2005 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 Third C ir c uit 6-30-2005 

# B h agat v . H ettche P re c e de nt i al or N on-P re c e de nt i al : N on-P re c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-2056

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al works at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s brou ght t o you for f re 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 Third C irc 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 2005 D e c i sion s by 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 more 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 " B h agat v . H e tt che " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 939. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2005/939NOT 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. 04- 2056

________________ 

### RA M B . BH AGAT , Appe l l ant

v. *L . RAYM ON D H ET TC HE ; TH OM AS DO NN EL LAN; MAURI CEAM AT EAU; PENN SY LVAN I A S TA TE

UN I VE RS I TY *( Am e nde d pe r

Cl e rk' s Orde r

of June 17, 2004)

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt F o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i v. N o. 02- cv- 02256) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le M alco lm M u ir

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

J U N E 22, 2005 Be f o r e : SLOV I TER, BA RRY AN D FI SHER, CI RCU I T J UD GES

( Fi l ed: J une 30, 2005)

_______________________

OP I NI ON

_______________________2

P E R C UR I AM A ppel l ant , R am B . B hagat , appea l s fr om the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or dergr ant i ng the d e f e n d a n ts’ m o tio n f

o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t. F o r th e re a so n s s e t f o rth b e lo w , w e w ill a f f ir m .A s th e p a rt ie s a re f

a m ilia r w ith th e f

a c ts , w e w ill o n ly b ri e f

ly re v is it th e m h e re . B hagatw as empl oy ed as a r es ear ch s ci ent i s tbyT he Penns y l vani a St at e U ni ver s i ty( “Penn St at e”) atthe A ppl i ed R es ear ch Labor at ory( “A R L ”) fr om M ar ch 1, 1984 unt i l M ar ch 21, 2 0 0 1 , w h e n h is e m p lo ym e n t w a s te rm in a ted . In D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 2 , h e f iled a c o m p lain t, w h ich w a s la ter a m e n d e d , ag a in st A R L D ire c to r R a ym o n d H e ttch e ; A R L A ss o c iate D ire c to r o f

M a ter ials a n d M a n u f

a c tu rin g , D r. T h o m a s D o n n e llan ; h is im m e d iate su p e rv iso r, D r. M a u ric e A m a tea u ; an d P e n n S tate . B h a g a t alle g e d th a t th e D e f e n d a n ts vi ol at ed hi s r i ght s underT i t l e V I I of the C i vi l R i ght s A ctof 1964, 42 U . S. C . § 2000e ( “Ti t l e V I I ”) , and the Penns y l vani a H um an R el at i ons A ct , 43 Pa. St at . A nn. t i t . 43, § 955 ( “PH R A ”) , bycr eat i ng a hos t i l e w or k envi r onm entand t erm i nat i ng hi s empl oym ent becau se of h i s nat i on al ori gin or i n ret al i at i on for hi s di scr i m i nati on com plai nts . H e al so c la im e d h is te rm in a tio n w a s a v io la tio n o f h is F ir s t a n d F o u rt e e n th A m e n d m e n t r ig h ts . T h e D e f e n d a n ts f ile d a m o tio n f

o r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t, w h ic h w a s g ra n te d . W e h av e a p p ell ate jurisdicti o n p u rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e e x erc ise p lena ry r evi ew overthe D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or dergr ant i ng the mot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent . See C o o lspring S ton e S u p p ly , Inc . v . A m . S tat es L ife In s. C o . , 1 0 F . 3 d 1 4 4 , 1 4 6 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). W e w ill a f

f irm a g ra n t o f

su m m a ryju d g m e n t if o u r re v iew re v e a ls th a t “th e re isT h e a n aly sis fo r ad jud icati n g a c lai m u n d er the P H R A is i d en ti ca l t o a T it le V II 1 inq u iry . Jo n es v . S ch o o l D ist . O f P h il a., 1 9 8 F . 3 d 4 0 3 , 4 1 0 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). 3 no genui ne i s s ue as t o anym at er i al fac tand thatthe movi ng partyi s ent i t l ed t o a j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . ” Fed. R . C i v. P. 56( c) . “W e r evi ew the fa ct s i n the l i ght m os tfavor abl e t o the partyagai ns tw hom s um m aryj udgm entw as ent er ed. ” C ool s pr i ng, 1 0 F .3 d a t 1 4 6 . N a tio n a l o rig in d isc rim in a tio n c laim s a re a n a ly z e d u n d e r th e f ra m e w o rk se t f

o rth i n M cD onnel l D ougl as C orp. v. G r een, 411 U . S. 792 ( 1973) . A pl ai nt i ff i s fi r s tr equi r ed 1 to s e t f o rt h a p ri m a f

a c ie c a s e o f

d is c ri m in a tio n . G o o s b yv . J o h n s o n & J o h n s o n M e d ., I nc. , 228 F. 3d 313, 318 ( 3d C i r . 2000) . I f a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e i s es t abl i s hed, the def endant c a n p ro v id e a 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 t h e a d v e rs e e m p lo ym e n t a c tio n . See i d. at319. I f the def endantpr offe r s s uch a r eas on, the pl ai nt i ff i s r equi r ed t o s how th a t it w a s a p re te x t f

o r u n la w f

u l d is c ri m in a tio n in o rd e r t o p re v a il. S e e id . H er e, the D efe ndant s as s ert ed thattheyhad a non- di s cr i m i nat oryr eas on forthe a d v e rse e m p lo ym e n t ac tio n , an d th e ysu b m itt e d se v e ra l af f id a v its th a t su p p o rte d th e ir as s ert i on thatB hagat ’ s empl oym entw as t erm i nat ed as a r es ul tof hi s i ns ubor di nat i on and fai l ur e t o r eportt o hi s s upervi s or s . A l though B hagatdi s put ed the D efe ndant s ’ al l egat i ons and s ubm i t t ed hi s ow n aff i davi t , he fa i l ed t o pr ovi de anyevi dence thatw oul d s how that the D efe ndant s ’ expl anat i ons w er e pr et extual . W e agr ee w i th the D i s tr i ctC our tthat B h a g a t f a ile d to s h o w th a t h e c o u ld s a tis f yh is b u rd e n o f

p ro v in g d is c ri m in a tio n . D efen dan t s thu s w ere ent i t l ed to j ud gm ent as a m at t er of l aw on these cl ai m s.4

T h e D istric t C o u rt p ro p e rlyg ra n ted su m m a ryju d g m e n t in f a v o r o f th e D e f e n d a n ts as t o the hos t i l e w or k envi r onm entcl ai m , as w el l ; B hagatfai l ed t o pr ovi de evi dence of pervas i ve and r egul ardi s cr i m i nat i on bas ed on nat i onal or i gi n. See A br amson v. W i l l i am P a ter so n C o lleg e , 2 6 0 F .3 d 2 6 5 , 2 7 6 -7 7 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 1 ). D e f e n d a n ts w e re e n tit led to j udgm entas t o the cl ai m of r et al i at i on beca us e B hagatfai l ed t o s ubm i tevi dence that coul d es t abl i s h a ca us al connec t i on betw een hi s pr i ordi s cr i m i nat i on compl ai nt s and D e f e n d a n ts ’ d e c is io n to te rm in a te h is e m p lo ym e n t. S e e A b ra m s o n , 2 6 0 F .3 d a t 2 8 6 . B hagat ’ s Fi r s tand Four t eenth amendm entcl ai m s l ack mer i tforthe r eas ons s t at ed bythe D is tr ic t C o u rt . A c c o rd in g ly, w e w ill a f f ir m th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D is tr ic t C o u rt .