*H onor abl e A
. W al l ace T as hi m a, Seni orJ udge of the U ni t ed St at es C our tof A ppeal s for

the N i nth C i r cui t , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL
U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT
N o. 09- 1944

S H E R R IE V E R N O N , A ppel l ant

v. A& L M OTORS

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D
. C
. N o. 2- 07- cv- 01508 ) D istric t Ju d g e : Jo yF lo w e rs C o n ti

Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

February12, 2010 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , R O T H , and TA SH I M A , C i r cui tJ udges * ( Fi l ed: M ay26, 2010)

____ OP I NI ONT h e D istric t C o u r t h a d ju risd ictio n o v e r V e rn o n ’s T itl e 1 V I I cl aim p u rsua ntt o 28 U
. S. C
. §§ 1331 & 1343( a) and overher PH R A cl ai m p u rsuantt o 28 U
. S. C
. § 1367( a)
. W e have ju ri s d ic tio n p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1
. 2 T A S H IM A , C i r cui tJudge
. Sherr i e V ernon appea l s the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s gr antof A & L M ot or s ’ ( “A & L ”) M ot i on forSum m aryJ udgm enti n heract i on al l egi ng genderdi s cr i m i nat i on i n vi ol at i on
o f T itle V II , 4 2 U .S .C . § 2 0 0 0 e , et s eq. , and the Penns y l vani a H um an R el at i ons A ct (“ P H R A ” ), 4 3 P a . C o n s . S ta t. § 9 5 1 , et s eq. W e a f

f i r m. 1 I. V ernon w or ked as an A ccount s Pay abl e/A ccount s R ece i vabl e cl erk atA & L , an aut om obi l e dea l er s hi p ow ned bySt eve a nd B r i an Lam fr om . A pp. 20, 73- 74, 183, 443, 4 7 6
. S h e w as h ir ed o n A p ri l 30 , 2 0 0 7 , b yK im B eter, A & L ’s fe m ale O ff ice M an ag er,
w ho i s r es pons i bl e fors upervi s i ng the A ccount i ng D epart m ent . A pp. 66- 67, 69, 330, 4 7 8 . V e rn o n ’s p a yw a s $ 1 2 .0 0 a n h o u r, a h ig h e r ra te th a n A & L typ ica llyp a id th o se w ith herpos i t i on, beca us e V ernon r eport ed t o B et erthats he had 16 y ear s of ac count i ng
e x p e ri e n c e . A p p . 6 6 -6 8 , 1 3 9 , 7 8 4 -8 0 0
. A & L al s o has an A ft erSal es D epart m ent , w hi ch R i char d B r ooks m anage s . A pp. 2 2 2 , 7 3 5 . R o n K o s k i, a W a rr a n ty A d m in is tr a to r, i s a n th e e m p lo y e e in th a t d e p a rt m e n t. A p p . 1 1 1 , 7 4 1 -4 2 . B ro o k s h ir e d K o s k i a ro u n d A u g u s t 2 0 0 5 . A p p . 6 9 9 , 7 4 1 -4 2
. B o th B ro o k s a n d B e ter re p o rt d ire c tlyto th e L a m f ro m s, b u t ea c h h a s th e a u th o rityB et erdeni es thatK os ki co m p lai n ed thata w om an w as 2 m aki ng m or e than he w as . A pp. 242. K os ki cl ai m s thathe neve r compl ai ned th at V ernon w as m aki ng m or e than hi m and thathe w as gi ven a r ai s e unexpec t edl y bas ed on m er i t . A pp. 710- 11, 716- 1 7
. Vi e wi n g t h e f

a c t s i n th e l i g h tmo s tf

a v o r a b l e t o Ve rn o n , we as s um e thatK os ki compl ai ned that he w as bei ng pai d l es s than a w om an. 3 t o m ake hi r i ng and fi r i ng deci s i ons w i th r es pectt o the empl oy ees i n thei rr es pect i ve depart m ent s . A pp. 125, 220- 21, 478- 79, 739- 40. O n J une 18, 2007, B et erl earned thatV ernon di s cl os ed herw ages i n fr ontof K os ki , w ho al l egedl ybeca m e ups etbeca us e he w as bei ng pai d l es s than a w om an. A pp. 2 120, 239- 40. St eve Lam fr om confr ont ed B et er , as ki ng her , “W ho i s thi s gi r l ups t ai r s t hat i s caus i ng a pr obl em and goi ng ar ound t al ki ng aboutherw ages ?” and s t at i ng, “G etr i d of her
. ” A pp. 82, 239- 40. B et eri nves t i gat ed the i nci dent , fi r s tas ki ng V ernon w hethers he had di s cl os ed herw ages t o any one. A pp. 126- 27. A ft erV ernon deni ed havi ng done s o, B et erw entt o fi nd St eve Lam fr om , pr es um abl yt o cl earup the mi s under s t andi ng. A pp. 245. O n herw ay , B et err an i nt o B r ooks , w ho confi r m ed thatV ernon had di s cl os ed her
w a g e s to h im in K o sk i’s p re se n c e . A p p . 1 2 6 -2 7 , 2 4 5 -4 6 . B e ter th e n c a lled V e rn o n in to heroffi ce, and V ernon confi r m ed w hatB r ooks s ai d. A pp. 127- 28, 256- 57. B et erthen fi r ed V ernon. A pp. 129, 250- 52. She t ol d V ernon thats he had t o fi r e herbeca us e K os ki compl ai ned thatV ernon m ade mor e moneythan hi m . A pp. 129, 130- 31. V ernon t es t i fi ed
a t h e r d e p o sitio n th a t B e ter a lso to ld h e r sh e h a d to f ire h e r o r e lse S tev e L a m f ro m w o u ld
m ake Bet er ’ s l i fe “ a l i vi ng hel l
. ” A pp. 129. I n V ernon’ s t erm i nat i on paperw or k, B et erV ern o n poi nt s outthatA & L has i dent i fi ed s ever al other 3 r eas ons fort erm i nati n g her , s ugges t i ng thatV ernon’ s w age d isc lo su re w a s p re tex tu a l. A lth o u g h A & L h a s p o in ted to m u lti p le r eas ons forV ernon’ s t erm i nat i on, i thas notabandone d i t s i ni t i al re a so n , n o r h a s it id e n tifie d a n yre a so n s th a t ar e in c o n sis ten t w ith th is in itia l r e a s o n . W e exe r ci s e pl enary r evi ew over the D i s tr i ct C our t ’ s gr ant 4 o f s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. A br am s on v. W il li am P at t ers on C ol l
. of N
. J. , 260 F. 3d 265, 276 ( 3d C i r . 2001)
. I f ther e i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o any m at er i al fac t and the m ovi ng party i s ent i t l ed t o j udgm ent a s a m a t t e r o f l a w, we a f f i r m th e Di s tr i c t C o u r t ’ s ru l i n g . F e d
. R. 4 i ndi cat ed thatV ernon had bee n fi r ed fordi s cl os i ng herw ages contr aryt o company pol i cy . A pp. 259, 271- 72. A l though B et ert es t i fi ed thatV ernon’ s per form ance had bee n

3 d e f icie n t, sh e d id n o t b rin g th e d e f icie n c yu p w ith V e rn o n w h e n sh e f ire d h e r o r in c lu d e it i n the t erm i nat i on paperw or k. A pp. 259, 271. V e rn o n w a s re p lac e d b ya f e m a le. A p p . 1 7 9 -8 0 . K o sk i w a s g iv e n a ra ise tw o to th re e w e e k s a f

te r V e rn o n w a s te rm in a te d . A p p . 7 1 6 -1 7
. V ernon fi l ed a c har ge w i th t he Equal E m pl oym entO ppor tuni tyC om m i s s i on ( “EE O C ”) al l egi ng genderdi s cr i m i nat i on, A pp. 19, and the EE O C i s s ued a N ot i ce of R i ghtt o Sue. V ernon t i m el ys ued i n fede r al court , al l egi ng genderdi s cr i m i nat i on under T itl e V II a n d th e P H R A . A p p . 2 2 -2 3 . A M a g istra te J u d g e iss u e d a R e p o rt & R ecomm endat i on ( “R & R ”) fi ndi ng thatV ernon fai l ed t o m ake outa pr i m a f aci e cas e of genderdi s cr i m i nat i on and thateven i f s he had, V ernon fai l ed t o r ebutA & L ’ s l egi t i m at e,
non- di s cr i m i nat orybus i nes s r eas ons fort erm i nat i ng her
. T he D i s tr i ctC our tadopt ed the M a g i s tr a t e J u d g e ’ s R& R, g r a n t i n g s u mma ryj u d g me n tt o A& L. 4C i v. P. 56( c) ( 2)
. I n our r evi ew , w e m us tvi ew the fa ct s i n the l i ght m o s t f a v o ra b le to V e rn o n , th e n o n -m o v in g p a rt y . See Abram s on , 260 F. 3d at276. A s the D i s tr i ctC our tnot ed, forthe purpos e of de ci di ng an 5 e m p lo y e r’s m o tio n f

o r su m m a ry ju d g m e n t in a n a c tio n u n d e r T itl e V II a n d th e P H R A , the s ta n d a rd s u n d e r th e f e d e ra l an d sta te s ta tu te s a r e th e s a m e . See J ones v. Sch. D is t . of

P hi la. , 198 F. 3d 4 0 3 , 4 0 9 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 9 ). A c c o rd in g ly , o u r d e c isio n w ith re sp e c t to Ve r n o n ’ s Ti t l e VI I c l a i m a p p l i e s a s we l l t o h e rP HRA c l a i m. 5 II. T i t l e V II prohibi t s di scr i m i nati on w i th respectt o “co m pen sat i on , t erm s, condi t i ons , orpr i vi l eges of empl oym entbeca us e of .
. . s ex[. ] ” 42 U
. S. C
. § 2000e2 (a )(1 ). W h e re , as h e re , the re is n o d ire c t ev id e n c e o f g e n d e r d isc rim in a tio n , w e a p p ly 5 the McD onnel lD ouglas b u rd e n -s h if tin g f ra m e w o rk
. See M

cD onnel lD ouglas C or

p. v. G r een , 411 U
. S. 792, 802 ( 1973)
. U nderthi s fr amew or k, V ernon m us tfi r s tes t abl i s h a p rim a fa c ie cas e of ge nderdi s cr i m i nat i on bys how i ng that : ( 1) s he i s a mem berof a pr ot ect ed cl as s ; ( 2) s he i s qual i fi ed forthe pos i t i on i n ques t i on; ( 3) s he s uffe r ed an adver s e empl oym entact i on; and ( 4) ci r cumst ance s exi s tthatgi ve r i s e t o an i nfer ence of
u n la w f u l d is c ri m in a tio n . See Tex as D ep’ tof C m t y. A f f ai rs v. B ur di ne , 450 U
. S. 248, 253 (19 8 1 ); Jones v. Sch. D is t . of P hi la. , 1 9 8 F .3 d 4 0 3 , 4 1 0 -1 1 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 9 ); P i vi r ot t o v. I nnovat i ve Sys . , I

nc. , 1 9 1 F .3 d 3 4 4 , 3 5 7 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 9 ). B e c a u se A & L d o e s n o t d isp u te V e rn o n ’s a b ility to e s ta b lis h th e f ir s t th re e e le m e n ts , w e tu rn to th e f o u rt h e le m e n t. V ernon a rgues that a s i m i l arl ysi tuated i nd i vidual ou t si de o f her prot ect ed clas s engage d i n the s ame conductas s he di d and w as tr eat ed more favor abl y . T he6

i dent i fi cat i on of s uch an i ndi vi dual m aygi ve r i s e t o an i nfer ence of unl aw ful d is c ri m in a tio n . See i d. a t 3 5 8 -5 9 ; B ennun v. R ut gers Stat e U

ni v. , 941 F. 2d 154, 170 ( 3d C ir . 1 9 9 1 ), abr ogat ed on othergr ounds by St
. Mar y’s H onorC tr . v. Hi cks , 509 U
. S. 502, 515- 16 ( 1993)
. “[I ] n det erm i ni ng w hethers i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed mal e empl oy ees w er e tr eat ed
m or e fa vor abl y , our‘ focus i s on the part i cul arcr i t er i a orqual i fi cat i ons i dent i fi ed byt he empl oy eras the r eas on forthe adve r s e ac t i on. ’ ” P ivir o tto , 191 F. 3d at359 ( quot i ng Sim pson v. Kay Jew el ers , 1 4 2 F
. 3 d 6 3 9 , 6 4 7 (3d C ir
. 1 9 9 8 )). T he onl ycompar at orV ernon i dent i fi es i s K os ki
. H ow ever , K os ki per form ed a d if f e re n t jo b th a n V e rn o n , in a d if f e re n t d e p a rt m e n t, f

o r a d if f e re n t s u p e rv is o r. See P ivir o tto , 1 9 1 F .3 d a t 3 5 9 (h o ld in g th a t m a le e m p lo y e e , w h o w a s in -h o u se c o u n se l to empl oy er , w as nots i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed t o pl ai nt i ff, w ho w as di r ect orof r egi onal s al es op erat i on s)
. M o reo v er, un li k e V ern o n , w h o d iscl o sed h er w ag e in f ron t of a c o -w o rke r, K o s k i o n ly d is c lo s e d h is w a g e to h is s u p e rv is o r, n o t a n o th e r c o -w o rk e r. See i d. ( hol di ng th a t m a le e m p lo y e e w a s n o t sim ilarlysitu a ted w h e re p lain tiff w a s f ire d f o r a “ ten d e n c yto bl ame ot her s ” and ther e w as no evi dence thatm al e empl oy ee ha d exhi bi t ed a s i m i l ar te n d e n c y ). A lso u n d erm ining an yinf ere n ce o f u n law fu l discri m ination is th e f ac t th at B eter, th e w o m a n w h o in iti a llyh ire d V e rn o n , w a s re sp o n sib le f o r f irin g h e r. V e rn o n se e k s to attr i but e the adve r s e empl oym entact i on t o ei therSt eve Lam fr om orK os ki
. H ow ever , her att empt t o pai ntB et eras m er el yful fi l l i ng the w i s hes of St eve Lam fr om i s defe at ed byt heW e rej ectV ernon’ s as s ert i on thatonce a defe ndanthas 6 offe r ed a l egi t i m at e r eas on forthe adve r s e empl oym entact i on, the p rim a fa c ie i nqui r ybecomes “i rr el evant . ” The cas es on w hi ch V e rn o n re lies m e re ly h o ld th a t o n c e a p lain tiff h a s s u c c e ss f u lly es t abl i s hed a pr i m a f

aci e cas e and the def

endant h as p roff

er ed a l egi t i m at e, non- di s cr i m ina t orybus i nes s r eas on t o r ebuti t , the anal y s i s pr ocee ds t o the ul t i m at e ques t i on w hether the pl ai nt i ff ha s e s ta b lis h e d d is c ri m in a tio n . See, e. g. , R eeves v . Sanders on P l um bi ng P r ods
. , I

nc. , 530 U
. S. 133, 142- 43 ( 2000) ( hol di ng that

7 e v id e n c e th a t B e ter c o n d u c ted h e r o w n in v e stig a tio n o f th e m a tter a n d w a s p re p a re d to advoca t e on V ernon’ s behal f w hen B et erw as underthe i m pr es s i on thatthe cha r ges of
w a g e d is c lo s u re b yV e rn o n w e re u n f o u n d e d
. V ernon’ s s ugges t i on thatK os ki s om ehow i nfl uence d the dec i s i on- m aker
re sp o n sib le f

o r th e a d v e rse e m p lo ym e n t ac tio n a lso f a ils. A lth o u g h , v iew in g th e f a c ts in the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o V ernon, the i nfer ence can be dr aw n thatK os ki had a ge nder b ias , the re is n o b a sis f

o r a ttribu tin g th a t b ias to B e ter o r th e L a m f ro m s – e sp e c ially beca us e the under l y i ng compl ai ntw as thatV ernon w as bei ng pai d m ore th a n K o sk i. I n s um , V ernon has notes t abl i s hed anycaus al nexus betw een he rm ember s hi p i n a p ro te c te d c la s s a n d th e d e c is io n to te rm in a te h e r. See Sar ul l o v. U
. S. P os talSer v. , 352 F. 3d 789, 798 ( 3d C i r . 2003)
. A ccor di ngl y , V ernon has fai l ed t o m ake outa p rim a fa c ie
c a s e o f g e n d e r d is c ri m in a tio n . B eca us e w e conc l ude thatV ernon has fai l ed t o m ake outa p rim a fa c ie c a s e , we need notr eac h t he i s s ue w hetherV ernon es t abl i s hed thatA & L ’ s pr offe r ed r eas ons for ter m in a tin g h e r w e re p re tex tu a l. 6once the pl ai nt i ff e s t abl i s hes a p rim a fa c ie cas e of di s cr i m i nat i on a n d th e d e f

e n d a n tme e t s i t s b u r d e n o f p r o d u c t i o n t o s h o w a l egi t i m at e, nondi s cr i m i nat oryr eason fori t s deci s i on, “the McD onnel lD ouglas fr amew or k – w i th i t s p resumpt i ons and bu rdens – di sappea r[s ] and the sol e rem ai ning i ssue [ i s] di s cr i m i nat ion vel

non . ” ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons and quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) )
. T hat a defenda nt can meeti t s bur den of pr oduct i on does notexcus e a pl ai nt i ff’ s fai l ur e t o m ake a p rim a fa c ie cas e. 8 

### III. For the above
- s t at e d r e a s ons , the judgm e nt of the Di s tri c t

Court wi l lbe a ffi rm e d.