Case Name: Tammy S. MAHRAMAS, an individual Appellant, v. BRISTOL HOTEL MANAGEMENT CORP., a Corporation; d/b/a Holiday Inn Select University Center
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-12-08
Citations: 82 F. App'x 284
Docket Number: No. 03-1029
Parties: Tammy S. MAHRAMAS, an individual Appellant, v. BRISTOL HOTEL MANAGEMENT CORP., a Corporation; d/b/a Holiday Inn Select University Center.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 82
Pages: 284–285

Head Matter:
Tammy S. MAHRAMAS, an individual Appellant, v. BRISTOL HOTEL MANAGEMENT CORP., a Corporation; d/b/a Holiday Inn Select University Center.
No. 03-1029.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) Oct. 23, 2003.
Decided Dec. 8, 2003.
Walter G. Bleil, Goldberg, Kamin & Garvin, Pittsburgh, PA, for Appellant. John M. O’Donnell, Stokes & Murphy, Pittsburgh, PA, for Appellee.
Before ALITO, FUENTES and BECKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
ALITO, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal from a District Court order granting summary judgment for the Bristol Hotel Management Corp. ("the Hotel") in a case alleging employment discrimination and retaliation, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. ("Title VII"), and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, 43 Pa. Stat. § 951 et seq. Immigration and Nationality Act, § 101 et seq., 8 U.S.C.A. § 1101 et seq.("PHRA").
After a thorough analysis of the summary judgment record, the District Court concluded that Ms. Mahramas' claim of discriminatory discharge failed because Ms. Mahramas failed to establish a prima facie case. Specifically, the Court held that Ms. Mahramas failed to establish she was terminated under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination. In addition, the Court concluded that she failed to establish that the Hotel's reasons for dismissing her were pretextual. Although Ms. Mahramas contests these holdings on appeal, we agree with the District Court and therefore affirm the order of the District Court regarding the claim of gender discrimination for essentially the reasons given in the District Court's Opinion and Order.
The District Court likewise rejected the plaintiffs claim of retaliatory discharge, because Ms. Mahramas failed to establish her prima facie case. Specifically, the Court held that Ms. Mahramas failed to establish a causal link between the activities she identified as protected and her termination. We agree with this analysis and therefore affirm this aspect of the District Court's order for essentially the reasons set out in the District Court's Opinion and Order.
We have considered all of the appellant's arguments, but we conclude that the order of the District Court should be affirmed.