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 10-15-2004 

# H aze n v . M o de r n F o o d S e r Inc 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 . 03-4014

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 . vi 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 . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" H a z e n v . M ode r n F ood S e r I nc " (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 225. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/225NOT PRE CEDENT IAL UNITED STA TES COUR T OF APPEA LS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT No: 03-4014 DONNA HAZEN, Appellant
v. MO DERN FOOD SERV ICES, INC., t /a Smuggler’ s Cove, RON ALD SAR AJIAN , Individuall y and as President of Modern Food S ervices, Inc., t/a Smugg ler’s Cove , and M ISTY GE RR ITY , Individually and as a sup ervisor

of Modern Food Services, Inc., t/a Smuggl er’s Cove 

### Appeal from the United States Dist rict Court for the Mid dle District of P ennsylvania (D.C. Civil No. 02-cv- 00090) District Judge: Hon. Jam es M. Munley Submitte d Pursuant to Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

September 23, 2004 Be for e: M cK EE , Circuit Judges , AL DI SE RT and GR EE NB ER G, Senior Circuit J udges .

(Fil ed: October

15, 2004) OPI NION M cK EE , Circuit

Judge Donna Hazen appeals the di stri ct court ’s grant of summary j udgment in favor of defendants , deny ing rel ief on her clai m of retal iati on for complai nts re garding s exual di sc ri min atio n. We wil l a ffirm.1 Ou r rev iew of th e dis trict c our t’s gr ant o f su mm ary jud gm ent is plen ary. Watson v.

Eastman Kodak Co. , 235 F .3d 85 1, 854 (3d C ir. 2000 ). Acc ordin gly, we a re requ ired to app ly the sa me test th at the distr ict co urt sh oul d ha ve u tilized . Boyle v. County of Alleg heny P enns ylvania , 139 F.3 d 38 6, 39 3 (3 d C ir. 19 98) . 2 I. Inasmuch as we are wri ting onl y for the part ies, we need not repeat

the fact ual or proceduralbackground of this l iti gation e xcept i nsofar as may be helpful to our brief discuss ion. 1 To establ ish a prima faciecase of retaliation, Hazen must show: (1) protected employe e acti vity ; (2) adverse ac tion by the employ er eit

her aft er or contemporaneous with the e mployee ’s protected act ivit y; and (3) a causal connec tion between the prot ected activ ity and her em plo yer’s a dve rse a ction . Abramson v. Will iam Patterson Coll ege of New Jersey , 260 F .3d 26 5, 284 (3d C ir. 2001 ); Krouse v. American Steril izer Co. , 126 F.3d 494 , 499 ( 3d C ir. 1997 ); Woodson v. Scott Pape r Co. , 109 F.3d 913 (3d Cir. 1997 ). Once an em ployee est ablishes a prima facie case of retal iation, the employer must pre sen t a leg itima te, no n-re taliato ry reas on f or its adv erse em plo ymen t actio n. Woodson , 109 F.3d at 920 n. 2. This burden i s “rel ative lylight ,” and i s sati sfied i f the employ er arti culat es anylegit

imate reason for t

he adverse e mployment acti on. The employ er need not pro ve th at the artic ulate d re aso n ac tuall y mo tivat ed th e ad ver se e mp loym ent a ction . Id . If the e mployer

tenders a legi timate reason for the employ ment acti on the3

employe e must then c onvince the factfi nder both t hat theemploye r’s pr offered
ex pl an ati on is f als e, a nd th at t he em pl oye r’s ac tio n w as ac tu all y m ot iv ate d b y a retaliatory anim us. Woodson , 109 F.3 d at 9 20 n .2. In order to prevai l on summaryjudgment, the employ er must show that the t rier of fact coul d not concl ude, as a matter of l aw, that retal iator

y ani mus had a determinati ve effe ct on th e outc om e. Th is may be acco mp lished b y establishin g the p laintiff’s inability to raise a genu ine issu e of m aterial fa ct as to a ny elem ent of the pla intiff’s p rima f acie
cas e, or the c red ibility of any p rof fere d ex plan ation for the e mp loym ent a ction . Krouse , 126 F.3 d at 5 01. II. We agree with the distric t court’s conc lusion that H azen ’s con versa tion w ith Torleyregardi ng Saraji an’s al leged st atement about the ci rcumstance s of Hazen’s t ransfer could be const

rued as a compl aint unde r Titl e VII. We have previ ouslyheld that informal complaint s of disc riminat ion that were direc ted at

co-workers r ather t

han management consti tute protect ed acti vity for purpose s of est ablis hing a pri ma facie cas e of ret aliation. Nei derla nde r v . Ame ri canVid eo Gl as s Co , 80 F ed. A ppx . 256, 2 59 (3 d C ir. 2003 ). Title VII prote cts employ ees from ret aliation for the employ ee’s opposi tion to any unl awful
em plo ymen t pra ctice . Id . Here, however, the dis tri ct court concluded that Hazen fail ed to satisfythe second requirement of her prima faciecase becaus e the re cord did not establ ish that her t

ransfer4

from the bar

to the di ning area

consti tuted a

demotion. We agree. It is undi sputed t

hat the rate of pay f

or both areas was $2.83 per hour plus t

ips, and the j ob responsibili ties
we re th e sa me . Ac cor din gly, H aze n’s c laim of r etalia tion fails as a ma tter o f law . III. Hazen’s claim that

summary j udgment is foreclosed by the la w of the case doct rine is frivolous . Under that doctri ne, “once an i ssue has bee n decided, parti es may not reli tigate that

issue i n the same cas e.” Ogbudimkpa v. Ashcroft , 342 F.3d 207 n. 7 (3d Cir. 2003) (citing Wa ldorf v . Shu ta , 142 F.3d 601, 616 n.4 (3d Cir . 1998). The defend ants’ motion for judgm ent on the p leadings an d their motion for sum mary judgment obviously rais ed very different i ssues and required disti nct inquiries . In decidi ng the moti on for judgment on the ple adings, the dis tri ct court determi nes from the plead ings “ if it app ears to a certa inty that no relief co uld b e gran ted un der an y set of fa cts which could be pr oved.” M orse v . Low er M erion S choo l Dist. , 132 F.3d 902, 906 (3d Cir. 1997 ). How ever, wh en decidin g a mo tion for sum mary judgm ent, the district court
rev iew s all d isco ver y and dete rmin es w heth er a g enu ine is sue of m ateri al fa ct ex ists. Farre ll , 205 F .3d at 2 78. T he stan dard used to dec ide the se tw o ver y differe nt mo tions is obviou sly not the same. In dec iding a m otion to dismiss o n the plead ings, the court presumes that the plaintiff will be able to prove the al legations set forth in the pleadings, and then determines i f those al legations establis h a cause of action. Summaryjudgment inv olv es n o su ch p resu mp tion .5

Hazen failed to establ ish a prima faciecase even though her plea ding does state a
caus e of a ction o n its fac e. Th erefo re, the law of the case d octrine simp ly did not a pply to the distri ct court’s summary j udgment analysis. I V . Bas ed on the fo rego ing an alysis, we w ill affirm the de cision o f the d istrict cou rt.