Opinion ID: 767001
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The retaliation claims under Title VII, section 1981, and the PHRA

Text: 56 Finally, we address Jones's retaliation claims. The district court granted the school district summary judgment on these retaliation claims, finding that there was absolutely no evidence on the record before us that the [school district's] actions against [Jones] were in retaliation for his filing of EEO complaints. Jones, 19 F. Supp.2d at 421. The district court also concluded that with respect to Jones's allegations of retaliation by Principal Hoban, the record reflects that [Jones] made no EEO filings until after Hoban recommended, and the school district upheld, his recommendation for Jones's administrative transfer. Id. (emphasis added). Finally, the district court found that Jones produce[d] no evidence which could in any way be construed as showing any knowledge on the part of either Principal Gutelius or Principal Torres of [Jones's] previous EEO filings. Id. On this appeal, Jones apparently is attempting to expand his claims by arguing that the retaliation was in part for his opposing racial discrimination. The school district contends that this expansion is improper. 57 After a careful review, we are satisfied that the district court reached the correct result on the retaliation claims. While it is true that the school district took a series of adverse employment actions against Jones, it is clear that it took the actions in response to Jones's ongoing unacceptable conduct rather than because he filed complaints under Title VII or the PHRA or opposed racial discrimination. Consequently, we will affirm on this point without further discussion.