n tes t th a t all o f th e h a ra ss m e n t h e a lleg e s w a s e x c lu siv e lyre late d to h is em p loym en t r esp o n sibil it ies at L o w e’s. T h ere fo re, w e a ff irm the d istri ct co u rt ’s d is m is s a l o f

A h m e d ’s II E D c la im . V.9

F o r all the a b o v e re aso n s, w e w il l aff irm the d istri ct co u rt ’s gra n t of su m m ary j ud gm ent i n fav or of L ow e’s on each o f A hm ed’s cl ai m s.