Opinion ID: 3012412
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Greg's Perception Theory of Retaliation

Text: As a final means of showing illegal retaliation under the anti-discrimination statutes, Greg argues that even if he was not engaged in primary protected activity, Mercy perceived him to be so engaged. Greg contends that Mercy fired him with the subjective intent of retaliating against him for engaging in protected activity, thereby violating the anti-retaliation provisions. The District Court disposed of this claim as a matter of law, concluding that the statutory language did not support a perception theory of retaliation. We disagree. Unlike the interpretation of such individual to allow for third party claims advocated by Greg that we rejected in Section II.A, we do not believe that the perception theory contradicts the plain text of the anti-discrimination statutes. Rather, we read the statutes as directly supporting a perception theory of discrimination due to the fact that they make it illegal for an employer to discriminate against any individual because such individual has [engaged in protected activity.] 42 U.S.C. S 12203(a) (emphases added). Discriminat[ion] refers to the practice of making a decision based on a certain criterion, and therefore focuses on the decisionmaker's _________________________________________________________________ ADA in a way that the NLRA's reference to employees does not. We do not take such a view, however, for we believe that the shared language of the two provisions -- the prohibition on an employer coerc[ing] or interfer[ing] with protected activity-- provides the basis for allowing third party claims. This is so because action taken against the third party employee can have the effect of coercing the employee engaging in protected activity, and may also coerce other employees of the company from engaging in protected activity in the future. 15 subjective intent. What follows, the word because, specifies the criterion that the employer is prohibited from using as a basis for decisionmaking. The laws, therefore, focus on the employer's subjective reasons for taking adverse action against an employee, so it matters not whether the reasons behind the employer's discriminatory animus are actually correct as a factual matter. As an illustration by analogy, imagine a Title VII discrimination case in which an employer refuses to hire a prospective employee because he thinks that the applicant is a Muslim. The employer is still discriminating on the basis of religion even if the applicant he refuses to hire is not in fact a Muslim. What is relevant is that the applicant, whether Muslim or not, was treated worse than he otherwise would have been for reasons prohibited by the statute. We have adopted this same approach in the labor law context, where we have consistently held that an employer's discharge of an employee for discriminatory reasons amounts to illegal retaliation even if it is based on the employer's mistaken belief that the employee engaged in protected activity. See Fogarty v. Boles, 121 F.3d 886, 891 (3d Cir. 1997); Brock v. Richardson, 812 F.2d 121, 125 (3d Cir. 1987). Accordingly, we hold that if Greg can show, as he claims, that adverse action was taken against him because Mercy thought that he was assisting his father and thereby engaging in protected activity, it does not matter whether Mercy's perception was factually correct. As evidence of the hospital's perception that he was engaged in protected activity, Greg relies, inter alia, on the circulation of Everhart's memo, Everhart's somewhat colder demeanor toward him after the memo's circulation, Elias's repeated questioning, and, of course, his termination, which he alleges was in violation of the hospital's progressive discipline policy. Because, however, the District Court did not in the first instance address the question of whether this evidence presented a triable issue of fact as to Mercy's perception of Greg having engaged in protected activity, we do not delve into it on appeal. Nor, as noted above, do we address the second and third prongs -- adverse employment action and causation -- of Greg's illegal retaliation claim. Rather, we hold only that the 16 District Court erred in concluding that Greg's perception theory of illegal retaliation was invalid.