Opinion ID: 3155357
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Weil’s Dismissal from CMA

Text: Dr. Greenberg was entitled to summary judgment on this claim because there is no evidence that he knew of Weil’s speech before Weil was dismissed from CMA.4 Dr. Greenberg averred that he was unaware that Weil believed anything unethical was occurring at CMA before he was dismissed from the rotation. “It is only intuitive that for protected conduct to be a substantial or motiv[at]ing factor in a decision, the decisionmakers must be aware of the protected conduct.” Ambrose v. Township of Robinson, Pennsylvania, 303 F.3d 488, 493 (3d Cir. 2002). Weil does not claim that he raised his concerns with Dr. Greenberg. Instead, Weil argues that he was dismissed because he told Leffert about his general concerns5 and speculates that Dr. Greenberg Process Requirements, or LHU’s student code of conduct. We agree. 4 It is undisputed that McGraw made the decision to dismiss Weil from CMA, which Dr. Greenberg supported. We focus our discussion on Dr. Greenberg as McGraw was not named as a defendant. 5 In his deposition, Weil alleged that he met with Leffert to “discuss the [CMA] rotation in general” and “how things were going academically.” Weil testified that he told Leffert, “I have some concerns about my current rotation,” but he did not “get into specifics” because he “want[ed] to make sure that what [he thought was] going on [was] 6 must have learned of this discussion before dismissing Weil. However, Weil points to no evidence refuting Dr. Greenberg’s averment that he had “no knowledge” of Weil’s speech. Without this evidence, Weil cannot survive summary judgment on his retaliation claim based on his dismissal from CMA.6 See id.