2013 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

7-24-2013 

# An gelo R o dr i g ue z v

. N a t ion al R ai lr o a d P a s se n ge r C o
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al
D ock e t N o . 12-3062

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2013

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2013 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" An g e lo R odr i g uez v

. N a t ion al R ai lr o a d P as s e n g e r C o " (2013). 2013 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 506. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2013/506NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 12

- 3062

_____________ ANGELO RODRIGUEZ,

Appellant

v. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION t/b/a AMTRAK,

_____________ On Appeal from the United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Case No. 2

- 11

- cv - 0 0 043) District Judge: Honorable Jan E. DuBois

_____________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

May 6, 201 3

_____________
Befor e: SLOVITER, FUENTES, and ROTH , Circuit Judges

.

(Opinion Filed: July 24, 2013 )

_____________ OPINION OF THE COURT

_____________ FUENTES, Circuit Judge : Angelo R odriguez alleges that National Railroad Passenger Corpor ation t/b/a Amtrak (“Amtrak” ), discrimin ated against him in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (“PHRA”) for failing to2

promote him to a District Mana ger position. Amtrak filed a motion for summary j udgment, which the District Court f o r the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted, finding that Rodriguez failed to make out a prima facie case of racial discrimi nation under Title VII and the PHRA. Rodriguez now appeals. We will affirm the judgment of the District Court. 1
I.
Because we w rite primarily for the parties, we set forth only those facts that are relevant to our conclusion. R odriguez is a Hispanic male who has worked for Amtrak for thi rty

- four years , holding various positions as a ticket and reservatio ns clerk, material handler and lead baggage clerk. In May 2009, Rodriguez applied for the position of Harrisburg District Manager. Applicants were required to have, among other qualifications, station operation experience, the ability to effectively communicate with customers and o rganizations, and demonstrated experience in a supervisory/leadership position. The job posting also stated that it was highly desirable for an applicant to have experience in m echanical operations

. Rodriguez failed to p ossess all of the required qualific ations for the position . After considering Rodriguez’s application and confe rring with a colleague , Amtrak’s Human Resources Mana ger concluded that Rodriguez was not qualified for the Dis trict Manager position. F our other candidates were selected to interv iew

. On January 4, 2011, Rodriguez filed a complaint in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging that Amtrak discriminated against him by failing to promote him

1 We have jurisdiction over this app eal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291

.3

to the position of District Manager, and instead interviewing two Caucasian employees wh o lacked the requisite experience. Rodriguez alleges that this conduct constituted race, color, and national origin discrimination in violation of Title VII and the PHRA. Amtrak filed a motion for summary judgment on March 3, 2012. The District Court foun d that Rodriguez failed to present any evidence from which a reasonable factfinder could infer that the adverse employment action was motivated by discrimination and , therefore , granted s ummary judgment for Amtrak

. II. This C ourt reviews a grant of summar y judgment de novo, applying the same standard as the district court. MBIA Ins. Corp. v. Royal Indem. Co. , 426 F.3d 204, 209 (3d Cir. 2005). Summary judgment is awarded only when “there is no genuine is sue as to any material fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) ; Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sween ey , 689 F.3d 288, 292 (3d Cir. 2012) . All reasonable inferences must be made in favor of the nonmoving party. Sweeney , 689 F.3d at 292. The district court properly addressed Rodriguez’s claim under Title VII and the PHRA using the burden shifting analysis of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green , 411 U.S. 792 (1973) . Under this framework, a plaintiff alleging workplace discrimination bears an initial burden of e stablishing a prima facie case of discrimination. Id. at 802. A plaintiff makes out a prima facie case of discrimination by showing that he/she (1) is a memb er of a protected class; (2) was qua lified for the position; (3) suffered an adverse4

employment act ion; and (4) the adverse employment action was made under circumstances that give rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination. Id. If the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the defendant to provide evidence of a non

- discr iminatory reason for the adverse employment decision. Id. Once this burden is met, the plaintiff is responsible for demonstrating that the defendant’s rationale for the adverse employment decision was a pretext for
discrimination. Jones v. Sch. Dist. of P hila. , 1 98 F.3d 403, 412 (3d Cir. 1999). Rodriguez has failed to make out a prima facie case of discrimination. Amtrak concedes that Rodriguez is a member of a protected class and has suffered an adverse employment decision. We also agree with the Distr ict Court that a reasonable juror could conclude that he was qualified for the District Manager position. However, Rodriguez fails to demonstrate that the adverse employment decision was made under circumstances giving rise to an inference of d iscriminatio n because he cannot
prove Amtrak was motiva ted by discrimination. See Fuentes v. Perskie , 32 F.3d 759 , 765 (3d Cir. 1994) (holding that t he inquiry is whethe r discrimination motivated the employer ).
A plaintiff’s subjective belief that race played a rol e in an employment decision is not sufficient to establish an inference of discriminati on. However, discrimination may be inferred by showing that the employer treat ed a similarly situated employee outside of the plaintiff’s class more favorably

. Jones , 19 8 F.3d a t 410

- 11

. Rodriguez asserts that he can show an inference of discrimination because Amtrak hired a lesser qualified c andidate, or at most one that was similarly qualified . However,5

the record reveals that Am trak hired someone who was more qualifie d. Without proof that a similarly qualified candidate was treated more favorably, Rodriguez is left only with his subjective belief that race played a role in Amtrak’s decision not to promote him. He presents no discriminatory statements by Amtrak or evid ence of discriminatory motivations to support his allegations. Therefore, Rodriguez has failed to establish a prima facie case of discr i mination. Consequently, we conclude that the District Court did not err in granting s ummary judgment for Amtrak

. Even as suming Rodriguez had established a prima facie case of discrimination, Amtrak has offered legitimate, non

discriminatory rea sons for denying his promotion, such as his failure to properly fil l out his application and his weaker qualification s when compared to other candidates

. III. For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.