Court Opinion

ID: 9492709
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 14:47:58.071987+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:55:26.729483
License: Public Domain

STAPLETON, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I join in all of the court’s opinion other than section IV-A. While it is a close question, unlike my colleagues, I conclude that Stanziale has pointed to sufficient evidence of pretext to avoid summary judgment on the ADEA and Title VII claims. Accordingly, I would reverse and remand for further proceedings on those claims, as well as on the Equal Pay Act claim.
My conclusion differs from that of my colleagues primarily for two reasons. First, while I agree that it does not offend the ADEA or Title VII to pay a higher salary to one employee than to another based on qualifications unrelated to their job performance, I regard the fact that an employer purports to have done so as significant circumstantial evidence of pretext. Employers rarely reward employees for qualifications that are going to make no significant contribution to the employer’s mission.
Second, because the applicable law regards pretext as circumstantial evidence that a prohibited motive is behind the employer’s decision, a factfinder’s conclusion of pretext with respect to some of the nondiscriminatory justifications tendered by the employer may legitimately affects its *109decision with respect to other justifications. As we observed in Fuentes v. Perskie, 32 F.3d 759, 764 n7 (3d Cir.1994):
We do not hold that, to avoid summary judgment, the plaintiff must cast doubt on each proffered reason in a vacuum. If the defendant proffers a bagful of legitimate reasons, and the plaintiff manages to east substantial doubt on a fair number of them, the plaintiff may not need to discredit the remainder. That is because the factfinder’s rejection of some of the defendant’s proffered reasons may impede the employer’s credibility seriously enough so that a factfinder may rationally disbelieve the remaining proffered reasons, even if no evidence undermining those remaining rationales in particular is available.