Opinion ID: 738512
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: introduction

Text: 25 Section 704(a) of Title VII forbids an employer from discriminating against an employee because he has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this subchapter, or because he has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation ... under this subchapter. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a). It is similarly unlawful under § 5(d) of the PHRA for an employer to discriminate in any manner against any individual because such individual has opposed any practice forbidden by this act, or because such individual has made a charge ... under this act. 43 Pa.S. § 955(d). 26 The allocation of the burden of proof for both the federal and state retaliation claims follows the familiar Title VII standards. Griffiths v. CIGNA Corp., 988 F.2d 457, 468 (3d Cir.1993); Waddell v. Small Tube Products, Inc., 799 F.2d 69, 73 (3d Cir.1986). These standards will vary depending on whether the suit is characterized as a pretext suit or a mixed motives suit. For Woodson's retaliation claim, which has proceeded under a pretext theory, the standards have been laid out in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973), Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981), and St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 113 S.Ct. 2742, 125 L.Ed.2d 407 (1993). 27 The plaintiff first must establish a prima facie case of retaliation: he must show that (1) he was engaged in protected activity; (2) he was discharged subsequent to or contemporaneously with such activity; and (3) there is a causal link between the protected activity and the discharge. Quiroga v. Hasbro, Inc., 934 F.2d 497, 501 (3d Cir.1991); Jalil v. Avdel Corp., 873 F.2d 701, 708 (3d Cir.1989). 2 The issue here concerns whether Woodson has presented sufficient evidence from which a jury could reasonably find a prima facie case of retaliation. 28 Scott concedes that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to satisfy two of the three components of the prima facie case: Woodson engaged in protected activity--the filing of race discrimination charges with the EEOC and the PHRC--and he was discharged after he engaged in that activity. Scott contends, however, that the record is devoid of evidence from which a reasonable jury could find the requisite causal link between the protected activity and his eventual discharge. 29 Our cases have established that temporal proximity between the protected activity and the termination is sufficient to establish a causal link. See, e.g., Jalil, 873 F.2d at 708. We have also held that the mere passage of time is not legally conclusive proof against retaliation. Robinson v. SEPTA, 982 F.2d 892, 894 (3d Cir.1993); see also Kachmar v. SunGard Data Systems, Inc., 109 F.3d 173 (3d Cir.1997); Aman v. Cort Furniture Rental Corp., 85 F.3d 1074, 1085 (3d Cir.1996). In the Robinson case, almost two years passed between the protected activity and Robinson's discharge. However, the district court found that SEPTA had subjected Robinson to a pattern of harassment during that time period. We therefore held that there was sufficient evidence supporting a causal link: The temporal proximity noted in other cases is missing here and we might be hard pressed to uphold the trial judge's finding were it not for the intervening pattern of antagonism that SEPTA demonstrated. Robinson, 982 F.2d at 895; see also id. (The court could reasonably find that the initial series of events thus caused Robinson's and SEPTA's relationship to deteriorate, and set a pattern of behavior that SEPTA followed in retaliating against Robinson's later efforts at opposing the Title VII violations he perceived.). Thus, a plaintiff can establish a link between his or her protected behavior and subsequent discharge if the employer engaged in a pattern of antagonism in the intervening period. 3 30 Scott correctly points out that the protected activity Woodson engaged in--filing complaints with the PHRC and EEOC in November 1989 and February 1990--is temporally remote from Woodson's termination in January 1992. Thus, the argument continues, Woodson can prevail only if a reasonable jury could find that Scott engaged in a pattern of antagonism in the period between his administrative complaints and his firing. Scott contends that, even viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Woodson, the evidence does not support a finding of a pattern of antagonistic behavior against Woodson that would allow Woodson to prevail on the causal link prong. Rather, according to Scott, the evidence points only to the conclusion that Woodson was terminated in a company-wide cost reduction program nearly two years after he filed his discrimination complaints and after Scott had already promoted him to the position he sought when he filed those complaints. Under such circumstances, Scott submits, no reasonable jury could find a causal link between Woodson's discrimination complaints and his discharge. 31 Woodson, in response, contends that the evidence is clearly sufficient to support a finding by a reasonable jury that between February 1990, when he filed the second of his administrative complaints, and his termination in 1992, Scott engaged in a pattern of retaliation against him. This pattern is said to include Scott's setting Woodson up to fail by hiring him as a product system leader in the poorly performing napkin division and then refusing to provide him with adequate resources; Scott's failure to respond appropriately to racist graffiti in its plant; and Scott's termination of Woodson pursuant to a sham ranking process performed by individuals who were not familiar with his employment record, but only with his charges of discrimination. 32 For the reasons that follow, we agree with Woodson that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to him, the district court did not err in finding the evidence sufficient to support a causal link between Woodson's administrative complaints and his discharge. While each piece of evidence alone is not sufficient to support an inference of a pattern of antagonistic behavior, taken together the evidence is sufficient. Thus, while we will discuss each piece of evidence, and Scott's objections to them, in turn, we must determine whether the evidence is sufficient based on the whole picture. Cf. Andrews v. City of Philadelphia, 895 F.2d 1469, 1484 (3d Cir.1990) (A play cannot be understood on the basis of some of its scenes but only on its entire performance, and similarly, a discrimination analysis must concentrate not on individual incidents, but on the overall scenario.). We also keep in mind, recognizing that much of the record is comprised of trial testimony, that the jury had the unique opportunity to judge the credibility and demeanor of the witnesses who testified at the trial, and that it reached its conclusions based in part on those observations. Quiroga, 934 F.2d at 502.