NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

__________ No. 20

- 1720

__________ SERENE DUDHI, Appellant

v. TEMPLE HEALTH OAKS LUNG CENTER ; TEMPLE UNIVERSITY HEALTH SYSTEM, INC.

__________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D .C. No. 2: 18

- cv - 0 3514 ) District Judge: Hon orable Gene E.K. Pratter

__________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) on November 20 , 2020
Before: JORDAN , KRAUSE, and RESTREPO , Circuit Judges (Filed: Dec ember 1 , 2020 )

__________ OPINION *

__________

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.2 RESTREPO , Circuit Judge

. Serene Dudhi sued her former employer alleging pregnancy - related discrimination claims

. The District Court granted her employer ’ s motion for summary judgment, finding that Dudhi had failed to establish a prima facie case. W e will affirm

. I. B ACKGROUND Dudhi previously worked as a permanent medical assistant at Temple Lung Center (“TLC”) . On Jun e 26, 2017, she was assigned an afternoon shift in the clinic. At the time, Dudhi had recently returned from parental leave after giving birth and was nursing. While on duty that afternoon, she left her work area to express breastmilk. Dudhi did not get
pe rmission to leave or ensure that her patients would be cared for while she was gone. The only other medical assistant on duty that afternoon was A a liyah Hosten, and she too was absent from the clinic while Dudhi was expressing milk. Hosten did not have per mission to leave the work area either. One of the doctors working in the clinic that afternoon notified Dudhi’s supervisor , Beth Knowles, that he could not see patients because there were no medical assistants in the clinic. While attempting to locate Dudh i and Hosten, Knowles noticed medic ation spinning in an unattended centrifuge. She also encountered a patient looking for Dudhi. After failing to locate either medical assistant, Knowles called Dudhi and asked her to return immediately. Three days after th at incident, Dudhi’s employment with TLC was terminated for violating Work Rule D.5 , which states that employees are prohibited from “[l]eaving an assigned work area without permission and without proper relief when responsible for3 patient or client care, or the security of an area or person.” App

. 6. Her employment termination was effective immediately. Hosten , who was a temporary medical assist ant, was also disciplined. She was disqualified from consideration for permanent employment but permitted to complete the remainder of her temporary assignment

. After Hosten completed her temporary assignment, her employment with TLC ended

. In 2018, Dudhi initiated an employment discrimination lawsuit against T LC , alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (“ PHR A ”)

. Specifically, Dudhi alleged that her employer “w[as] hostile to [her] pregnant/nursing c ondition, and [that she was] terminated

. . . because of that animus

. ” App.
183

. 1
TLC moved for summary judgment

. First, t he District Court found that Dudhi failed
to set forth a prima facie case under the framework laid out in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973)

. Second, the C ourt also found , even if she had, TLC proffered a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for its actions and Dudhi failed to rebut that

reason. Accordingly, the District Court granted summary judgment. Dudhi n ow appeals.
II. D ISCUSSION 2
Dudhi’s claims are analyzed under the McDonnell Douglas burden

- shifting framework

. See In re Carnegie Ctr. Assoc. , 129 F.3d 290, 294

– 95 (3d Cir. 1997). Under that

1 Dudhi also alleged race

- based discrimination claims, however, she appeals the District Court’s order only as it relates to her pregnancy

- related discrimination claims. See Appellant Br. at 17

– 18.

2 The District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367(a), and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the D istrict C ourt ’ s grant of summary4 framework , Dudhi bears the burden of presenting evidence sufficien t to support a prima facie case of discrimination

. Doe v. C.A.R.S. Protection Plus, Inc. , 527 F.3d 358, 364 (3d Cir. 2008)

. I f she establishes a prima facie case , the burden of production shifts to TLC to identify a legitimate , nondiscriminatory reason for its adverse employment decision. See Texas Dep ’ t of Cmty. Affs

. v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 252

– 53 (1981). If TLC offers such evidence , the burden shifts back to Dudhi , who must then show that TLC’s nondiscriminatory reason was pretextual. Id. To establish a prima facie case of pregnancy

- related discrimination under Title VII and the PHRA, Dudhi must show that ( 1) “ she is or was pregnant and that her employer knew she was pregnant ,” ( 2) “ she was qualified for her job ,” ( 3) “ she s uffered an adverse employment decision ,” and (4) “ there is some nexus between her pregnancy and her employment termination that would permit a fact

- finder to infer unlawful discrimination .”
C.A.R.S. , 527 F.3d at 366

. Dudhi sought to support her claim s by offering comparator evidence. Dud h i argued that TLC treated Hosten, a similarly situated non

- breastfeeding employee, more favorably by allowing Hosten to finish her temporary assignment after she also violated Work Rule
D.5 . The District Cou rt, however, determined that Dudhi and Hosten were not similarly situated , and because Dudhi offered no other evidence to support an inference of pregnancy - related discrimination, it found that Dudhi failed to set forth a prima facie case. We
agree.
judgmen t de novo and apply the same standard as the D istrict C ourt

. Bletz v. Corrie , 974 F.3d 306, 308 (3d Cir. 2020)

.5 A pl aintiff may not “selectively choose a comparator,” Simpson v. Kay Jewelers , 142 F.3d 639, 645 (3d Cir. 1998), but should identify “ objective qualification[s] or factor[s] that [she] can use as a yardstick to compare herself with similarly situated employee s ,” Ezold v. Wolf, Block, Schorr & Solis

- Cohen , 983 F.2d 509, 529 (3d Cir. 1992). 3 The contextof each case determines which factors are relevant, but where allegations of disparate treatment arise in the disciplinary context, relevant factors often include “the standards that the employees had to meet.” Johnson v. Kroger Co. , 319 F.3d 858, 867 (6th Cir. 2003). In this instance, a s the District Court correctly noted, Hosten and Dudhi wer e not subject to the

same discipline standards. As a permanent employee, the Work R ules mandated that Dudhi’s employment be terminated immediately. That same mandate, however, did not apply to temporary employees like Hosten

. Th is difference distinguishes Dudhi from
Hosten

. S ee id. Thus, the District Court correctly concluded that they were not similarly situated. Because we conclude that the District Cou rt rightly resolved this issue at step one of the McDonnel l Douglas framework, we need not reach the District Court’s pretext finding

. III. C ONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the District Court.

3 While we have not explicitly stated what constitutes a similarly situated employee, other Courts have noted that a comparator must be similar in all relevant respects. E .g. , Johnson v. Kroger Co. , 319 F.3d 858, 867 (6th Cir. 2003).