2004 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
5-18-2004 

# W imbu sh v . UP M C H e alth S ys 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 . 03-2389

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work 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_2004

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 2004 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
" W imbush v . UP MC H e alth Sys " (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 696. 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_2004/6961 NOT PRE CEDENT IAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT
No. 03-2389
MARGARET L . WI MBUSH, Appellant v. UPMC HEALTH SYSTEM

____________ APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DIST RICT COURT FO R T HE WE STE RN DIST RIC T O F PE NN SY LV AN IA

(D.C. C iv. No. 02-C V-00 080 ) Distri ct Judge: Honorable GaryL. Lancaste r

____________ Submitte d Under Third Circ uit L. A.R. 34.1( a)

May 11, 2004 Be for e: N YG AA RD , M cK EE and W EIS , Circu it Judges
.

Filed May 18, 2004

____________ OPI NION
W EIS , Circuit

Judge
. This is an acti on for employ ment discr imination in vi olati on of the Age Dis crim inati on i n E mp loym ent A ct, 29 U.S .C. § 621 , et seq ., Title V II of th e Civ il Righ ts Ac t of 1 964 , 42 U .S.C . § 20 00e , et seq. , 42 U .S.C
.2

§ 1981 and the Pennsy lvania Human Relations Act, 43 P.S. § 951 et seq . Plai ntiff contends t

hat she was terminat ed from her employment because of a ge, gender and race based dis crimination. She abandoned the age and gender count s and has l imit ed her clai ms to raci al dis crimination.

Plaintiff i s a 53 year-old African-American woman who w as employed as a
nur se a t the U PM C P resb yterian Ho spita l in P ittsbu rgh fro m 1 991 unt il M arch 1, 20 00. Ho spita l reco rds d ocu me nt six teen una cce ptab le inc iden ts of con duc t du ring this p erio d. M ost o f the se o ccu rren ces we re ac ts of rud ene ss to wa rd p atien ts an d fe llow em plo yees. After inve sti gating patient s’ complai nts that were the subject of the fi fteenth and sixte enth eve nts, th e ho spita l disc har ged plain tiff o n M arch 1, 20 00.

After exhausting admini strative remedies, plaint iff brought

suit in the United States District Court for the West ern District of Pennsy lvania . The court applie d the famil iar burden shifting procedure of McD onnell Dougla s Corp. v. Green , 411 U. S. 792 (1973). If a plainti ff present s a pri ma facie cas e, the defendant must arti culat e a legitima te basis for its ac tion. T he bu rden then s hifts b ack to the pla intiff to dem onstra te that t he d efe nda nt’s e xpl ana tion wa s pre textu al or unw orth y of b elief
.

In this c ase, pla intiff tried to me et her b urde n by sho win g that sim ilarly situated i ndividual s had been treated more fa vorablythan she. She assert s that another nurse, Francois e Barrione uvo, who also had a number of disciplinar

y complaints , was not dischar ged because she was Caucasian and was married to a professor

at theUniversi tyof3

Pitt sburgh School of

Medicine. Moreover, the coupl e all egedlydid much entertaini ng and we re q uite a ctive in fu nd- raisin g fo r the Un iver sity.

The plaintiff’s own testi mony demonstr ates t hat her s ituat

ion and that of nurse Barrioneuvo were no t essential ly s imilar. Based on this, plainti ff failed to establ ish dispar ate treatment . Moreover, the rec ords dis close t hat nurs e Barrione uvo was disci plined f

or her i nfractions, which were not as numer ous as thos e attributed to the plain tiff. We agree with the D istrict Co urt’s co nclus ion tha t plaintiff failed to esta blish disp arate treat me nt as a ba sis fo r pre text.

M oreo ver, w e are in acco rd w ith the c onclu sion th at plain tiff faile d to establ ish the existence of a hostile e nvironment. The remarks of fel low employe es that plaint iff found offens ive arefar diff erent f rom the more aggr avated and pervasive circu ms tanc es th at co urts h ave fou nd t o co nstitu te a h ostile env iron me nt. See gene rally Harris v. Forkli ft Sy s., Inc. , 510 U .S. 17 (1 993 ); Meritor Sav. Bank, FSB v. Vinson , 477 U.S. 57 (1986).

We have carefull y r eviewed the Dis tri ct Court’ s thorough and
com pre hen sive opi nio n ex plain ing the r eas ons for its en try of s um ma ry judg me nt. W e
see n o reas on f or fu rther ela bora tion. T he C ourt p rope rly review ed the applic able la w in detai l. Ess entially

for the reasons st ated i n the Dist rict Court’s opi nion, we wil l affi rm the jud gm ent.