2008 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 3-25-2008 

# Ro s sel l v . C oun t y B a nk 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 ocke t N o . 06-2299

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you 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 at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at 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 va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Ros s e l l v . C oun t y B a nk " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1394. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1394Ho no ra

ble J oseph E . I re nas, Senior Un it ed Sate s Dis tr ic t Jud ge fo r the Distri ct of New * J e r s e y , s i tt i ng by

de s i gnat i on. NO T P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TE D S TA TE S C OU RT OF AP PE AL S FO R T HE TH IRD C IRCU IT

___________________________

No. 06- 2299

___________________________ KA TH Y S . RO SS EL L,

v. C O UN T Y B AN K , a Banking Inst it

ution o f the Stat e of D el awar e On Ap peal from

the Unite d S tate s Dis tr ic t Cou rt Fo r the Distri ct

of Delaware Honor abl e Sue L. Robi ns on Ci vi l Ac t i on No. 05- c v- 00195 Subm itte d U nd er

Th ir d C ir cuit

LA R 3 4.1 (a) Fe br uar y 4, 2008 BEFORE Mc KEE, AMBRO, Ci r c ui t Judge s and I RENAS, Se ni or

Di s tr i c t Judge * ( Fi l e d: Mar c h 25, 2008)

_____________________________

OP INI ONWe have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our re view of the District Court’s decision 1 to dismi ss the complaint is plenary . Bee rs-Capital v. W hetzel , 256 F.3d 120, 130 n.6 ( 3d Cir. 2001) 2 ______________________________ Mc Ke e , Ci r c ui t

Judge K ath y R o ssell ap p eals th e d istrict co u rt’s d ism issal o f h er T itle V II claim

ag ain st C o u n ty B an k . F o r

th e r e a s o n s th at

f o l l o w , w e w i l l a f

f i rm. 1 I na s m uc h a s we wr i t e pr i m ar i l y fo r the part i e s wh o ar e fam i l i ar wi th thi s c a s e , we n eedn o t set f

o rth th e f actu al o r h isto rical b ack g ro u n dex cep t in so f ar as m ay b e h elp f u l to o u r b rief d iscu ssio n . Titl e VII of

the Civil Righ ts Act of 1 96 4, 42 U.S.C.S. §2 00 0e et se q ., p ro v id es a re m edy fo r e m ploy ee s who ar e dis char ged b y thei r e m ploy er fo r e ng aging in act ivit

y that is p ro tectedu n d er th e statu te. T o p rev ail o n a claim o f retaliato ry

d isch arg e u n d er T itle VII, Ro ss el l m

ust dem on strate (1) that s he engaged in p rote ct ed ac ti vity , ( 2) that her em ploy er disc harged her, and(3) that the disc harge was i n ret al iati on fo r the protec te d activ ity sh e en g ag edin . Kac hmar v . Sungard Dat

a Sy s . , I nc ., 10 9 F .3d 1 73 , 177 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). Ho wever, a r et al iatory

disc harge cl ai m

m ust be bas ed on re ta li at ion f or an em p lo y ee’s o p p o sitio n to a T itle V II v io latio n . S ee L o w rey v. T

exa s A & M U n iv. S ys. , 11 7 F .3d 2 42 , 249 (5th Cir. 19 97 ). Th er efore, the a ct ions un derl ying the em ploy ee ’s co n du ct m

u st b e activ ity

th at T itle V II w as in ten d edto p ro tect. S ee g en era lly , Slag lev.3

Count yof Clar i on , 435 F.3d26 2 (3dCir. 20 06 ). Ro ss el l’ s c la im is base d upo n all eged disc ri m inat ion against

the bank’s c ustom er s, no t i ts em ploy ee s. Sh e c la im s that s he was fi r e d be c aus e s he oppos e d the bank’ s tr e atm e nt of c e rt a i n Bl a c k c us t om e r s . W he the r or n o t th ere is a g raino f

tru th in h er alleg atio n , it is clear th at C o n g ress n ev er in ten d edT itle V II to b e stretch edto co v er it. Se e Ne l s on v . Ups ala Col le

ge , 51 F .3d 3 83 , 388 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 5 ). T h e d istrict co u rt reco g n izedth at an dco rrectly g ran tedth e B an k ’s m o tio n to dism is s. We will affirm

that order.