Opinion ID: 775560
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Review of the Record

Text: 12 Before undertaking an analysis of the legal issues presented on this appeal, we will set forth (1) the principal record evidence regarding the nature of Armour's secretarial position, (2) the principal record evidence regarding the reason or reasons for Armour's termination, and (3) the District Court's rationale for granting summary judgment in favor of appellees.
13 None of the parties contends that Armour was a policy-maker in her position as secretary to Schulte. But the parties disagree as to the level of confidentiality, loyalty, and political trust required in the position. There are three Beaver County Commissioners. At the time in question, there were two Democrats--Commissioner Schulte and Commissioner Dan Donatella--and one Republican--Commissioner Nancy Loxley. Joann Clarke was Donatella's secretary and Jo Johnson was Loxley's secretary. 2 According to the testimony of Donatella, although as a formal matter all three commissioners had joint authority over personnel decisions regarding the commissioners' secretaries, it was understood among the commissioners that each commissioner had the power to hire and fire his or her own secretary. The three secretaries shared the same office space and, depending on availability, they would perform routine tasks for any one of the commissioners. Armour testified that she devoted fifty to sixty percent of her time to performing work for the Chief Clerk. Clarke testified that tasks assigned to her by the Chief Clerk filled approximately sixty percent of her working hours. In working for the Chief Clerk and in working for the commissioners, the secretaries spent the bulk of their time performing such clerical tasks as typing correspondence, resolutions and motions; answering phones; greeting and directing visitors to the office; handling paperwork; opening mail; making photocopies; making travel arrangements; scheduling meetings; filing documents; directing checks to the proper departments; and obtaining signatures. Armour also scheduled the board meetings which required the presence of the entire board, made photocopies of all mail received that was relevant to the entire board, and took minutes at public board meetings when Johnson was not available to do so. Additionally, she attended monthly meetings of the Aliquippa Family Preservation Network (AFPN) in Schulte's stead. At these meetings she took notes and voted as Schulte's proxy. In testimony, Armour described her role at those meetings as follows: 14 [I]t was not a real important board, they didn't really deal with a lot of issues other than trying to get themselves established and there were things that would have to be voted on, like paying the bills, this person going to conference or whatever. I didn't sit in on the executive board and have privy to the decision making, but the regular minutes, if it called for a vote, yes. 15 App. at 69 (Armour Dep. at 48). As to Armour's participation in the AFPN meetings, Schulte testified: [A]t the time I didn't realize that she had the power to vote, but I found out later that she was, indeed, voting in my stead. 16 App. at 54 (Schulte Dep. at 21). Armour maintained in her deposition testimony that, although she did not end her own political involvement, she stopped accompanying Schulte to political functions at the close of the 1995 campaign. Also, Armour testified that none of the secretaries was privy to personnel matters or files; the testimony of Clarke and Johnson is not to the contrary. 3 17 In 1996, Armour suggested that a position of office manager for the commissioners be created and that she be appointed to the position. Schulte testified that she proposed this to the other commissioners but that they were not in favor of the idea. App. at 56 (Schulte Dep. at 31)(I'm sure they did not want to have their secretaries subject to my secretary.). In 1997, the commissioners decided to create an executive administrative position directly under the commissioners and on par with the Chief Clerk. In her testimony, Schulte emphasized that the person in the executive administrative position, as that position was envisioned, would have performed strictly executive administrative-type duties and... represent the commissioners. The position was created and funded but never filled because, according to Schulte's testimony, the commissioners could not decide on who should be hired. Moreover, it seems that Armour was not seriously considered for this position because the commissioners had decided that a college degree--which Armour did not have--was a requirement for the job. Schulte testified: 18 Delores' husband called me and wanted to know why we had included a requirement for a college degree for that position, because that eliminated Delores from consideration.... I told him that I included--had included that requirement, because this person would, indeed, be representing the three commissioners, and we felt that was a necessary--all the commissioners had agreed that would be a necessary requirement. 19 App. at 56 (Schulte Dep. at 32). 20 On March 11, 1998, Armour completed a document entitled Class Specification Review & Comment. Directions for completing the form stated, in pertinent part: 21 Please review the attached classification specification to make sure it accurately describes the body of work you perform. Please note that in many cases, it will not identify every task that you specifically perform. When you see the words: May perform other duties, including work in other functional areas this means that within the list of duties you should find the essential duties that you regularly perform. 22 If you believe some essential duties have been omitted, or a part of the specification is inaccurate; please indicate this below. 23 App. at 93 (emphasis in original). 24 Appellant typed the following response on the space provided: 25 Although this job may appear secretarial in nature, a large portion of the duties fall more towards administrative assistant. The high level of confidentiality and responsibility reaches far beyond the desk, often into our personal lives. A broad background in County government is essential for even the entry level of this position. 26 Id. 27 The form was signed by Armour and initialed by Schulte. In deposition testimony, Armour explained this statement by saying: [T]he concept I was trying to get across was what I thought the job should be more so than what the job actually is. Asked whether she viewed her position as a confidential position, Armour testified: I viewed it as a secretary. Of course all secretaries have some confidence to their boss, regardless of their position. App. at 69 (Armour Dep. at 49). Asked if she would describe the position as requiring a high degree of confidentiality, Armour responded, I would say normal. Id. 28 Armour's description of the position in her deposition testimony stands in some tension with the statements of other witnesses. Schulte testified that Armour was privy to confidential material through her access to lists of resolutions and motions from commissioners' meetings, correspondence among commissioners, Schulte's telephone calls, and her personal calendar. Schulte also testified that Armour would often talk to department heads setting up meetings and explaining the purpose of the meeting. That was a very important part of her function. If she didn't understand the purpose of the meeting, then she couldn't explain it, and often the meetings were involving confidential matters. App. at 54 (Schulte Dep. at 21-22). 29 When asked to describe the secretarial position, Donatella testified as follows: 30 The secretary obviously in that capacity works very close with the county commissioner whom she's affiliated with because of the fact that you need a good close relationship. As a matter of fact, I do believe that they were classified as confidential secretaries and not come under the realm of the union, because each commissioner was at liberty to select that particular employee because of the relationship that they needed to maintain. 31 App. at 44 (Donatella Dep. at 6). 32 Donatella also testified, with respect to the duties that his secretary performed: 33 She does everything from answering the telephone for me to doing confidential letters, even sometimes arranging meetings. Doing not only my clerical work, but frankly, operating as my eyes and ears, both political and otherwise. She helps me even on the political end of it, arranging for different political functions and so forth. 34 Id. (Donatella Dep. at 6-7). There may, however, be room for more than one interpretation of Donatella's testimony regarding the nature of the secretarial position. For example, Donatella testified: 35 [B]asically, they do everything that any other confidential secretary would do as far as even running the office side is concerned. They do resolutions, they get signatures, payroll, act as receptionist, they do typing and all the other secretarial skills that's required. 36 Id. 37 Asked to explain what he meant when he said the secretaries do resolutions, Donatella clarified his testimony by stating that the resolutions are prepared by the law department and the secretaries' responsibilities are limited to (a) ensuring that the commissioners sign the completed resolutions and (b) mailing the resolutions to the proper places. 38 When Donatella was asked whether political affiliation was required for a commissioner's secretary, he testified: 39 Well, I don't know if it's a requirement, no; but mainly, it is associated with that because on the campaign trail, usually those people are directly or indirectly involved in the campaign, helping that individual to be elected. But I have seen where sometimes someone is selected that is not involved in the campaign.... It's whomever that commissioner feels comfortable with I think is the bottom line. They have to be capable of doing the job at hand, and it always helps to be politically astute, obviously. 40 Id. at 45 (Donatella Dep. at 9). Amplifying the connection between politics and the secretarial position, Donatella explained: 41 [G]enerally, if a Republican is a commissioner, they are going to hire a Republican secretary and the other way around. I don't know of any case where it was other than that. I do [not] remember a Democrat hiring a Republican or vice versa, at least to my knowledge in the 35 years I was there. They are generally the same party, if that's the question. 42 Id. (Donatella Dep. at 10). 43 The testimony of Johnson, secretary to Commissioner Loxley, reinforces appellees' argument that Armour's position required a significant level of confidentiality: The work that I do for Nancy [Loxley] I would consider to be of a confidential nature, not so much the general work that I do for [the Chief Clerk]... App. at 85 (Johnson Dep. at 36). With respect to her work for Loxley, Johnson testified: [I]t's a political atmosphere here, and Nancy would often times talk to me in confidence about political issues, party issues that I would have to keep to myself and not be able to share with anybody else. Id. However, portions of Johnson's testimony indicate some question as to the substance behind her more general assertions regarding the nature of the job. Asked whether there were any other sources of confidential information beyond the above referenced conversations with Loxley, such as letters or phone calls, Johnson testified: No. Her correspondence that she got in typically, unless it was something political in nature, if it was county related, all three commissioners would get the same correspondence. Id. Additionally, Johnson testified that she had not been questioned about her political affiliation during her interview for the position, that she did not consider herself a political adviser, and that her political affiliation did not play any role in her ability to keep information confidential. Johnson also provided an affidavit in which she stated that Armour used to identify herself as Schulte's confidential secretary when she answered the phone. However, Armour denied having so identified herself. 44 Clarke, Donatella's secretary, testified that my responsibility, of course, is to represent [Donatella] and to keep all confidentiality. App. at 89 (Clarke Dep. at 9). Clarke's testimony brings into focus the seeming ambiguity of the term represent as used by the parties and witnesses. Asked about her participation in active campaigning, Clarke testified that she served as Donatella's campaign treasurer (usually performing these tasks during evening and weekend hours) and would assist Donatella with his campaign at his request: I represent Commissioner Donatella mainly when I am anywhere politically. I'm there basically to assist him, if that's--you know, if I am to represent him at a function or if I am to be there just to be, you know, part of the event. App. at 91 (Clarke Dep. at 34). Additional questions on this topic resulted in the following exchange: 45 Q: Do you consider yourself to be a political advisor to [Donatella]? 46 A: Inform him of happenings or go in his behalf? I don't understand. 47 Q: Do you advise him on policies for the county? 48 A: No. 49 Q: But you occasionally go to functions on his behalf? 50 A: Not for him. Basically, I will go part of. 51 Q: Do you go to tell him what happened at the functions, or what do you mean? 52 A: No, I don't, I go just to represent him, be present, that if -- there may be five or six events going on in one evening, and so he's represented. 53 . . . 54 Q: Okay. Do you give speeches or anything of that nature at those kinds of functions?A: No. 55 Id. (Clarke Dep. at 34-35).
56 We now turn to the evidence in the record regarding the reason for Armour's termination. 57 Armour contends that rumors of her involvement with Joseph Askar's campaign for District Justice in Centre Township motivated Schulte to fire her. It is undisputed that Schulte was aware of such rumors. According to Armour's testimony, in January 1999, while Armour was still employed as Schulte's secretary, Askar, a Democrat, approached Armour with questions about the mechanics of conducting his campaign. Armour contends, and appellees do not dispute, that she merely answered Askar's questions on topics such as how many signs were required to cover a certain voting district. It appears to be undisputed that Schulte was told in early February, 1999 that Armour intended to support Askar instead of Joseph Zupsic, the Democratic candidate supported by Schulte. Donatella testified that he and Schulte were present at a rally when someone told Donatella that I'd better find Bea Schulte because Joe Schaffer, the town chair, was extremely upset because allegedly Dee [Armour] was working for Joe Askar. App. at 47 (Donatella Dep. at 20). Donatella testified further: 58 So I went and found Bea and I said, Bea, there's a problem, I think you better go talk to Mr. Schaffer because he is saying that your employee is working for Joe Askar. So I escorted her over to Mr. Schaffer and Mr. Zupsic, who was the other candidate, and they confronted her with and accused her that Dee [Armour], her employee, was working for Mr. Zupsic's opposition. Bea's comment in my presence was that she would find out about what was going on, she was not aware of that but she would talk to Dee. 59 Id. It is undisputed that on one occasion early in February of 1999, Schulte did question Armour about her involvement in Askar's campaign. Armour testified that Schulte called her into Schulte's office and said: I'm getting flak over you supporting Joe Askar. App. at 70 (Armour Dep. at 53). According to Armour, Schulte asked a number of questions about Armour's involvement with Askar's campaign. For example, Armour testified that Schulte asked her whether she was holding coffee klatches--small grass-roots meetings to introduce a candidate to voters--for Askar, and that in reply she had explained that she was not involved in Askar's campaign but had answered some simple questions. Later that day, Armour approached Schulte and told her that she was upset about being questioned about what she did in her personal time. Some two to three weeks later, on February 26, 1999, Schulte discharged Armour. 60 Despite his acknowledgment that there was concern regarding Armour's possible involvement with Askar's campaign, Donatella testified that he was not under the impression that Armour's termination was related to her perceived support of Askar, nor had he heard rumors that Armour lost her job for that reason. Rather, Donatella testified that he attributed Armour's termination to a deterioration of the relationship between Armour and Schulte that, according to Donatella, had begun approximately six months prior to Armour's termination.
61 With the foregoing synopsis of the record in view, we turn to the District Court's ruling granting summary judgment in favor of Schulte and the County. The District Court made the following assessment of Armour's testimony about the nature of her position: 62 Plaintiff completed [the March 11, 1998] job description [in which she described the position as entailing a high level of confidentiality] before any alleged problems between herself and Schulte. We thus consider her deposition testimony [in which she described the position as entailing a normal level of confidentiality] as contradictory and her unbiased statement regarding her job duties as provided in March 1998 as more significant. See, e.g., Martin v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 851 F.2d 703, 705-06 (3d Cir. 1988)(permissible for district court to disregard subsequent contradictory affidavit for purposes of determining whether there was a material dispute of fact). 63 Mem. Op. at 10. 64 The District Court proceeded to hold that appellees had carried their burden of establishing that political affiliation was properly required for the secretarial position: 65 We find that plaintiff's party affiliation was an appropriate requirement for the effective performance of the job. See [Ness v. Marshall, 660 F.2d 517, 521 (3d Cir. 1981)]; [Brown v. Trench, 787 F.2d 167, 170 (3d Cir. 1986)]; Waskovich v. Morgano, 2 F.3d 1292, 1303 (3d Cir. 1993); Roseman v. County of Cambria, 862 F.Supp. 19, 21 (W.D. Pa. 1993); see also Williams v. City of River Rouge, 909 F.2d 151, 153 n.4 (6th Cir. 1990)(political affiliation is more than party politics, it is about trust, confidence, and sharing a common viewpoint with those to whom authority is delegated). Plaintiff acted as liaison between department heads and Schulte, which required knowledge of confidential matters. She also had access to correspondence containing party issues and confidential material. Commissioner Donatella noted the importance of loyalty and the necessity of a close relationship between the commissioner and secretary. Johnson described the office as a political atmosphere, and Clarke acknowledged that she represents Commissioner Donatella at political events. 66 Plaintiff testified that she responded to constituent calls and handled the matter before involving Schulte. Each time plaintiff responded to a concern of a constituent, she was representing Schulte in a political nature. See, e.g., Brown, 787 F.2d at 170 (while some of [plaintiff's] duties were only technical or clerical in nature, her principal duty was to act as spokesman for the Commissioners). It is likely that Democratic constituents who seek redress from their Democratic commissioner, or simply express concerns of a political nature, expect that the commissioners' secretary shares their political ideology. In other words, Democratic constituents should find comfort in expressing their concerns to the commissioner's secretary, whom the voters felt would express or relay the issues accurately and compassionately to the commissioner. In essence, plaintiff was a conduit between the Democratic constituents and Commissioner Schulte, their elected representative. See Waskovich, 2 F.3d at 1299-1300, quoting Hall v. Ford, 856 F.2d 255, 263 (D.C. Cir. 1988)(high level officials must be permitted to accomplish their organizational objectives through key deputies who are loyal, cooperative, willing to carry out their superior's policies, and perceived by the public as sharing their superiors' aims). 67 Plaintiff attended meetings on behalf of Schulte, voted in her stead, and attended political functions with the Commissioner. Her own job description elevated the position to one of administrative assistant. Based on the evidence of record, we find that an absence of political cohesion would undermine the working relationship between plaintiff and Schulte. Cf. Burns v. County of Cambria, Pennsylvania, 971 F.2d 1015, 1022-23 (3d Cir. 1992). We find that defendants have established that political affiliation is an appropriate job requirement for plaintiff's position. Mem. Op. at 10-12. 4 68 Additionally, the District Court held that Armour did not establish the causation elements of the test set forth in Robertson v. Fiore, 62 F.3d 596, 599 (3d Cir. 1995)(plaintiff must prove that the employee maintained an affiliation with a party and that the employee's political affiliation was a substantial or motivating factor in the adverse employment decision). First, the District Court held that Armour's actual political affiliation with Askar was insufficient to meet the Robertson test because that connection was minor. Mem. Op. at 13. Second, the District Court held that Armour's argument that her  `perceived' political affiliation with Askar's campaign was a substantial or motivating factor in Schulte's decision to terminate her was without merit because Schulte questioned Armour about her involvement with Askar's campaign on only one occasion. Id. Finally, the District Court credited testimony of Donatella and Schulte that indicated that Armour was fired because her relationship with Schulte had deteriorated independently of any tensions that were caused by Armour's perceived connection with Joseph Askar.