Court Opinion

ID: 9926405
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-24 18:00:41.370452+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:45.679086
License: Public Domain

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                                 ____________

                                       No. 22-3432
                                       ___________

                                  STEFAN GLADDEN,
                                           Appellant

                                             v.

     AMBLER HEALTHCARE GROUP, LLC, doing business as Ambler Extended
               Care Center; SABER HEALTHCARE GROUP
                              ____________

                     On Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
                                 (D.C. No. 2-21-cv-04483)
                      District Judge: Honorable Gerald A. McHugh
                                      ____________

                      Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
                                  January 18, 2024

              Before: HARDIMAN, MATEY, and PHIPPS, Circuit Judges.

                                 (Filed: January 24, 2024)

                                      ____________

                                        OPINION*
                                      ____________

*
 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge.

       Stefan Gladden appeals the District Court’s summary judgment for his former

employer, Ambler Healthcare Group, LLC, on his claims of retaliation and hostile work

environment. We will affirm, essentially for the reasons stated by the District Court in its

careful and persuasive opinion.

                                              I

       Gladden worked for Ambler as a dietary aide from August 2019 until he was

terminated on January 4, 2021, after failing to complete several job responsibilities

during his shift the night before. Gladden admits he left his shift early and asked one of

his co-workers to finish his work. Gladden had previously received verbal and written

discipline related to his attendance, job performance, and interactions with co-workers.

Each time, Gladden was warned that he faced further disciplinary action—up to

termination of his employment—if he continued to violate Ambler’s policies.

       Despite these repeated violations, Gladden claims he was terminated only after he

complained about a fellow dietary aide calling him a “monkey.” He testified that this co-

worker did so three times, though he never reported the epithets to Ambler. One of these

instances occurred during a “heated” argument in which Gladden called that same co-

worker a “murderer.” App. 211. In response to this altercation, Gladden’s direct

supervisor and Ambler’s administrator held a joint meeting with Gladden and his co-

worker, warning them not to engage in similar behavior again. Both employees admitted

wrongdoing and “promised to work together going forward.” Id. Gladden admits that the

co-worker never again called him a monkey after this meeting.

                                             2
       Gladden sued Ambler under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.

§ 2000e et seq., and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA), 43 Pa. Stat. § 951

et seq., asserting three causes of action: race discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work

environment. Following discovery, Ambler moved for summary judgment on each of

Gladden’s claims. The District Court granted Ambler’s motion. Gladden appealed only

the retaliation and hostile work environment claims.

                                              II1

       We exercise plenary review over a summary judgment, applying the same

standard as the District Court. Ellis v. Westinghouse Elec. Co., 11 F.4th 221, 229 (3d Cir.

2021). To prevail, Ambler must “show[] that there is no genuine dispute as to any

material fact,” such that it “is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

56(a). The claims at issue in this appeal are “interpreted coextensively” whether they are

brought under Title VII or the PHRA. Atkinson v. Lafayette Coll., 460 F.3d 447, 454 n.6

(3d Cir. 2006).

                                              A

       To establish his prima facie case of retaliation, Gladden was required to show: “(1)

protected employee activity [in which he engaged]; (2) adverse action by [Ambler] either

after or contemporaneous with the . . . protected activity; and (3) a causal connection

between the . . . protected activity and [Ambler’s] adverse action.” Marra v. Phila. Hous.

Auth., 497 F.3d 286, 300 (3d Cir. 2007) (cleaned up). The District Court concluded that

1
  The District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
                                              3
Gladden had failed to show he engaged in protected activity because he had neither filed

“formal charges of discrimination” against Ambler nor initiated “informal protests of

discriminatory employment practices, including making complaints to management.”

Gladden v. Ambler Healthcare Grp., LLC, 2022 WL 17721055, at *5 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 15,

2022) (citing Daniels v. Sch. Dist. of Phila., 776 F.3d 181, 193 (3d Cir. 2015)). At no

point did Gladden present evidence that he made a complaint of any nature at any time,

including during the meeting with his co-worker, his supervisor, and Ambler’s

administrator. Thus, the District Court did not err in holding that Gladden had failed to

establish a prima facie case of retaliation. See id.

                                               B

       To prevail on his hostile work environment claim, Gladden had to produce

evidence to support five elements: (1) he suffered “intentional discrimination because of

his . . . race”; (2) “the discrimination was severe or pervasive”; (3) “the discrimination

detrimentally affected” him; (4) “the discrimination would detrimentally affect a

reasonable person in like circumstances”; and (5) “the existence of respondeat superior

liability.” Castleberry v. STI Grp., 863 F.3d 259, 263 (3d Cir. 2017). Although Gladden’s

co-worker used a slur “embod[ying] a racist stereotype,” the District Court concluded

that three individual incidents of that co-worker using the slur against Gladden were not

severe or pervasive enough to generate a hostile work environment. Gladden, 2022 WL

17721055, at *7. It did not err in so concluding.

       This case is unlike Castleberry, where we held that the plaintiffs had pleaded “a

plausible claim of a hostile work environment under [two] theor[ies]—that the

                                               4
harassment was ‘severe’ or ‘pervasive’”—based on the use of the N-word by a

supervisor, “accompanied by threats of termination” and a backdrop of other allegations

of racial discrimination. 863 F.3d at 265–66 (emphasis added); see id. at 264–66. Here,

the slur was used by Gladden’s co-worker, not his manager, and Gladden “points to no

other evidence suggesting some racial animus in the workplace.” Gladden, 2022 WL

17721055, at *7. Moreover, although Gladden was “shocked” and “dumbfounded” at his

co-worker’s use of the slur, he “let it go” and never reported the behavior. App. 338–39.

As the District Court recognized, there is “nothing in the record to show that [these]

comments . . . ‘unreasonably interfere[d] with [Gladden’s] work performance,’

discouraged him from ‘remaining on the job,’ or interfered with advancement.” Gladden,

2022 WL 17721055, at *8 (second alteration in original) (quoting Harris v. Forklift Sys.,

Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 22–23 (1993)).

       Gladden’s contention that Ambler failed to properly address his co-worker’s

behavior also lacks support. Ambler management convened a meeting to address the

conflict between Gladden and his co-worker and the slur was not uttered after that. See

Huston v. Procter & Gamble Paper Prods. Corp., 568 F.3d 100, 110 (3d Cir. 2009)

(“[T]he employer cannot be liable under Title VII if its remedial action stopped the

                                             5
harassment.”). We thus agree with the District Court that summary judgment on

Gladden’s hostile work environment claim was appropriate.

                                     *      *      *

      For all of these reasons, the District Court did not err in holding that Ambler was

entitled to summary judgment as to Gladden’s retaliation and hostile work environment

claims. We will therefore affirm.

                                            6