Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/98/61/520651/
Timestamp: 2019-03-22 06:22:05
Document Index: 661421532

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1291', '§ 12112', '§ 12111', '§ 12112', '§ 12112', '§ 12111', '§ 1630', '§ 621', '§ 623', '§ 626']

Albert L. Lawrence v. National Westminster Bank New Jersey,albert Lawrence, Appellant, 98 F.3d 61 (3d Cir. 1996) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Third Circuit › 1996 › Albert L. Lawrence v. National Westminster Bank New Jersey,albert Lawrence, Appellant
Albert L. Lawrence v. National Westminster Bank New Jersey,albert Lawrence, Appellant, 98 F.3d 61 (3d Cir. 1996)
US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit - 98 F.3d 61 (3d Cir. 1996)
Argued June 5, 1996. Decided Oct. 15, 1996
We have jurisdiction over the final order of the district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. "When we review a grant of summary judgment, we apply the same test as the district court should have applied initially." Sempier v. Johnson & Higgins, 45 F.3d 724, 727 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S. Ct. 2611, 132 L. Ed. 2d 854 (1995). A court may grant summary judgment when "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). "When the nonmoving party bears the burden of persuasion at trial, the moving party may meet its burden on summary judgment by showing that the nonmoving party's evidence is insufficient to carry its burden of persuasion at trial." See Brewer v. Quaker State Oil Refining Corp., 72 F.3d 326, 329 (3d Cir. 1995); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 2552-53, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986). A nonmoving party creates a genuine issue of material fact when it provides evidence "such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986). "In reviewing the record, the court must give the nonmoving party the benefit of all reasonable inferences." Brewer, 72 F.3d at 330.
Age discrimination claims under the ADEA and LAD are governed by the same standards and allocation of burdens of proof. See Retter v. Georgia Gulf Corp., 755 F. Supp. 637, 638 (D.N.J. 1991), aff'd, 975 F.2d 1551 (3d Cir. 1992); see also Waldron v. SL Industries, Inc., 56 F.3d 491, 503-04 (3d Cir. 1995). Lawrence's age discrimination claims are grounded not on direct evidence but on pretext. We have adopted the McDonnell Douglas burden shifting analysis for age discrimination cases brought under a pretext theory. See Sempier, 45 F.3d at 728; Chipollini v. Spencer Gifts, Inc., 814 F.2d 893, 897 (3d Cir.), cert. dismissed, 483 U.S. 1052, 108 S. Ct. 26, 97 L. Ed. 2d 815 (1987). Under the McDonnell Douglas framework, a plaintiff must first present a prima facie case by establishing that (1) he is over 40 years old, (2) he is qualified for the position in question, (3) he suffered from an adverse employment decision, and (4) his replacement was sufficiently younger to permit a reasonable inference of age discrimination. Sempier, 45 F.3d at 728; Chipollini, 814 F.2d at 897.3 Once a plaintiff has satisfied the prima facie standard, the burden shifts to defendant to articulate a "legitimate nondiscriminatory" reason for the adverse employment decision. Should the defendant successfully carry its burden, the plaintiff then "has the opportunity to demonstrate that the employer's stated reasons were not its true reasons but were a pretext for discrimination." Sempier, 45 F.3d at 728. At this stage, the plaintiff may defeat a summary judgment motion either: (1) by discrediting the proffered reasons for termination, directly or circumstantially, or (2) by adducing evidence that discrimination was more likely than not a motivating or determinative cause of the adverse action. Sempier, 45 F.3d at 731; see also Fuentes v. Perskie, 32 F.3d 759, 764 (3d Cir. 1994) ("We hold that, to ... [defeat a motion for summary judgment], the plaintiff generally must submit evidence which: l) casts sufficient doubt upon each of the legitimate reasons proffered by the defendant so that a factfinder could reasonably conclude that each reason was a fabrication; or 2) allows the factfinder to infer that discrimination was more likely than not a motivating or determinative cause of the adverse employment action").4
The ADA proscribes "discrimination against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability of such individual in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment." 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). The term "qualified individual with a disability" means a person who, with or without "reasonable accommodation," can perform the essential functions of the employment position that person holds or seeks. 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8). In addition, under the Act, an employer must make "reasonable accommodations" to the "known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability who is an applicant or employee." 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b) (3). New Jersey's Law Against Discrimination also prohibits unlawful discrimination because of a person's "handicap" in employment. See N.J.S.A. 10:5-4.1 and 10:5-29.1.
Turning to Lawrence's allegation that National Westminster Bank violated the ADA by firing him because of his disability, we rely on a pretextual analysis structurally similar to the one used for his age discrimination claim. See McNemar v. Disney Store, Inc., 91 F.3d 610, 619 (3d Cir. 1996) (in ADA cases, courts apply the Title VII burden-shifting rules); Newman v. GHS Osteopathic, Inc., 60 F.3d 153, 157 (3d Cir. 1995) (explaining the methods and manner of proof applicable in other discrimination contexts, such as those involving Title VII and the ADEA, also apply in an action brought under the ADA).7 Unlike Lawrence's age discrimination claims, in this instance, the district court found Lawrence had failed to make out a prima facie case.8 The court granted summary judgment against Lawrence because he had not introduced sufficient evidence to suggest a causal connection between his disability and his termination.
The district court erred when it required Lawrence to proffer evidence of a causal relationship to establish his prima facie case. Under the McDonnell Douglas framework the elements necessary for a prima facie case may vary depending on the factual situation. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 n. 13, 93 S. Ct. 1817, 1824 n. 13, 36 L. Ed. 2d 668 (1973). But to establish a prima facie case for discriminatory employment termination, the plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) he belongs to a protected class; (2) he was qualified for the position; (3) he was dismissed despite being qualified; and (4) he was ultimately replaced by a person sufficiently outside the protected class to create an inference of discrimination. See Sempier, 45 F.3d at 728 (ADEA termination case); Chipollini, 814 F.2d at 897 (same).9 As with cases brought under Title VII and ADEA, it is permissible in an ADA case for a plaintiff to prove discriminatory intent on the part of an employer through the McDonnell Douglas framework.
Lawrence also challenges the district court's ruling barring his ADA claim for "failure to accommodate" because he never requested an accommodation. Under the ADA, an employer is required to make "reasonable accommodations to the known physical limitations ... of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability who is an ... employee, unless such [employer] can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the business...." 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b) (5) (A). Relying on the Interpretive Guide of Title I of the ADA, the court noted an employer is not expected to accommodate disabilities of which it is unaware. See 42 U.S.C. § 12111(9); 29 C.F.R. app. § 1630.9 (1996) ("In general ... it is the responsibility of the individual with a disability to inform the employer that an accommodation is needed. When the need for an accommodation is not obvious, an employer, before providing a reasonable accommodation, may require that the individual with a disability provide documentation of the need for accommodation.") (EEOC regulations relating to "reasonable accommodation"). The court observed "plaintiff stated unequivocally ... he never asked his employer for any type of accommodation" for his physical condition. Lawrence contends an employer's knowledge of the disability is itself enough, and he cites to testimony indicating that National Westminster Bank employees were aware of his condition.
Whether or not a request by a plaintiff for accommodation is required to make an ADA claim is immaterial here,11 since Lawrence has not alleged or explained what actual accommodations were lacking. We agree with the district court that Lawrence advanced no Rule 56 evidence depicting how National Westminster Bank failed to accommodate him as required by the Act. Under Celotex, "the moving party is [entitled to summary judgment] because the nonmoving party has failed to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of [his] case with respect to which [he] has the burden of proof." Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S. Ct. at 2552. Moreover, all of the submitted Rule 56 evidence indicates that National Westminster Bank accommodated Lawrence whenever an accommodation was required.12 Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Lawrence, we conclude the district court properly granted summary judgment against him regarding his ADA "accommodation" claim.
We have previously found that "in adjudicating cases brought under the ADA and NJLAD, courts apply the burden-shifting framework applicable to cases brought under Title VII...." McNemar, 91 F.3d at 619; see Marzano v. Computer Science Corp. Inc., 91 F.3d 497, 502 (3d Cir. 1996). Therefore, the ADA and LAD claims are governed by the same standards. See, e.g., Ensslin v. Township of North Bergen, 275 N.J.Super. 352, 646 A.2d 452, 458-59 (App.Div.1994) (noting New Jersey Supreme Court's suggestion of a correlation between state and federal law on handicap discrimination), certif. denied, 142 N.J. 446, 663 A.2d 1354 (1995); Clowes v. Terminix Int'l, Inc., 109 N.J. 575, 538 A.2d 794, 805 (1988) (holding once a prima facie case under LAD has been established, the methodology employed by the United States Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S. Ct. 1817, 36 L. Ed. 2d 668 (1973), is followed); Andersen v. Exxon Co., U.S.A., 89 N.J. 483, 446 A.2d 486 n. 3 (1982).
Of course, should a jury find Lawrence was not fired for cause, it could consider whether Lawrence was entitled to severance benefits upon his termination. Under New Jersey law " [t]he key consideration in determining whether an employment manual gives rise to contractual obligations is the reasonable expectation of the employees." Witkowski, 643 A.2d at 550. As we have noted, National Westminster Bank's employment manual set out a schedule for severance benefits based on the employee's position and duration of employment. In the past, severance benefits were paid to terminated employees but not to employees discharged for cause. In the event it is determined Lawrence was not fired for cause, the jury should determine whether there was a reasonable expectation of receiving severance benefits. See Nicosia v. Wakefern Food Corp., 136 N.J. 401, 643 A.2d 554, 562 (1994) (" 'disputes of fact as to the contract status of an employee under a manual are properly submitted to the jury' ") (quoting lower court with approval).
N.J.S.A. 34:19-1. New Jersey's Law Against Discrimination makes it unlawful " [f]or any person to take reprisals against any person because he has opposed any practices or acts forbidden [under the Act] ... or because he has filed a complaint, testified or assisted in any proceeding [under the Act]." N.J.S.A. 10:5-12(d). To establish a prima facie case for retaliation under LAD a plaintiff must show: (1) he engaged in a protected activity; (2) he was discharged subsequent to or contemporaneous with such activity; and (3) a causal link exists between the protected activity and the discharge. Romano v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 284 N.J.Super. 543, 665 A.2d 1139, 1142 (App.Div.1995); cf. Jalil v. Avdel Corp., 873 F.2d 701, 708 (3d Cir. 1989) (setting out same elements for retaliation under federal law), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1023, 110 S. Ct. 725, 107 L. Ed. 2d 745 (1990). Lawrence contends he has established a prima facie case, and that National Westminster Bank has failed to offer a non-retaliatory reason for the adverse action. See Romano, 665 A.2d at 1142 (once plaintiff establishes prima facie elements of retaliation, the defendant must articulate a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for the decision). National Westminster Bank argues Lawrence has not set out a prima facie case of retaliation. It contends Lawrence's deposition responses show there was no causal link between his refusal to sign the agreement and his subsequent termination and denial of benefits.
Lawrence also asserts National Westminster Bank's request that he sign a purportedly illegal termination agreement constituted a violation of the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act ("OWBPA"), a part of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. The OWBPA makes it unlawful to "discharge ... or otherwise discriminate against any individual" with respect to employment terms or conditions "because of such individual's age." 29 U.S.C § 623(a) (1).15 In relevant part, OWBPA amended the ADEA, "specifically limiting the manner in which an employee may waive the protections afforded under [the ADEA]." Oberg v. Allied Van Lines, Inc., 11 F.3d 679, 682 (7th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1108, 114 S. Ct. 2104, 128 L. Ed. 2d 665 (1994); see 29 U.S.C. § 626(f); see generally John R. Runyun, Hedging Betts: The Older Workers Benefit Protection Act, 72 Mich.B.J. 168 (1993) (explaining the features of OWBPA).
In the pretext case, the plaintiff must establish the prima facie elements by a preponderance of the evidence, Sempier, 45 F.3d at 728, through use of either direct or circumstantial evidence. See Fuentes v. Perskie, 32 F.3d 759, 764 (3d Cir. 1994)
"Under the ADEA, the ultimate burden remains with the plaintiff to prove that age was a determinative factor in the defendant employer's decision." Chipollini, 814 F.2d at 897. Therefore, at trial Lawrence must convince the fact finder that unlawful discrimination served as a determinative cause for his termination. The McDonnell Douglas framework provides plaintiff with another evidentiary mechanism to establish an employer's discriminatory intent (cases where direct evidence of discriminatory intent is lacking). See Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253, 101 S. Ct. 1089, 1093, 67 L. Ed. 2d 207 (1981) ("The McDonnell Douglas division of intermediate evidentiary burdens serves to bring the litigants and the court expeditiously and fairly to this ultimate question")
Other Courts of Appeals have used the McDonnell Douglas analysis in ADA cases. See, e.g., Katz v. City Metal Co., Inc., 87 F.3d 26, 30 n. 2 (1st Cir. 1996) ("A plaintiff may indirectly prove that he was discriminated against because of a disability by using the prima facie case and burden shifting methods that originated in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green ...") (emphasis in original); Monette v. Electronic Data Systems Corp., 90 F.3d 1173, 1184-85 (6th Cir. 1996) ("In cases in which the plaintiff has no direct evidence of [disability] discrimination and the employer disclaims reliance on the plaintiff's disability, the plaintiff may attempt to establish his or her claim indirectly through the burden shifting method borrowed from McDonnell Douglas ...") (emphasis in original); DeLuca v. Winer Industries, Inc., 53 F.3d 793, 797 (7th Cir. 1995) ("We have borrowed the McDonnell-Douglas test for ADEA cases, (citations omitted), and assume that we should also analyze ADA cases under that framework")
National Westminster Bank contends that Lawrence has the obligation to request an "accommodation" from the bank before bringing his ADA claim for failure to accommodate. See Taylor v. Principal Financial Group, Inc., 93 F.3d 155, 165 (5th Cir. 1996) ("It is the employee's initial request for an accommodation which triggers the employer's obligation to participate in the interactive process of [fashioning a reasonable accommodation]. If the employee fails to request an accommodation, the employer cannot be held liable for failing to provide one"). We need not reach this issue here