J-S77031-18

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. 

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

ROHN RENNA

 Appellant

 v.

PPL ELECTRIC UTILITIES, INC.

 Appellee

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 2040 EDA 2018

Appeal from the Order Entered June 12, 2018

in the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County

Civil Division at No(s): C-48-CV-2016-3551 

BEFORE: OTT, J., DUBOW, J. and STRASSBURGER, J.* 

MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED MARCH 22, 2019

Rohn Renna appeals from the June 12, 2018 order entering judgment 

in favor of PPL Electric Utilities, Inc. (PPL). Specifically, Renna challenges 

the grant of PPL’s motion for summary judgment on his age harassment and 

retaliation claims pursuant to the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA), 

43 P.S. §§ 951-963. We affirm the grant of summary judgment on Renna’s 

age harassment claim, reverse the grant of summary judgment on Renna’s 

retaliation claim, and remand for proceedings consistent with this 

memorandum. 

We begin with a summary of the relevant facts in the record. Renna 

began employment with PPL on June 10, 2013. At the time Renna’s

employment with PPL ended in 2015, he was 61 years old. PPL has a 

collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the International Brotherhood of 
J-S77031-18

- 2 -

Electrical Workers Local 1600 (the Union). Pursuant to the CBA, Renna had 

to undergo a six-month probationary period, after which he would become a 

member of the Union beginning on December 10, 2013. Throughout his 

employment, PPL employed Renna as a facilities management worker, and 

Renna worked the second shift cleaning PPL’s facilities along with his coworkers Nicholas Varec, Harry Von Oehsen, Al Rice, and Troy Bundy.1

 

Renna’s Relationship with Varec and Von Oehsen

According to Renna, he initially got along with Varec and Von Oehsen, 

but the relationship soured around October 2013. Renna Deposition at 49, 

52-53. Renna testified that Von Oehsen told him Renna was doing too much 

work and taking overtime away from Varec and Von Oehsen. Id. at 53-54. 

Renna believed this was the first incident that caused relations to 

deteriorate. Id. at 53. 

In his deposition, Renna testified that his direct supervisor, Joseph 

O’Rourke,

2

told him that Varec and Von Oehsen resented Renna because 

they were afraid he would surpass them in the line of job progression. 

 

1 At the time of their depositions in 2017, Rice testified that he was 68 and 

Bundy testified that he was 47. PPL’s Motion for Summary Judgment, 

1/3/2018 (MSJ), at Exhibit 33 (N.T., 11/2/2017 (Rice Deposition), at 6); 

Renna’s Brief in Opposition to MSJ, 3/9/2018 (Opposition Brief), at Exhibit 

14 (numbering supplied) (N.T., 11/2/2017 (Bundy Deposition), at 38). 

Renna never offered evidence of the specific ages of Varec or Von Oehsen, 

and guessed that they were both in their twenties. MSJ at Exhibit 5 (N.T., 

9/7/2017 (Renna Deposition), at 49). 

2 O’Rourke was 37 years old at the time of his 2017 deposition. MSJ at 

Exhibit 9 (N.T., 9/13/2017 (O’Rourke Deposition), at 44).
J-S77031-18

- 3 -

Renna Deposition at 54-57. In Renna’s view, PPL management recognized 

Renna’s “years and years of experience” and “good work ethics [sic]” and 

gave Renna preferable tasks like operating the plow truck while Varec and 

Von Oehsen shoveled snow. Id. Because of this, Varec and Von Oehsen 

“saw [Renna] as a threat, and [Renna] really believe[d] that that’s what 

started everything.” Id. at 54. 

Renna’s November 2013 Complaint Regarding Varec 

On or around November 26, 2013, Renna complained to O’Rourke that 

Varec was sabotaging his work. Id. at 60-67. Specifically, Renna 

complained that Varec frequently harassed him by throwing M&M candies on 

the floor after Renna had cleaned, placing trash and empty boxes on Renna’s 

cart, and wrapping the cord to Renna’s vacuum cleaner around furniture. 

Id. Renna acknowledged to O’Rourke that he had never personally 

witnessed Varec doing these things, but nevertheless strongly believed that 

it was Varec.3 Renna Deposition at 60-67. Renna does not recall whether 

he mentioned anything regarding his age to O’Rourke, and the complaint 

form completed by O’Rourke does not reference anything regarding Varec’s 

conduct being motivated by age.

4

 Renna Deposition at 65, 69; MSJ, Exhibit 

11 (Confidential Complaint Form, 11/26/2013). In fact, Renna 

 

3 O’Rourke questioned Varec about the M&Ms, but Varec denied that it was 

he who threw them on the floor. O’Rourke Deposition at 39.

4 O’Rourke testified that Renna never mentioned a belief that the conduct 

was motivated by his age. O’Rourke Deposition at 97.
J-S77031-18

- 4 -

acknowledged that “[a]t that time, what [he] was being harassed about had 

nothing to do with [age]” and “[t]hey were just trying to get [him] fired” 

before the end of his probationary period because “[he] made them look 

bad.” Renna Deposition at 65.

Renna contends he made other complaints to O’Rourke, including his 

belief that Varec was tampering with his work station, throwing papers on 

the floor in his work area, and spilling coffee in the areas Renna had 

cleaned. Id. at 71-72. Renna did not recall when he specifically 

complained, but claimed he texted O’Rourke almost every day with a 

complaint. He stated, “I complained in texts almost on a daily basis. That’s 

how bad the harassment was. So I don’t remember the days and when and 

how. I talked to him on a daily basis with problems with these people.”5 Id.

at 68. 

PPL’s Response to Renna’s November 2013 Complaint

Following Renna’s late-November complaint to O’Rourke, O’Rourke 

informed Frank Grabowski, the vice president of the Union, that his “union 

brothers” were not getting along. O’Rourke Deposition at 43. On December 

19, 2013, O’Rourke and Grabowski met with another Union member, Renna, 

Renna’s co-worker Bundy, and the alleged perpetrators Varec and Von 

 

5 Neither party attached any text messages to the summary judgment 

pleadings or questioned O’Rourke specifically about the text messages.
J-S77031-18

- 5 -

Oehsen. Renna Deposition at 67, 71. Renna recalled that Grabowski told 

the employees they had to get along. Id. at 71. 

The following day, Renna told O’Rourke someone had thrown trash in 

Renna’s cart, and Renna suspected Varec did it. O’Rourke Deposition at 47; 

Renna Deposition at 68; MSJ at Exhibit 10 (Handwritten Notes of O’Rourke). 

On December 23, 2013, O’Rourke emailed Harry Scouras, a 

representative in PPL’s human resources (HR) department, telling him that 

he had to send Renna home on December 20, 2013, because Renna was 

“very distraught” regarding Varec. MSJ at Exhibit 12 (12/23/2013 Email). 

O’Rourke wrote that “Varec has been harassing [Renna] and doing things to 

his supplies [] ever since we had our meeting with [the Union],” “[he] was 

concerned for [Renna’s] work environment,” and he needed to know how to 

handle the situation. Id. On December 24, 2013, O’Rourke wrote in his 

notes that “[Renna] grows increasingly fed up with [Varec and Von Oehsen] 

not pulling their end of things. He states he feels like he is in a hostile work 

force!” Handwritten Notes of O’Rourke; O’Rourke Deposition at 49-50. On 

December 25, 2013, O’Rourke wrote in his notes that Renna called him to 

tell him that he had “words” with Varec, and Renna wanted “HR 

involvement” and “harassment filed on” Varec and Von Oehsen, but 

O’Rourke’s opinion was that there was “no solid proof.” Handwritten Notes 

of O’Rourke. 
J-S77031-18

- 6 -

Nevertheless, at some point in response to Renna’s escalating 

complaints, O’Rourke re-assigned Varec, Von Oehsen, and Bundy to different 

floors to separate them from Renna. O’Rourke Deposition at 15-16. 

Furthermore, two HR representatives, Scouras and Sara Sorenson, 

conducted an investigation of Renna’s complaints in early February 2014. 

See MSJ at Exhibit 14 (Notes from HR interview of Renna), Exhibit 15 (Notes 

from HR Interview of O’Rourke, Varec, Von Oehsen, Bundy, and Rice), and 

Exhibit 16 (Summary of HR Investigation). 

During Renna’s interview, he told Scouras and Sorensen about several 

“pranks” he attributed to Varec and Renna’s belief that Renna made Varec 

look bad. Renna Deposition at 104-05; Notes from HR Interview of Renna

(stating that “[Renna] feels that he was making [Varec] look bad because 

[Renna] was doing a good job and [Varec wasn’t. Renna] is the new guy 

and seems like he’s the butt of things. [Renna said] ‘I can take some type 

of harassment but not this repeated harassment.’”). 

During their interviews, O’Rourke, Bundy, and Rice told HR that they 

had not personally witnessed Varec performing the acts that Renna was 

alleging, although O’Rourke and Bundy believed it was Varec because he had 

performed a similar act against Von Oehsen by throwing away his cleaning 

supplies. MSJ at Exhibit 16 (HR Report from Investigation of Renna’s 

11/2013 Complaint). They sensed Varec did not like Renna because of 
J-S77031-18

- 7 -

Renna’s strong work ethic. Id. During his interview, Varec denied 

performing the acts. Id. 

During Bundy’s interview, Scouras and Sorensen learned that in 

December 2013, Varec had made a statement about Renna to Bundy. 

Specifically, Bundy reported that Varec told him he was “going to start 

working on [Renna]” and that he would “send someone to [Renna’s] house.” 

MSJ at Exhibit 7 (N.T., 9/13/2017 (Scouras Deposition), at 29); Notes from 

HR Interview of Bundy. Sometime after the HR interviews, Bundy told 

Renna about Varec’s statement. Renna Deposition at 87-89. Renna 

interpreted the statement as a death threat.6 Id. at 217. 

At the conclusion of the HR investigation, PPL determined Varec made 

comments to Bundy, including “I am going to start working on [Renna],” 

“I’m going to send someone to [Renna’s] house,” “[Bundy] and [Renna] 

make a cute couple,” and “[Bundy] forgot his tail (referring to [Renna],” and 

such comments created “a hostile working environment ... in violation of the 

PPL Standards of Integrity....” HR Report from Investigation of Renna’s 

11/2013 Complaint. Accordingly, on March 18, 2014, O’Rourke issued Varec 

a written warning pursuant to PPL’s Responsible Behavior Program. MSJ at

Exhibit 17 (Written Warning to Varec). The warning indicated that his 

behavior would be monitored for 12 months and any additional problems 

 

6 Bundy, on the other hand, interpreted the statement as “locker room talk” 

and testified that he felt Varec was just trying to “fluff himself up.” Bundy 

Deposition at 23.
J-S77031-18

- 8 -

could result in further discipline, up to and including termination of 

employment. Id. Ultimately, Varec resigned from employment at PPL on 

April 24, 2014. MSJ at Exhibit 18 (Varec Resignation Letter).

Renna’s Transfer Requests

In February and March 2014, Renna repeatedly requested a transfer to 

PPL’s facility at the Martin Creek Plant or the Pocono Service Center. Renna 

Deposition at 91-92, 235-46; MSJ at Exhibits 19 (3/13/2014 Email Chain),

20 (3/24/2014 Email Chain). In one of his emails requesting a transfer, 

Renna told Scouras in HR that he did not feel safe in the work environment, 

he believed he was the target of harassment by Varec and Miguel Aponte,7

and that he “should not be forced to work in such a hostile environment.” 

3/13/2014 Email Chain. Scouras told him he has been meeting with 

management to discuss Renna’s “situation” and asked him to “hang in there 

a little bit longer.” Id. Scouras requested that Grabowski, the vice 

president of the Union, inform Renna where the CBA would permit Renna to 

transfer. Scouras Deposition at 24-25. Grabowski told Renna that he could 

not transfer to the locations he requested because it was not in his line of 

progression under the CBA, but provided the names of four locations where 

Renna could transfer. 3/24/2014 Email Chain. Renna declined to transfer to 

 

7 Aponte was not an employee of PPL; he was a security guard who was 

assigned to the facility where Renna worked. Renna Deposition at 135-36. 

Because we hold infra that Renna has waived any claims with respect to 

Aponte, there is no need to describe Renna’s complaints against Aponte. 
J-S77031-18

- 9 -

those locations, citing concerns that he would not be safe there because 

they were closer to Varec’s home.8 Renna Deposition at 91-92, 235-46. 

Renna’s January 2015 Complaint about Von Oehsen

On January 6, 2015, Renna complained to Jeffrey Pizzuto, his direct 

supervisor at the time, that Von Oehsen had tampered with his work 

supplies by pulling out his data cable. MSJ at Exhibit 24 (1/6/2015 Email 

Chain). He acknowledged that he did not know it was Von Oehsen for sure,

but believed it was he because “there is no one who comes in here.” Id. He 

again stated it was a hostile environment, but did not reference anything 

regarding age. Id. The following day, Pizzuto wrote an email to himself 

with notes of a conversation he had with Renna, wherein Renna told him 

that he had hired a lawyer, would not attend a meeting with Pizzuto, Von 

Oehsen, and the Union about his complaints, and instructed Pizzuto to 

contact his lawyer. Opposition Brief at Unnumbered Exhibit (1/7/2015 

Email). 

PPL’s Response to Renna’s January 2015 Complaint

On January 12, 2015, Linda Greenwald, who worked in PPL’s HR

department, interviewed Renna about his complaint. MSJ at Exhibits 26 

(Greenwald Handwritten Interview Notes), 27 (Greenwald Typed Interview 

Notes). Renna told her that he had been harassed for 18 months and 

 

8 Renna testified that he continued to harbor fear of Varec after Varec 

resigned from PPL. Id.
J-S77031-18

- 10 -

management did nothing about it. Id. He maintained that Varec and Von 

Oehsen bullied, harassed, and provoked him, which stemmed from Renna’s 

wanting to do his job and move up in the company, and Renna receiving a 

floor assignment they wanted. Id. 

Renna informed Greenwald that he believed that Von Oehsen

continued to harass him by placing M&Ms on the floor Renna was assigned to 

clean, leaving a sign to not place boxes on a table in Renna’s area despite 

boxes normally being placed there, clogging a burner machine on the second 

floor, and unplugging Renna’s mouse, keyboard, and data cable.

9

 Id. 

Renna also believed that Von Oehsen was stalking him because Von Oehsen

showed up in the same break areas while Renna was on break and kept 

track of Renna’s days off on his calendar. Id. Finally, Renna accused Von 

Oehsen of recording him and taking pictures of him while he was on break. 

Id.; Renna Deposition at 183. Renna does not remember whether he told 

Greenwald that he was being harassed due to his age. Id. at 184. 

Greenwald’s notes do not reference anything regarding age. Greenwald 

Handwritten Interview Notes; Greenwald Typed Interview Notes. 

According to Greenwald’s notes, two days later, Greenwald told Renna 

that Von Oehsen agreed to remain on a separate floor from Renna except for 

using the cafeteria during lunch time, with the goal of decreasing their 

 

9 The latter two incidents occurred around January 5, 2015. Id. The record 

does not reveal the dates of the other incidents.
J-S77031-18

- 11 -

encounters with each other. Id. During the meeting, Renna told Greenwald 

that he was going to snap one day. Id.; Renna Deposition at 181. 

Greenwald responded by telling Renna that he would be responsible for his 

own actions if he chose to take it upon himself to solve the problem, that he 

should use the employee assistance program to help him cope with 

frustrations, and he should call his supervisor or security if he felt a situation 

was getting out of hand. Greenwald Typed Interview Notes.

Renna’s EEOC Charge

On February 5, 2015, Renna filed a charge alleging, inter alia, age 

harassment and retaliation with the Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission (EEOC).10 The charge was dual-filed with the Pennsylvania 

Human Relations Commission (PHRC).

PPL’s Discipline of Renna and Renna’s Cessation of Employment

On March 10, 2015, according to an email Pizzuto sent to himself, 

Renna called him and was upset because he had learned Von Oehsen 

complained to the Union that Renna was harassing him.11 Opposition Brief

at Unnumbered Exhibit (3/10/2015 Email). Renna told Pizzuto “[he] had 

 

10 Ultimately, on July 27, 2017, the EEOC notified Renna that based upon its 

investigation, it was unable to conclude that the information established a 

violation of the statutes the EEOC enforced. Accordingly, it issued Renna a 

right-to-sue letter. 

11 In a February 11, 2015 email, Von Oehsen complained to Pizzuto and 

Grabowski that Renna put up wet floor signs to block his path purposely the 

previous night. Opposition Brief at Unnumbered Exhibit (2/11/2015 Email). 
J-S77031-18

- 12 -

enough of this shit,” “HR is doing nothing about it,” his “blood pressure is 

high,” and he’s “going to beat the shit out of [Von Oehsen].” 3/10/2015 

Email. Further, Renna came to Pizzuto’s office in person to tell him that he 

has been talking to his lawyer, he needed documentation of the times he has 

complained, he was “done with this shit,” he was “going to beat [Von 

Oehsen], and [he doesn’t] care if [he gets] fired.” Id. 

During his deposition, Renna denied that he had told Pizzuto that he 

was going to “beat [Von Oehsen] up.” Renna Deposition at 210. Instead, 

Renna claimed that he was really upset that Von Oehsen was “trying to start 

a fight” after they had not spoken in the last three or four months, and he 

told Pizzuto he was “tired of this shit” and PPL had to do something before 

he “snap[ped].” Id. at 210-16.

On March 12, 2015, Pizzuto issued a notice to Renna that PPL was 

disciplining him for his alleged comments threatening bodily harm to Von 

Oehsen. MSJ at Exhibit 28 (Disciplinary Notice). The notice informed Renna 

that PPL was placing him in the “Responsible Behavior Program at the 

Decision Making Leave level.” Id. PPL required Renna to serve one day on 

“Decision Making Leave” and to remain in the “Responsible Behavior 

Program” for 24 months. Id. It informed him it considered his comments to 

be a threat towards Von Oehsen in direct violation of PPL’s code of conduct, 

and cautioned him that further violations could result in discipline up to and 

including termination of employment. Id. 
J-S77031-18

- 13 -

Upon receiving notice of the discipline from Pizzuto, Renna raised his 

voice, told Pizzuto his discipline was “bullshit,” and left PPL with the escort of

security guards. Renna Deposition at 229-30. Renna believed he was 

treated unfairly as compared to the discipline issued to Varec, and he 

“snapped” and “had to go to the doctor because [his] blood pressure was 

ready to give [him] a heart attack.” Id. at 222-23. He also believed that 

PPL was retaliating against him for filing an EEOC complaint. Id. at 224-25. 

Renna never returned to work after March 12, 2015 and went on a sixmonth short-term disability leave.12

 Id. at 247. He filed an unsuccessful 

grievance pursuant to the CBA regarding the discipline. Id. at 230-32. 

Sometime after Renna left his employment at PPL, PPL terminated the 

employment of Von Oehsen for unrelated reasons.

Renna’s PHRA Complaint

On April 29, 2016, Renna filed a two-count complaint against PPL in 

the Court of Common Pleas of Northhampton County, alleging a hostile 

environment based upon age,13 and retaliation based upon protected 

activity, all in violation of the PHRA. PPL filed an answer, and the case 

proceeded to discovery. 

 

12 Renna’s claim for long-term disability was denied, as was his claim for 

workers’ compensation. Id. at 247-68. He appealed the denial of his 

workers’ compensation claim but settled it while the appeal was pending. Id. 

13 The complaint also alleged a hostile environment based upon race, but 

Renna later withdrew this claim.
J-S77031-18

- 14 -

When asked during his deposition if Varec or Von Oehsen ever made 

comments to him about his age, Renna responded, “[i]t was – it kinda was 

and wasn’t. Oh you’re just too old, or something like that.” Id. at 60. The 

comment occurred when Renna did not understand what the commenter was 

doing regarding a phone, and the commenter said, “[o]h, you’re just too 

old.” Id. at 61. Renna does not “remember exactly who it was” who made 

the comment; he “think[s]” it was Von Oehsen but “[i]t may have been 

[Varec].” Id. Renna does not remember when the comment was made, but 

he thinks he was still on probation. Id. When asked if he ever reported the 

comment to anyone in management at PPL, he responded, “I don’t know. I 

don’t think I did.” Id. Renna wanted to keep a “low profile” during his 

probation and not lose his job. Id. Later, Renna specified that he did not 

think he reported the comment during his probationary period, but he “may 

have” reported it later. Id. at 62. He admitted he does not recall one way 

or another. Id. 

Renna does recall reporting a comment made by Varec and Von 

Oehsen about Rice’s age. Renna told O’Rourke that Varec and Von Oehsen 

said regarding Rice that “the guy is old. He should retire.” Id. at 75. They 

also said Rice was holding them up from advancing. Id. at 77. Renna also 

recalled that Varec and Von Oehsen asked Renna why Renna was working 

because he was “almost at retirement age” and it was “time that [he] retire 

too.” Id. at 76. Renna was less sure about whether he reported the 
J-S77031-18

- 15 -

comment about himself to O’Rourke, stating “I did say one thing to 

[O’Rourke] at least about [Rice]. Maybe it might not have been about me. 

It probably was.” Id. at 75. Renna does not remember when he talked to 

O’Rourke, but estimated that it was right before Varec left employment. Id.

at 76. 

Renna stated that he never discussed the comment with anyone in 

PPL’s HR department. Id. at 77. However, Renna believes PPL was aware 

that he was being subject to age harassment because of his attorney’s letter 

to PPL’s counsel. Id. at 202. He also thinks he “made it very clear to 

[O’Rourke] many times that since [he is] older, [his] work ethics are 

different than these younger guys and they hold that against [him].” Id. at 

99. 

Following the close of discovery, PPL moved for summary judgment on 

both of Renna’s claims. Renna filed a reply, and each party filed briefs 

following oral argument. On June 12, 2018, the trial court granted PPL’s 

motion for summary judgment.

Issues on Appeal and Standard of Review

This timely-filed appeal followed.14 Renna raises two issues15 on 

appeal: whether the trial court erred in holding that PPL was entitled to 

 

14 Renna and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. 

15 Renna also purports to raise a third issue: whether the trial court erred in 

granting summary judgment to PPL on Renna’s disparate treatment claim. 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S77031-18

- 16 -

summary judgment on (1) Renna’s claim that he was subjected to a hostile 

work environment based upon his age and (2) Renna’s claim that he was 

retaliated against for engaging in protected activity. Renna’s Brief at 4.

We consider Renna’s issues mindful of the following.16 

Our standard of review on an appeal from the grant of a motion 

for summary judgment is well-settled. A reviewing court may 

disturb the order of the trial court only where it is established 

that the court committed an error of law or abused its discretion. 

As with all questions of law, our review is plenary.

(Footnote Continued) _______________________

Renna’s Brief at 4. A claim for disparate treatment is a discrimination claim 

focused on adverse employment actions that is distinct from a discrimination 

claim based upon a hostile environment. See, e.g., Ford-Greene v. NHS, 

Inc., 106 F. Supp. 3d 590 (E.D. Pa. 2015). Although Renna occasionally 

uses the term “disparate treatment” in his complaint and his brief, Renna’s 

complaint does not plead a claim for disparate treatment. See Trial Court 

Opinion, 6/12/2018, at 31 (finding the same). Furthermore, Renna makes 

no attempt to argue or analyze the legal standards for a disparate treatment 

claim in his brief. To the extent Renna is attempting to argue in his brief 

that PPL disciplined Renna more harshly than Varec based upon Renna’s 

age, see Renna’s Brief at 28-30, and that treatment constituted disparate 

treatment based upon his age, such a claim is waived for failure to develop 

it. See McEwing v. Lititz Mut. Ins. Co., 77 A.3d 639, 647 (Pa. Super. 

2013) (“Where an appellate brief fails to provide any discussion of a claim 

with citation to relevant authority or fails to develop the issue in any other 

meaningful fashion capable of review, that claim is waived.”). 

 

16 The PHRA’s age discrimination and retaliation protections are substantially 

similar to those in the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). 

Fogleman v. Mercy Hosp., Inc., 283 F.3d 561, 567 (3d Cir. 2002); Fasold 

v. Justice, 409 F.3d 178, 183 (3d Cir. 2005). In general, we analyze PHRA 

claims by using the same standards as analogous federal statutes. Ferraro 

v. Temple Univ., 185 A.3d 396, 402 n.3 (Pa. Super. 2018). Further, we 

may look to federal court decisions to inform our interpretations of the 

PHRA, although such decisions are not binding on our Court. Kroptavich v. 

Pa Power & Light Co., 795 A.2d 1048, 1055 (Pa. Super. 2002). 
J-S77031-18

- 17 -

Krauss v. Trane U.S. Inc., 104 A.3d 556, 562-63 (Pa. Super. 2014) 

(citations omitted).

We view the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and all doubts as to the existence of a genuine 

issue of material fact must be resolved against the moving party. 

Only where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and 

it is clear that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a 

matter of law will summary judgment be entered.

Motions for summary judgment necessarily and directly implicate

the plaintiff’s proof of the elements of [its] cause of action. 

Summary judgment is proper if, after the completion of 

discovery relevant to the motion, including the production of 

expert reports, an adverse party who will bear the burden of 

proof at trial has failed to produce evidence of facts essential to 

the cause of action or defense which in a jury trial would require 

the issues to be submitted to a jury. Thus, a record that 

supports summary judgment will either (1) show the material 

facts are undisputed or (2) contain insufficient evidence of facts 

to make out a prima facie cause of action or defense and, 

therefore, there is no issue to be submitted to the jury. 

H & R Block E. Tax Servs., Inc. v. Zarilla, 69 A.3d 246, 248–49 (Pa. 

Super. 2013) (citations omitted); see also Pa.R.Civ.P. 1035.2. 

Renna’s Hostile Work Environment Claim Based Upon Age

Regarding Renna’s hostile environment claim, the PHRA provides that

[i]t shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice, unless based 

upon a bona fide occupational qualification ... 

(a) For any employer because of the ... age ... of any 

individual ... to otherwise discriminate against such 

individual ... with respect to compensation, hire, 

tenure, terms, conditions or privileges of 

employment ..., if the individual ... is the best able 

and most competent to perform the services 

required.
J-S77031-18

- 18 -

43 P.S. § 955(a). “The term ‘age’ includes any person forty years of age or 

older....” 43 P.S. § 954(h). One form of discrimination is a hostile work 

environment, which is a cognizable claim under the PHRA. Dreshman v. 

Henry Clay Villa, 733 F. Supp. 2d 597, 611 (W.D. Pa. 2010).

To prevail on a hostile work environment claim under the PHRA, a 

plaintiff must show: (1) he suffered intentional discrimination because of his 

age; (2) the harassment was severe or pervasive; (3) the discrimination 

detrimentally affected the plaintiff; (4) the discrimination would 

detrimentally affect a reasonable person in that position; and (5) the 

existence of respondeat superior liability. Hoy v. Angelone, 691 A.2d 476, 

480 (Pa. Super. 1997). 

In the instant case, the trial court ruled in Renna’s favor by 

determining that there was a dispute of material fact regarding the first four

prongs. Trial Court Opinion, 6/12/2018, at 14-17. It is the last prong that 

is at issue in this appeal. “The basis of an employer’s liability for hostile 

environment [age] harassment depends on whether the harasser is the 

victim’s supervisor or merely a coworker.” Huston v. Procter & Gamble 

Paper Products Corp., 568 F.3d 100, 104 (3d Cir. 2009). In the present 

case, Renna does not contend that the employees who performed the 
J-S77031-18

- 19 -

alleged harassing incidents were supervisors; all were merely co-worker 

facilities management workers.

17

As the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has 

explained, 

[w]hen the hostile work environment is created by a victim’s 

non-supervisory coworkers, the employer is not automatically 

liable. Rather, employer liability for co-worker harassment exists 

only if the employer failed to provide a reasonable avenue for 

complaint or, alternatively, if the employer knew or should have 

known of the harassment and failed to take prompt and 

appropriate remedial action. That is, an employer may be 

directly liable for non-supervisory co-worker [age] harassment 

only if the employer was negligent in failing to discover the coworker harassment or in responding to a report of such 

harassment.

 

Huston, 568 F.3d at 104.

Here, Renna does not argue that PPL failed to provide a reasonable 

avenue for complaint. Instead, he contends that PPL knew or should have 

known of harassment through his complaints to his supervisors, O’Rourke 

 

17

 Renna also contends that Aponte, who was not an employee of PPL,

harassed him. We hold that Renna has waived any claims with respect to 

Aponte. Although Renna mentions Aponte a few times in passing in his 

brief, he fails to develop any claims with respect to Aponte. For example, he 

fails to point to any evidence in the record supporting a claim that any 

complaints about Aponte put PPL on notice that Aponte was harassing Renna 

because of his age. He also fails to discuss the standards for holding an 

employer liable for the conduct of non-employees. Thus, Renna’s claim with 

respect to Aponte is waived. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a); see also McEwing, 

77 A.3d at 647. 
J-S77031-18

- 20 -

and Pizzuto, and to Scouras and Greenwald in HR.

18

 Renna’s Brief at 30-36. 

Further, he complains that PPL failed to take prompt and appropriate 

remedial action. Id.

Accordingly, for PPL to be liable under the theory pursued by Renna, 

he needed to establish two things: first, that he had “provided management 

level[-]personnel with enough information to raise a probability of [age] 

harassment in the mind of a reasonable employer.” Huston, 568 F.3d at 

105. Second, he must show that the action was not reasonably calculated to

prevent further harassment. See Knabe v. Boury Corp., 114 F.3d 407, 

412 (3d Cir. 1997) (“The law does not require that investigations into [age] 

harassment complaints be perfect. Rather, to determine whether the 

remedial action was adequate, we must consider whether the action was 

reasonably calculated to prevent further harassment.”). If the remedy 

chosen by the employer is “adequate,” an employee “cannot dictate that the 

employer select a certain remedial action.” Id. at 414. Furthermore, 

punitive action against a harassing employee “is not necessary to insulate 

the employer from liability.” Id. at 414. 

In the instant case, the trial court determined that Renna failed to 

establish that PPL knew or should have known about any age-based 

 

18 “An employer may also have constructive notice of harassment if the 

harassment is so pervasive and open that a reasonable employer would have 

had to be aware of it[.]” Huston, 568 F.3d at 105 (internal citations and 

quotation marks omitted). However, Renna does not argue this theory.
J-S77031-18

- 21 -

harassment. Trial Court Opinion, 6/12/2018, at 18. According to the trial 

court, the record evidence shows that Renna never complained to his 

supervisors or PPL’s HR team that he was being harassed because of age, 

and the complaints that he did make did not raise a probability of age-based 

harassment. Id. at 19. The trial court rejected Renna’s argument that his 

own subjective correlation between work ethic and age was enough to put 

PPL on constructive notice that Renna was being harassed because of his 

age. Id. at 19-20. 

Renna argues that because there was a significant age disparity 

between Renna and his alleged harassers, and because Renna continually 

complained of ongoing conduct that was “despicable,” PPL had enough 

information to place it on constructive notice that age harassment was 

occurring. Renna’s Brief at 17, 20, 25. He also emphasizes Renna’s 

testimony that he complained to O’Rourke regarding an alleged age-based 

comment. Id. at 10. PPL, on the other hand, argues that the conduct 

Renna complained about was facially neutral and “garden-variety immature 

behavior” insufficient to reflect an “age-based animus.” PPL’s Brief at 16. 

The issue of whether PPL had constructive notice of Renna’s age 

harassment is a close call. Anti-discrimination statutes do not prohibit all 

verbal or physical harassment in the workplace, only harassment that 

constitutes discrimination because of specified protected classifications. 

See Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75, 80 
J-S77031-18

- 22 -

(1998). Further, Renna’s complaints often attributed a non-age related 

motive to the alleged harassers’ conduct, namely resentment that Renna 

worked hard, which in turn garnered Renna preferential assignments, 

exposed the other employees’ lackluster work, and stood in the way of other 

employees’ advancement. Renna also was non-specific and hedged on 

whether he ever expressly referred to his age when making his complaints, 

and none of PPL’s documentation of his complaints reflects a reference to 

age. 

Conversely, there is no dispute that there is a large age disparity 

between Renna and the alleged harassers and Renna continually complained 

using terms such as harassment and hostile work environment. While the 

trial court is correct that Renna’s correlation between his work ethic and age 

was subjective, Renna claims that he relayed his subjective correlation to 

O’Rourke when complaining about the harassment. See Deposition of 

Renna at 99-101. In this Commonwealth, “summary judgment may be 

entered only in those cases which are clear and free from doubt.” 

Schweitzer v. Rockwell Int'l., 586 A.2d 383, 386 (Pa. Super. 1990). 

While Renna may not ultimately prevail at trial, at this stage, when viewing 

the record in the light most favorable to Renna as the non-moving party, 

there is still a dispute of material fact as to whether PPL was on notice of 

any alleged age-based harassment of Renna by his co-workers. Therefore, 

we hold the trial court erred in determining otherwise.
J-S77031-18

- 23 -

Next, the trial court held that to the extent that PPL knew about 

harassment generally, Renna produced no evidence to suggest that PPL 

failed to take prompt and remedial action to address the harassment.

Rather, the record indicates that [Renna’s] supervisors 

consistently addressed his complaints and initiated multiple [HR]

investigations in response. In addition, [PPL] formally disciplined 

Varec when necessary, reassigned Varec and Van Oehsen to a 

different floor to separate them from [Renna], and ensured that 

[Renna] was not assigned to Aponte’s area after their argument 

involving the “wet floor” sign. 

Trial Court Opinion, 6/12/2018, at 20. The trial court concluded that these 

actions demonstrated that PPL took steps reasonably calculated to stop the 

harassment, and Renna failed to introduce any evidence to the contrary, 

warranting summary judgment in PPL’s favor on Renna’s hostile work 

environment claim. Id. at 20-21. 

Renna complains that PPL did not act promptly to resolve the 

problems, and PPL’s actions were not reasonably calculated to address the 

harassment. Renna’s Brief at 32-36. Renna argues that even though PPL 

warned Varec and Von Oehsen to stay on their assigned floors in response to 

Renna’s complaints, the fact that incidents continued to occur demonstrates 

that PPL “did nothing to enforce any resolution to the ongoing problem.” Id.

at 32. 

A close look at the record, however, reveals that PPL did take prompt 

action in a manner reasonably calculated to stop any alleged harassment 

each time Renna raised concerns. Renna’s November 2013 complaint
J-S77031-18

- 24 -

accused Varec of misbehavior, but no one saw who engaged in the behavior. 

Thus, it was reasonable for PPL to investigate the complaint more 

thoroughly. PPL reached out to the Union to alert them about the problem

and set up a meeting to discuss workplace relations, albeit inadvertently 

provoking another response from the alleged harasser. However, PPL 

instructed employees to stay on their respective floors and offered Renna 

the opportunity to transfer to four locations in his Union progression line. 

Once PPL learned about Varec’s comments during its investigation, it issued 

Varec a written warning pursuant to PPL’s Responsible Behavior Program. 

Renna does not point to any actions by Varec after PPL issued the written 

warning. Furthermore, Varec resigned thereafter, obviously ending any 

harassment by him. 

The record does not reveal any reports of harassment by Renna 

regarding PPL employees between Varec’s discipline in March 2014 and 

Renna’s complaint regarding Von Oehsen in January 2015. After Renna 

complained in January 2015, PPL once again was faced with a situation 

where no one saw the culprit engage in the alleged acts. It promptly 

instituted an HR investigation, which resulted in PPL’s instructing Von 

Oehsen to avoid Renna’s floor except to go to the cafeteria and PPL’s 

advising Renna of how to complain if he faced further problems. Even if an 

employer does not reprimand an employee, a remedial action may still be 

“adequate as a matter of law [if] it was reasonably calculated to prevent 
J-S77031-18

- 25 -

further harassment.” Knabe, 114 F.3d at 413 (holding that an employer’s 

response was adequate to prevent liability where as a result of two 

meetings, the alleged harasser “was made aware of his responsibilities, and 

Knabe was made aware of her rights in case of future improper conduct”). 

Renna even acknowledged that after PPL spoke to Von Oehsen, several 

months passed without any run-ins between them. Deposition of Renna at 

210-16. Under the facts in this record, we hold that PPL’s actions were 

adequate as a matter of law because they were reasonably calculated to 

prevent further harassment. Accordingly, the trial court did not err by 

holding that Renna cannot establish the respondent superior prong of his 

hostile work environment claim, and thereby granting summary judgment in 

favor of PPL. 

Renna’s Claim of Retaliation Based upon Protected Activity 

We turn now to Renna’s second issue regarding his claim of retaliation. 

The PHRA forbids an employer from “discriminat[ing] in any manner against 

any individual because such individual has opposed any practice forbidden 

by this act, or because such individual has made a charge, testified or 

assisted, in any manner, in any investigation, proceeding or hearing under 

this act.” 43 P.S. § 955(d).

A prima facie case of retaliation [under the PHRA] requires a 

complainant to show that: (i) []he was engaged in a protected 

activity; (ii) [his] employer was aware of the protected activity; 

(iii) subsequent to participation in the protected activity,

complainant was subjected to an adverse employment action; 
J-S77031-18

- 26 -

and (iv) there is a causal connection between participation in the 

protected activity and the adverse employment action.

Ferraro, 185 A.3d at 405. 

To analyze Renna’s claim, we must first determine whether Renna 

engaged in protected activity. “For purposes of the first prong of a prima 

facie case of retaliation, protected opposition activity includes not only an 

employee’s filing of formal charges of discrimination against an employer but 

also informal protests of discriminatory employment practices, including 

making complaints to management.” Daniels v. Sch. Dist. of Phila., 776 

F.3d 181, 193–94 (3d Cir. 2015) (citation and quotation marks omitted). It 

is axiomatic that the protected activity must relate to employment 

discrimination forbidden by the statute. See Connelly v. Lane Const. 

Corp., 809 F.3d 780, 792 n.10 (3d Cir. 2016). A plaintiff in a retaliation 

case “need not prove the merits of the underlying discrimination complaint,” 

but he must have acted in good faith with an objectively reasonable belief 

that the activity he opposed constituted unlawful discrimination under the 

PHRA. Daniels, 776 F.3d at 193–94 (citation and quotation marks omitted).

On appeal, Renna argues the letters sent by his attorney to PPL’s 

counsel constitute protected activity, as well as the filing of the EEOC charge 

on February 15, 2015. Renna’s Brief at 37-38. On October 28, 2014, 

Renna’s counsel sent a letter to a lawyer he believed represented PPL. On 

November 5, 2014, he sent a letter with the same wording to PPL’s in-house 

counsel. The letters did not mention anything about Renna’s belief that he 
J-S77031-18

- 27 -

was being harassed because of his age. MSJ at Exhibit 32 (10/28/2014 & 

11/5/2014 Letters). The letter stated that Varec had threatened Renna’s 

life, and Aponte, who was friends with Varec, was continuing to harass 

Renna while he was at work. PPL’s in-house counsel responded to the initial 

letter on November 4, 2014, and informed Renna’s counsel that Varec had 

resigned from the company seven months prior and Aponte was no longer 

assigned to Renna’s location. Opposition Brief at Unnumbered Exhibit

(11/4/2014 Letter).

While a letter by counsel may constitute protected activity in some 

circumstances, in this matter, the letters complained about treatment of 

Renna in general and do not mention or implicate age harassment. See 

10/28/2014, 11/5/2014 Letters; Barber v. CSX Distribution Servs., 68 

F.3d 694, 702 (3d Cir. 1995) (“A general complaint of unfair treatment does 

not translate into a charge of illegal age discrimination.”). Therefore, the 

letters do not constitute protected activity.19 The filing of his EEOC charge

on February 15, 2015, on the other hand, is “undisputedly a protected 

 

19 The trial court held that Renna’s internal complaints to his supervisors did 

not constitute protected activity since the court had already determined that 

Renna did not complain of age discrimination. Trial Court Opinion, 

6/12/2018, at 26. Although we concluded supra that there is a dispute of 

material fact as to whether Renna complained about age discrimination, this 

holding does not affect Renna’s retaliation claim because Renna does not 

argue in his brief that any of his complaints to management or HR 

constituted protected activity. Therefore, we shall focus solely on the filing 

of his EEOC charge. See Commonwealth v. Knox, 50 A.3d 732, 748 (Pa. 

Super. 2012) (noting this Court is not obliged or equipped to develop an 

argument for a party). 
J-S77031-18

- 28 -

activity.” Trial Court Opinion, 6/12/2018, at 26 (citing Collins v. KimberlyClark Pa., LLC, 247 F. Supp. 3d 571, 598 (E.D. Pa. 2017)).

Thus, we move on to the second prong of the prima facie case, which 

is whether PPL was aware that Renna filed an EEOC charge. Greenwald does 

not recall when she learned about the EEOC charge except that it was after 

she met with Renna in January 2015. MSJ at Exhibit 25 (N.T., 11/25/17 

(Greenwald Deposition), at 19-20). In an affidavit, Pizzuto swore that he did 

not know of the EEOC charge until sometime after March 12, 2015, when he 

disciplined Renna as discussed infra. MSJ at Exhibit 30 (Pizzuto Affidavit, 

1/2/2018, at ¶ 5). However, the record contains a February 25, 2015 email 

from Renna to Pizzuto informing him of the EEOC charge, and Pizzuto 

forwarded the email to Greenwald and someone named Janel Melnick a 

minute after receiving it. Opposition Brief at Unnumbered Exhibit 

(2/25/2015 Email Chain) (stating Renna’s belief that he had been “a victim 

of harassment for two years,” he would have resigned already if it was not 

for his financial and family obligations, his “blood pressure [was] through the 

roof,” he had retained an attorney and filed a charge with the EEOC, and 

Pizzuto should direct all communications to his attorney). Thus, there is a 

dispute of material fact regarding the second prong. 

Next, we must determine whether PPL subjected Renna to an adverse 

employment action subsequent to Renna’s filing of an EEOC charge. To 

establish an adverse employment action, Renna points to PPL’s refusal to 
J-S77031-18

- 29 -

transfer Renna and the March 11, 2016 decision-making leave.20 Renna’s 

Brief at 36-38. Even if the denial of the transfer request could constitute an 

adverse employment action by PPL as opposed to a restriction imposed by 

the Union, the denial of the request occurred prior to Renna’s filing of the 

EEOC charge. Thus, the only relevant adverse action in this case is the 

placement of Renna upon decision-making leave. See Trial Court Opinion, 

6/12/2018, at 26 (determining that Renna’s one-day suspension and 

twenty-four month probation period likely qualifies as a materially adverse 

employment action pursuant to Burlington N. & Santa Fe. Ry. Co. v. 

White, 548 U.S. 53, 73 (2006)). 

The final portion of the analysis is whether there is a causal connection 

between placement of Renna on decision-making leave and Renna’s filing of 

the EEOC charge. 

To establish the requisite causal connection a plaintiff usually 

must prove either (1) an unusually suggestive temporal 

proximity between the protected activity and the allegedly 

retaliatory action, or (2) a pattern of antagonism coupled with 

timing to establish a causal link. In the absence of that proof the 

 

20 Renna also argues that he was subjected to an adverse employment 

action because PPL failed to correct the hostile work environment in 

retaliation for Renna’s filing of the EEOC charge. However, Renna does not 

discuss the legal standards applicable to such a claim, and offers no analysis

of the specific treatment he was subjected to between the filing of the EEOC 

charge and PPL’s discipline of him, whether PPL management knew or should 

have known about any co-worker harassment during that timeframe, and 

whether PPL management failed to take prompt and adequate remedial 

action during that timeframe. See Moore v. City of Phila., 461 F.3d 331, 

350 (3d Cir. 2006). Therefore, he has waived this argument by failure to 

develop it in his brief. See McEwing, 77 A.3d at 647. 
J-S77031-18

- 30 -

plaintiff must show that from the evidence gleaned from the 

record as a whole the trier of the fact should infer causation.

Ferraro, 185 A.3d at 405 (citation omitted).

The trial court determined that because PPL placed Renna on decisionmaking leave more than a month after filing the EEOC charge, the timing 

alone is not unusually suggestive of a causal connection. Trial Court 

Opinion, 6/12/2018, at 28 (citing Rosati v. Colello, 94 F. Supp. 3d 704, 

717 (E.D. Pa. 2015) for the proposition that to be unusually suggestive, the 

adverse action must generally occur within days of the protected conduct, 

not months); see also Ferraro, 185 A.3d at 405 (holding employee did not 

establish causal link between internal age discrimination complaint in 2010 

and firing in 2012, and there was no evidence from the record as a whole 

from which the fact-finder should have inferred causation); Williams v. 

Phila. Hous. Auth. Police Dep’t, 380 F.3d 751, 760 (3d Cir. 2004) (noting 

between two and ten days is unusually suggestive, but two months is not).

Renna argues the trial court should have considered the timeframe 

between Renna’s notice to Pizzuto that he filed an EEOC charge and the 

discipline, which spanned only 15 days.21 Renna’s Brief at 43. Whether this 

timing alone is unusually suggestive or not, we hold that the short time span 

combined with Pizzuto’s denial that he had knowledge of the EEOC charge 

before he disciplined Renna, which is at odds with the email he forwarded to 

 

21 Renna incorrectly calculates the timing between February 25, 2015 and 

March 12, 2015, as 13 days.
J-S77031-18

- 31 -

HR in the record, see 2/25/2015 Email Chain, is enough at the prima facie 

stage to make out a claim for a causal link. 

Since Renna has put forth enough evidence at this stage to create a 

dispute of material fact regarding his prima facie case, 

the burden of production of evidence shifts to the employer to 

present a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for having taken the 

adverse action. If the employer advances such a reason, the 

burden shifts back to the plaintiff to demonstrate that the 

employer’s proffered explanation was false, and that retaliation 

was the real reason for the adverse employment action. 

Although the burden of production of evidence shifts back and 

forth, the plaintiff has the ultimate burden of persuasion at all 

times. 

Daniels, 776 F.3d at 193. 

The trial court held that PPL advanced a legitimate, non-retaliatory 

reason for having taken the adverse action: its claim that it placed Renna on 

decision-making leave because he made potentially threatening comments 

about Von Oehsen to Pizzuto. Trial Court Opinion, 6/12/2018, at 28. 

Although Renna denies that he said he was going to beat up Von Oehsen, he 

did admit that he told Pizzuto that PPL had to do something before he 

snapped. Renna Deposition at 210-16. At this juncture, PPL merely has the 

burden of production, not persuasion, which does not involve a credibility 

assessment. See Kroptavich, 795 A.2d at 1055. Thus, because PPL 

articulated a legitimate business explanation, it successfully rebutted the 

presumption of discriminatory intent created by Renna’s prima facie case. 

See id.
J-S77031-18

- 32 -

Accordingly, the burden of persuasion shifts back to Renna “to 

demonstrate weaknesses, implausibilities, inconsistencies, incoherencies, or 

contradictions from which a reasonable juror could conclude that [PPL’s] 

explanation is unworthy of credence, and hence infer that the employer did 

not act for the asserted non-retaliatory reasons.” Carvalho-Grevious v. 

Delaware State Univ., 851 F.3d 249, 262 (3d Cir. 2017) (citation and 

quotation marks omitted).

The trial court determined that Renna produced no evidence that PPL’s 

reason for his discipline was a post hoc fabrication to conceal its retaliatory 

animus or any direct evidence of retaliatory evidence. Trial Court Opinion, 

6/12/2018, at 30-31. Renna, on the other hand, argues PPL’s reason is a 

pretext because Renna denies telling Pizzuto that he was going to “beat [Von 

Oehsen] up.” Renna Deposition at 210. He further questions the disparity 

between 24 months of probation he received versus the 12 months of 

probation Varec received when threatening Renna.22 Renna also emphasizes 

 

22 Renna heavily relies upon his contention that a PPL officer, Timothy 

Newman, was concerned about the disparity in discipline between Renna and 

Varec. See, e.g., Renna’s Brief at 40 (citing Opposition Brief at 

Unnumbered Exhibit (6/12/2015 3

rd Step Grievance Meeting Notes)). 

However, even when viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Renna 

as the non-movant, the 6/12/2015 3rd Step Grievance Meeting Notes Renna 

cites do not support his claim that an officer of PPL questioned the disparity 

in discipline between Renna and Varec. That document, parts of which are 

illegible, does not establish Newman’s relationship to PPL or the person who 

made the statement; considering that Union representatives were at the 

meeting, without further discovery the document is ambiguous at best as to 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S77031-18

- 33 -

the inconsistencies in the record regarding Pizzuto’s knowledge of his EEOC 

charge. 

Nevertheless, the record is clear that on its face, there was a disparity 

in discipline despite both employees’ allegedly threatening harm to another 

employee. This, combined with the disparity in the record as to when 

Pizzuto became aware that Renna filed an EEOC charge, is enough at this 

stage for us to determine that a reasonable juror could conclude that PPL’s 

explanation is unworthy of credence, and thus infer PPL did not act for the 

asserted non-retaliatory reason. See Carvalho-Grevious, 851 F.3d at 262. 

Our Supreme Court has emphasized “that it is not [a] court’s function upon 

summary judgment to decide issues of fact, but only to decide whether there 

is an issue of fact to be tried.” Fine v. Checcio, 870 A.2d 850, 862 (Pa. 

2005) (citing Pa.R.C.P. 1035.2(1)). Further, the focus on summary 

judgment is not on weight and credibility; instead, it is “whether the 

proffered evidence, if credited by a jury, would be sufficient to prevail at 

trial.” Weaver v. Lancaster Newspapers, Inc., 926 A.2d 899, 906 (Pa. 

2007) (emphasis in original). Accordingly, the trial court erred in granting 

summary judgment to PPL on Renna’s retaliation claim. 

(Footnote Continued) _______________________

who made the alleged statement. See 6/12/2015 3rd Step Grievance 

Meeting Notes.
J-S77031-18

- 34 -

Conclusion

Because PPL’s response to Renna’s complaints were adequate as a 

matter of law, the trial court did not err by holding that Renna cannot 

establish the respondent superior prong of his hostile work environment 

claim. But because there is enough evidence in the record, which, if 

believed, would permit a reasonable juror to conclude that PPL retaliated 

against Renna for filing an EEOC charge, the trial court erred by granting 

summary judgment in favor of PPL.

Order granting PPL’s motion for summary judgment affirmed in part 

and reversed in part. Case remanded. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 3/22/19