Opinion ID: 618494
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Claims under Title VII and the PHRA

Text: The District Court properly granted summary judgment on Bartos’s Title VII and PHRA claims because Bartos has not presented a prima facie case on any of her three alleged theories: gender discrimination, hostile work environment, or retaliation. To establish a prima facie case of gender discrimination, the plaintiff must show that: (1) [she] belongs to a protected class; (2) [she] was qualified for the position; (3) [she] was subject to an adverse employment action despite being qualified; and (4) under circumstances that raise an inference of 5 discriminatory action, the employer continued to seek out individuals with qualifications similar to [hers] to fill the position. Sarullo v. USPS, 352 F.3d 789, 797 (3d Cir. 2003). The District Court correctly found that Bartos failed to present evidence raising an inference of discriminatory action. Most of the evidence Bartos presents carries no inference of gender discrimination, as it does not suggest that discriminatory intent (rather than some other factor) motivated the adverse employment actions taken against her. Bartos’s evidence that could support an inference of discrimination is insufficient because it consists of general and conclusory allegations of gender based preferential treatment and gender based antagonism. See Lujan, 497 U.S. at 888–89. For these reasons, the District Court properly granted summary judgment on the gender discrimination claim. The District Court also properly granted summary judgment on Bartos’s hostile work environment claim. This claim is founded on actions taken by David Mont both prior to MHM’s contract at SCI Frackville and during his tenure as MHM’s Program Director. Claims based on Mont’s actions are time barred under both Title VII and the PHRA. In order to file a suit under the PHRA, a plaintiff must file a claim with the PHRC within 180 days of the alleged act. Woodson v. Scott Paper Co., 109 F.3d 913, 925 (3d Cir. 1997) (“If a plaintiff fails to file a timely complaint with the PHRC, then he or she is precluded from judicial remedies under the PHRA.”). To file a suit under Title VII, 6 a plaintiff must file a charge with the EEOC within 300 days1 of the complained of action or the suit is time-barred. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 109–10 (2002). David Mont resigned from MHM in March of 2006. A suit based on any actions taken by Mont prior to his resignation was time-barred under the PHRC as of September 2006 (at the latest) and under the EEOC as of January 2007 (at the latest). Though the dates of Bartos’s administrative filings are not readily apparent from the record, the parties’ briefs, or the District Court’s Orders, they do not appear to have fallen within the statutory time limits. Under 29 C.F.R. § 1601.28(a)(1) (2006), the EEOC “shall promptly issue such notice [of right to sue] to all parties, at any time after the expiration of one hundred eighty (180) days from the date of the filing of the charge . . . .” Upon receipt of the right to sue notice, the plaintiff then has ninety days to bring a suit. § 1601.28(e)(1). If Bartos filed her suit on May 29, 2009, the earliest she could have filed her charge under the regulatory time limits would be September 1, 2008. Even accounting for some tardiness by the EEOC in releasing the right to sue notice, Bartos’s administrative claim was over eighteen months too late to preserve any claims against Mont. Nor does Bartos’s claim against MHM for wrongful termination preserve any claims against Mont. Under the timing requirements of Title VII, “discrete acts that fall 1 “In a State that has an entity with the authority to grant or seek relief with respect to the alleged unlawful practice, an employee who initially files a grievance with that agency must file the charge with the EEOC within 300 days of the employment practice; in all other States, the charge must be filed within 180 days.” Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 536 U.S. at 109. Because Pennsylvania has the PHRC to hear discrimination claims, the later deadline is applicable. 7 within the statutory time period do not make timely acts that fall outside the time period.” Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 536 U.S. at 112; see also id. at 111 (“We have repeatedly interpreted the term ‘practice’ to apply to a discrete act or single ‘occurrence,’ even when it has a connection to other acts.”). For these reasons, the District Court properly granted summary judgment on the hostile work environment claim. To establish a prima facie case for retaliation, “a plaintiff must show: (1) protected employee activity; (2) adverse action by the employer either after or contemporaneous with the employee’s protected activity; and (3) a causal connection between the employee’s protected activity and the employer’s adverse action.” Shellenberger v. Summit Bancorp, Inc., 318 F.3d 183, 187 (3d Cir. 2003) (quoting Krouse v. Am. Sterilizer Co., 126 F.3d 494, 500 (3d Cir. 1997)). Causation can be shown through temporal proximity between the protected activity and the adverse employment action; an intervening pattern of antagonism; or the evidence taken as a whole. See Farrell v. Planters Lifesavers Co., 206 F.3d 271, 280–81 (3d Cir. 2000); Kachmar v. SunGard Data Sys., Inc., 109 F.3d 173, 177 (3d Cir. 1997). Bartos did not present sufficient evidence to support a causal connection between her protected activity and the adverse employment action on any of these three theories. Bartos’s termination occurred five months after her deposition in the Prezlomski case and fourteen months after her deposition in the Bates case; neither period of time is unduly suggestive of a causal connection. See Williams v. Phila. Hous. Auth. Police Dep’t, 380 F.3d 751, 760 (3d Cir. 2004) (holding two months between protected activity and adverse employment action not unduly suggestive). 8 Though Bartos was subject to several disciplinary actions in the period between her first deposition testimony and her termination, these actions do not amount to a pattern of antagonism as they were neither consistent and continuous during the intervening period nor does Bartos offer any basis for linking the disciplinary actions to her deposition testimony. Cf. Robinson v. Se. Pa. Transp. Auth., 982 F.2d 892, 895 (3d Cir. 1993) (finding a pattern of antagonism where plaintiff was subject to a “constant barrage of written and verbal warnings . . . , inaccurate point totalings, and disciplinary action, all of which occurred soon after plaintiff’s initial complaints and continued until his discharge.” (ellipses in original) (internal quotation marks omitted)). For the same reasons, even when the evidence is taken as a whole, there is no basis for drawing a causal connection between Bartos’s protected activity and her termination. In short, the connection between the protected activity (Bartos’s depositions) and the adverse employment action (her discipline and eventual termination) was so attenuated and remote in time that no causal connection can be inferred.2 For these reasons, the District Court properly granted summary judgment on the retaliation claim. 2 Though we do not reach the question of whether MHM’s stated reasons for terminating Bartos were pretextual because we find that no prima facie case has been presented, see McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802–04 (1973), we note that evidence merely suggesting an adverse employment decision is wrong or mistaken is insufficient to support a claim of retaliation. Fuentes v. Perskie, 32 F.3d 759, 765 (3d Cir. 1994) (“To discredit the employer’s proffered reason, however, the plaintiff cannot simply show that the employer’s decision was wrong or mistaken, since the factual dispute at issue is whether discriminatory animus motivated the employer, not whether the employer is wise, shrewd, prudent, or competent.”). 9