Opinion ID: 3155357
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Subsequent Actions by LHU Faculty

Text: Summary judgment was also proper as to Weil’s claims that the LHU faculty took multiple actions—in addressing his grade appeals, requiring him to re-take practical members. 8 examinations before continuing the program, proctoring and grading those examinations, and ultimately dismissing him from the program—to retaliate against him for reporting allegedly unethical conduct at CMA. Weil has offered no direct evidence tending to show that his reporting was a substantial or motivating factor in any of these actions. See Ambrose, 303 F.3d at 493. Instead, to establish causation, Weil relies on precedent holding that causation can be inferred from “(1) an unusually suggestive temporal proximity between the protected activity and the allegedly retaliatory action, or (2) a pattern of antagonism coupled with timing to establish a causal link.” Lauren, 480 F.3d at 267. But even if we were to assume, doubtfully, that the timing was sufficient to establish causation, summary judgment was nevertheless proper.8 The record makes plain that the defendants’ actions were taken to address the consequences of a student’s failure to successfully complete his preceptorship—and to rehabilitate that student’s candidacy for a degree. See id. (“A defendant may defeat the claim of retaliation by showing that it would have taken the same action eve if the plaintiff had not engaged in the protected activity.”). The District Court’s thorough memorandum opinion addresses each of the defendants’ actions, and what the unrebutted evidence shows were the permissible motives underlying them.9 Here, we need only highlight instances in the 8 The District Court concluded that Weil failed to point to direct evidence suggesting causation, and we have similar doubts. Notably, Weil offered no real evidence that the LHU faculty as a whole wished to punish him simply for stating that he had questions about a handful of billing decisions at their colleague’s private medical practice. 9 The District Court’s memorandum addresses Weil’s arguments regarding his interim grade appeals on pages 34-35; the fairness of the physical examination on pages 35-40; 9 record making clear that the defendants were entitled to summary judgment. The summary-judgment evidence was that the faculty required Weil to pass a practical examination before continuing the program because he had been absent from the program for months after he was dismissed from CMA. As the District Court noted, students who had been absent from the PA Program were often required to demonstrate competent examination skills before being allowed to return. Indeed, Weil had been required to pass such an exam after he returned from a medical leave of absence (before he began his rotations). Moreover, nothing in the record contradicts the defendants’ evidence that Weil’s tests were proctored and graded based on their merits. Finally, Weil was denied re-entry into the program because he failed the required practical examination. We have reviewed the record, and we conclude that no further discussion of any of Weil’s remaining arguments is necessary.10 For the reasons given, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court. and Weil’s appeal of his dismissal from LHU on page 40. 10 On appeal, Weil does not argue that the District Court erred in granting summary judgment on his retaliation claims involving the faculty’s decisions to: (1) update his transcript to reflect his failing grade in the preceptorship course; (2) allow Dr. Greenberg’s employees to investigate Weil’s claims of unlawful billing; (3) ignore his requests for his education records; or (4) deny his premature request to graduate. Therefore, any argument Weil could have made with respect to those claims is deemed waived. See e.g. Harvey v. Plains Twp. Police Dep’t., 421 F.3d 185, 192 (3d Cir. 2005). 10