WRIGHT v. PROVIDENCE CARE CENTER, LLC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

SHAWANA WRIGHT, )

)

) 2:17-cv-00747-NR

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

PROVIDENCE CARE CENTER, LLC and )

BEAVER VALLEY ASSOCIATES, LLC, )

)

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

J. Nicholas Ranjan, United States District Judge

Defendants Providence Care Center, LLC and Beaver Valley Associates, LLC have

moved for summary judgment [ECF 65] on Plaintiff Shawana Wright’s various discrimination-

based claims. Providence terminated Ms. Wright shortly following her involvement in a heated

altercation with a co-worker. The altercation was witnessed by multiple employees, each of

whom submitted witness statements. Those statements served as the substantial basis for

Providence’s determination that Ms. Wright had engaged in “very serious misconduct” in

violation of its established policies. Providence then promptly terminated both Ms. Wright and

the other employee involved in the altercation.

Ms. Wright claims that Providence’s decision to terminate her based on her involvement

in the altercation was pretextual. Ms. Wright argues that she was actually terminated due to her

various disabilities and in retaliation for taking leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act

(the “FMLA”). She further claims that she was subjected to a hostile work environment while at

Providence. Based on these core allegations, Ms. Wright asserts violations of the Americans

with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”) and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (the “PHRA”).

None of the evidence offered by Ms. Wright creates a genuine dispute of material fact or

otherwise casts doubt on the undisputed fact that her involvement in the altercation was a serious

violation of Providence’s established code of conduct and, thus, a legitimate reason for firing

her. The intervening event of the altercation also renders untenable Ms. Wright’s efforts to

connect her termination to any protected activity she may have engaged in beforehand.

Therefore, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. Ms. Wright’s Employment with Providence.

Ms. Wright is an African-American woman who was employed at Providence for 13

years as a Licensed Practical Nurse (“LPN”) until her termination on September 27, 2016. [ECF

67, at ¶ 1]. Providence is a rehabilitation and skilled nursing facility with 180 beds located at

900 Third Avenue, Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania 15010. [Id. at ¶ 2].

During her employment, including at the time of her termination, Ms. Wright reported to

a number of different supervisors. [Id. at ¶ 3]. In September 2016, Bernadette Mehno was the

Director of Nursing at Providence [Id. at ¶ 4], Bobbye Lutz was the Resident Nurse supervisor

[id. at ¶ 5], and Raymond DeMarco was the Administrator [id. at ¶ 6]. The chain of command

was as follows: Ms. Lutz reported to Ms. Mehno who, in turn, reported to Mr. DeMarco. [Id. at

¶ 7].

Until the altercation, the parties agree that Ms. Wright was a “fine nurse” and received

positive performance evaluations between 2003 and 2014. [ECF 75, at ¶ 16].

B. Ms. Wright’s Disability and Alleged Poor Treatment.

Ms. Wright alleges she is disabled because she suffers from allergic asthma, Oral Allergy

Syndrome, migraines, depression, and anxiety. [ECF 67, at ¶ 8]. On July 23, 2015, Ms. Wright

provided documentation to Providence from her physician regarding her Oral Allergy Syndrome,

which causes her to have sensitivity to certain fruits, vegetables, and latex. [Id. at ¶ 12]. Her

physician requested that raw bananas not be served to Ms. Wright’s clients while Ms. Wright

was in attendance. [Id. at ¶ 13]. According to Providence, it offered a proposed accommodation

of switching Ms. Wright to the overnight shift, which she rejected. [Id. at ¶¶ 14-15]. However,

Ms. Wright’s direct supervisor, Ms. Lutz, also testified that no one at Providence had an

“interactive dialogue” with Ms. Wright about potential accommodations that could be made for

Ms. Wright. [ECF 75, at ¶ 28].

Ms. Wright also asked that latex balloons not be brought near her work area and that she

be given time off to deal with disability “flare-ups.” [Id. at ¶¶ 22-23]. Ms. Wright claims that

latex balloons were used to celebrate the “employee of the month” despite management’s

knowledge of her latex allergy, which caused her to be sick at work. [Id. at ¶ 33]. No specific

details regarding these events was provided by Ms. Wright, nor were they corroborated by other

witnesses. [Id. at ¶¶ 33-34].

Ms. Wright further claims that Ms. Lutz “treated her poorly” beginning in 2015. [Id. at ¶

36]. She claims Ms. Lutz: gave her unwarranted discipline [id. at ¶¶ 38, 53]; gave her a

performance evaluation that was worse than she believed she deserved [id. at ¶ 42]; transferred

her to a less desirable unit and then transferred her back [id. at ¶¶ 43-49]; called her to be

“pulled” from her floor after being reinstated [id. at ¶ 50]; spoke to her in a rude and

condescending manner [id. at ¶¶ 58-59]; and ignored her [id. at ¶ 58].

C. Ms. Wright’s FMLA Leave and Return to Work.

In March 2016, Ms. Wright provided documentation to Providence from her physician

for other conditions, including migraines, depression, and anxiety. [ECF 67, at ¶ 16]. This

documentation stated that Ms. Wright is “unable to perform any job function during flare-up due

to multiple symptoms arising from diagnosis.” [Id.]. As a result, Ms. Wright exercised her

rights under the FMLA and was away from work from March 17, 2016 through July 11, 2016.

[Id. at ¶ 18]. According to Ms. Wright, while on leave, Ms. Lutz repeatedly called her, asked her

to submit to certain medical testing, and encouraged her to return to work early. [ECF 75, at ¶¶

65-68].

On May 6, 2016, Ms. Lutz wrote an email expressing a preference that only two of five

employees then out on FMLA leave would return. [Id. at ¶ 81]. Ms. Wright infers that Ms. Lutz

was “speaking in code to her own management that there was no desire for Wright to return to

work” without citing any evidence of record to support that inference. [Id.]

On July 11, 2016, Ms. Wright returned to work without any restrictions. [ECF 67, at ¶

21]. Ms. Wright claims that Ms. Lutz had a “bushel of bananas” delivered to the nurses’ station

the day that she returned from FMLA leave. [Id. at ¶ 69]. The bananas were immediately

removed. [ECF 75, at ¶ 70]. That same day, Ms. Wright claims Ms. Lutz told her “she did not

believe [Ms. Wright] was able to work and should instead go out on Social Security Disability.”

[Id. at ¶ 76]. Ms. Wright’s testimony is somewhat vague regarding this alleged statement. For

example, Ms. Wright states that she cannot “recall exactly” whether Ms. Lutz even used the

terms “quit” or “resign” in the context of the statement. [ECF 75-7, at ¶ 4].

D. The Altercation.

On September 23, 2016, Wright admits that she got into a verbal altercation with a co-

worker named Debra Sawyer. [ECF 67, at ¶¶ 31-32, 36]. Ms. Sawyer is not disabled. Several

employees either witnessed or heard the altercation and provided written statements. [Id. at ¶

35]. By some accounts, Ms. Wright’s yelling could be heard from another floor. [Id. at ¶ 34].

One witness said Ms. Wright had to be separated from Ms. Sawyer. [Id.]. Providence’s

management admitted that Ms. Wright “never struck anyone, never verbally threatened anyone,

and never used any profane language.” [ECF 75, at ¶ 89].

The Providence Care Center Employee Handbook (“PCC Handbook”) “establishes work

rules for each employee to follow.” [ECF 67, at ¶ 22]. The PCC Handbook provides that:

All employees are expected to conduct themselves in a dignified manner and to

observe the basic rules of good conduct while working for [Providence]. These

rules involve the exercise of common sense and appropriate conduct in dealing

with a supervisor, fellow employees, and residents. Employees are expected to

follow instructions and do the work assigned.

[Id. at ¶ 24]. The PCC Handbook lists examples of general misconduct, “serious misconduct,” and

“very serious misconduct.” [Id. at ¶ 25]. The PCC Handbook characterizes “fighting, assault or

any other disorderly conduct” as very serious conduct. [Id. at ¶ 26]. The “first offense of … very

serious misconduct” may result in discharge. [Id. at ¶ 27].

Ms. Wright conceded that her altercation constituted “disorderly conduct” in violation of

Providence’s policies. [Id. at ¶¶ 38-39]. In light of this “very serious misconduct,” Providence

terminated Ms. Wright on September 27, 2016. [Id. at ¶ 42]. Providence also terminated Ms.

Sawyer’s employment due to her involvement in the altercation. [Id. at ¶ 43]. According to

Defendants, three supervisors were involved in the decision to terminate Ms. Wright: Ms. Lutz,

Ms. Mehno, and Mr. DeMarco. [Id. at ¶ 41].

Following Ms. Wright’s termination, a union grievance hearing was held. Both Ms.

Wright and her former union representative, Denise Cox, participated in the hearing. [ECF 68-

15]. According to the minutes of the proceeding, neither Ms. Wright nor Ms. Cox mentioned

alleged discrimination or retaliation during that hearing. [Id.].

Ms. Wright alleges that other LPNs engaged in conduct that could be classified as “very

serious misconduct” but were not terminated. [ECF 75, at ¶¶ 121-23]. Ms. Wright provides

almost no information regarding the particulars of those other incidents, including the specific

employee involved or when the conduct occurred. [Id.]. Defendants counter that, to the extent

they even happened, those incidents involved “nursing errors” rather than intentional misconduct

and, therefore, are not comparable. [ECF 83, at 13].

E. Ms. Wright’s EEOC Charges of Discrimination.

On September 15, 2015, Ms. Wright filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission (the “First EEOC Charge”) alleging that she was “being

discriminated against because of [her] race … and [her] disability.” [ECF 67, at ¶ 44]. The

EEOC dismissed Ms. Wright’s First EEOC Charge on June 29, 2016. [Id.].

On October 14, 2016, Ms. Wright filed another Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC

(the “Second EEOC Charge”) and cross filed it with the Pennsylvania Human Relations

Commission. [Id. at ¶ 48]. According to the Second EEOC Charge, Ms. Wright believed that

her termination was “discriminatory (based upon [her] race and/or health) and retaliatory.” [Id.

at ¶ 49]. She also alleged discrimination based on race, national origin, retaliation, and a failure

to accommodate/hostile work environment. [Id.].

II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Ms. Wright filed her original complaint on June 7, 2017, asserting claims under the ADA,

the PHRA, the FMLA, Title VII, and § 1981. [ECF 1].

On September 6, 2017, Defendants partially moved to dismiss Ms. Wright’s Complaint

on the grounds that many of her claims were either untimely or not encompassed within the

scope of her Second EEOC Charge, and, therefore, outside the Court’s subject matter

jurisdiction. [ECF 6]. On September 27, 2017, Ms. Wright filed her First Amended Complaint

in response. [ECF 12]. Defendants then filed a substantially identical partial motion to dismiss

the First Amended Complaint on October 10, 2017. [ECF 14].

On December 7, 2017, Judge Conti (the previous judge assigned to this case) granted

Defendants’ motion in part, dismissing Ms. Wright’s racial discrimination claims in their entirety

and dismissing Ms. Wright’s disability discrimination claims to the extent that they are based on

conduct occurring prior to December 19, 2015. [ECF 25, at 17]. Judge Conti allowed Ms.

Wright to file a Second Amended Complaint following her order.

On February 15, 2018, Ms. Wright filed her Second Amended Complaint. [ECF 29].

On March 1, 2018, Defendants, once again, moved to partially dismiss and Judge Conti,

once again, granted the motion in part. [ECF 32]. On April 12, 2018, Judge Conti entered an

order dismissing Ms. Wright’s FMLA interference claim and her retaliation claims under Title

VII and § 1981. [ECF 38].

Following discovery, on December 13, 2018, Ms. Wright withdrew her remaining racial

discrimination claims under Title VII and § 1981. [ECF 63]. All that remains of the Second

Amended Complaint are Count I for violations of the ADA, Count II for violations of the PHRA,

and Count III for retaliation under the FMLA.

Defendants timely filed a motion for summary judgment on January 23, 2019 [ECF 65],

with a brief in support [ECF 66], and concise statement of material facts [ECF 67]. On March 1,

2019, Ms. Wright filed a response to the motion for summary judgment [ECF 72], a brief in

opposition [ECF 74], a counter statement of facts [ECF 75], and a response to Defendants’

concise statement of material facts [ECF 76]. Defendants submitted a reply to Ms. Wright’s

counter statement of facts [ECF 82] and reply brief [ECF 83] on March 22, 2019. Defendants’

motion is ripe for disposition.

III. LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment is warranted “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as

to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

56(a). At summary judgment, the inquiry is whether the evidence presents “a sufficient

disagreement to require submission to the jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must

prevail as a matter of law.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251-52 (1986). In

making this determination, a court must “consider all evidence in the light most favorable to the

party opposing the motion.” A.W. v. Jersey City Pub. Schs., 486 F.3d 791, 794 (3d Cir. 2007).

If the moving party shows an absence of material fact, “the non-moving party must rebut

the motion with facts in the record and cannot rest solely on assertions made in the pleadings,

legal memoranda, or oral argument.” Berckeley Inv. Grp. Ltd. v. Colkitt, 455 F.3d 195, 201 (3d

Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). If the non-moving party “fails to make a showing sufficient to

establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will

bear the burden at trial,” summary judgment is warranted. Celotext Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.

317, 324 (1986).

With respect to the sufficiency of the evidence that the non-moving party must provide, a

court should grant a motion for summary judgment when the non-movant’s evidence is merely

colorable, conclusory, or speculative. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249-50. There must be more than

“a scintilla of evidence” supporting the non-moving party and “more than some metaphysical

doubt as to the material facts.” Id. at 252, 261 (internal marks omitted).

IV. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

A. Disability Discrimination Claims Under the ADA and PHRA.1

1. Applicable Legal Standard.

A plaintiff may prove disability discrimination by direct evidence under a “mixed

motive” theory as set forth in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989), or indirectly

through the burden-shifting framework as set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411

U.S. 792 (1973). See Neustein v. PNC Bank, NA, No. 15-1045, 2017 WL 3173956, at *6 (W.D.

Pa. July 26, 2017).

(a) Burden Under Price Waterhouse.

If a plaintiff “offers ‘direct evidence’ of unlawful discrimination … the plaintiff need

only show that the unlawful motive was a substantial motivating factor in [the employer’s]

decision” to take an adverse employment action against the plaintiff. Miller v. CIGNA Corp., 47

F.3d 586, 594 (3d Cir. 1995).

“If plaintiff satisfies this burden, ‘[b]oth the burden of production and the risk of non-

persuasion are shifted to the defendant who … must persuade the factfinder that even if the

discrimination was a motivating factor in the adverse employment decision, it would have made

the same employment decision regardless of its discriminatory animus.’” Neustein, 2017 WL

3173956, at *6 (quoting Connelly v. Lane Constr. Corp., 809 F.3d 780, 787 n.5 (3d Cir. 2016)).

(b) Burden Under McDonnel Douglas.

If the plaintiff is relying on circumstantial evidence of discrimination, “the court uses a

pretext theory, which incorporates the burden-shifting analysis of [McDonnell Douglas].”

Neustein, 2017 WL 3173956, at *6. Under this analysis, “once the employee establishes a prima

facie case of discrimination, the burden of production shifts to the employer to articulate a

legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employer’s adverse employment decision.” Id.

(citation omitted).

“If the employer makes that showing, the burden of production shifts once again to the

employee to establish that the employer’s proffered justification for the adverse action is

pretextual.” Id. (citation omitted). Throughout this burden-shifting exercise, the burden of

persuasion remains on the employee. Id. (citation omitted).

1 The parties agree that Ms. Wright’s claims under the ADA and PHRA are analyzed pursuant to

the same legal standard. See Colwell v. Rite Aid Corp., 602 F.3d 495, 499 n.3 (3d Cir. 2010) (citing Kelly

v. Drexel Univ., 94 F.3d 102, 105 (3d Cir. 1996)). As a result, the Court will address these claims

simultaneously throughout this Memorandum Opinion.

2. Ms. Wright Has Not Offered Direct Evidence of Her ADA and PHRA

Discrimination Claims.

The only “direct evidence” that Ms. Wright offers in support of her disability

discrimination claims is that, two months before her termination, one of her supervisors, Ms.

Lutz, stated that “she did not believe [Ms. Wright] was able to work and should instead go out on

Social Security Disability.” [ECF 74, at 10]. That statement, standing alone, does not constitute

direct evidence.

A plaintiff attempting to prove discrimination with direct evidence faces a “high hurdle.”

Walden v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 126 F.3d 506, 513 (3d Cir. 1999). In order to constitute direct

evidence, “the evidence must demonstrate that the ‘decision makers placed substantial negative

reliance on an illegitimate criterion in reaching their decision.’” Anderson v. Consol. Rail Corp.,

297 F.3d 242, 248 (3d Cir. 2002) (quoting Connors v. Chrysler Fin. Corp., 160 F.3d 971, 976

(3d Cir. 1998)). “If the trier of fact must infer discrimination from the employer’s remarks or

actions, then the evidence is not direct evidence of discrimination.” Weightman v. Bank of N.Y.

Mellon Corp., 772 F. Supp. 2d 693, 702 (W.D. Pa. 2011) (citing Torre v. Casio, Inc., 42 F.3d

825, 829 (3d Cir. 1994)). “Derogatory comments or stray remarks in the workplace that are

unrelated to employment decisions, even when uttered by decision-makers, do not constitute

direct evidence of discrimination.” Id.

Ms. Lutz’s statement falls under the “stray remark” category for two reasons. First,

although the alleged remark was made by one of Ms. Wright’s supervisors, it was not “uttered

when [Providence] took disciplinary action against [her] or made the decision to terminate her

employment.” Kim-Foraker v. Allstate Ins. Co., 834 F. Supp. 2d 267, 276-77 (E.D. Pa. 2011).

Rather, Ms. Wright concedes that the statement was made at least two months before she was

terminated. [ECF 75, at ¶ 76]. Second, it was not made by the sole decision-maker for Ms.

Wright’s termination—it is undisputed that Ms. Lutz at least consulted two other supervisors

during the termination process, neither of whom are alleged to have made such a statement.

[ECF 75, at ¶¶ 98-103; ECF 67, at ¶ 41].

Perhaps more telling, the statement itself does not directly reflect discriminatory animus

on the part of Ms. Lutz. Ms. Lutz’s statement is susceptible to multiple interpretations, including

interpreting it as an innocent expression of concern for an employee who was struggling with

serious medical conditions. Because of this susceptibility to at least one non-discriminatory

interpretation, a factfinder would have to infer from the surrounding circumstances that the

statement reflected a discriminatory mindset. To qualify as direct evidence, however, no such

inference is permissible. See Weightman, 772 F. Supp. 2d at 702. Indeed, “[o]nly the most

blatant remarks, whose intent could be nothing other than to discriminate in reaching an

employment decision, are considered sufficient to constitute direct evidence of discrimination.

Id. (holding that comment that “you need to make a decision, either you’re going to be a mom or

have a career” was not direct evidence of gender discrimination).

The Third Circuit’s decision in Deane v. Pocono Medical Center, 142 F.3d 138 (3d Cir.

1998) is instructive on what constitutes a “blatant” remark. Deane involved discrimination based

on perceived disability. The plaintiff produced uncontroverted evidence that the employer’s

human resources vice president indicated to the plaintiff that she was being terminated “because

of her ‘handicap.’” Id. at 149. The en banc court held that this was “direct evidence that Deane

suffered an adverse employment action because of her employer’s perception of her disability.”

Id.

Unlike the statement in Deane, Ms. Lutz’s statement does not unequivocally tie an

adverse employment decision to Ms. Wright’s disabilities. Rather, the statement at issue is akin

to the more ambiguous remarks that courts repeatedly have found to fall short of the “blatant”

threshold for constituting direct evidence. See, e.g., Glanzman v. Metro. Mgmt. Corp., 391 F.3d

506, 513 (3d Cir. 2004) (“Glanzman’s immediate supervisor[] asked Glanzman about her

retirement plans. Again, the district court correctly determined that this was not direct evidence

of age discrimination and could just as easily be explained by a desire on Metropolitan’s part to

do some long-term planning.”); Kim-Foraker, 834 F. Supp. 2d at 277 (no direct evidence of

racial discrimination where supervisor stated that he was taking kung fu; that Koreans always use

cash; and that Koreans always work hard, so expectations for Kim-Foraker were greater than

those for other employees); Sosky v. Int’l Mill Serv., Inc., No. 94-2833, 1996 WL 32139, at *4

(E.D. Pa. Jan. 25, 1996) (“[Supervisor’s] comments which could possibly be construed as ageist

… at most, reflected Maloney’s knowledge of plaintiff's age and years of experience with IMS

and so are insufficient to constitute direct evidence of age discrimination.”), aff’d, 103 F.3d 114

(3d Cir. 1996).

The Court’s conclusion that Ms. Wright has not offered direct evidence of disability

discrimination does not end the inquiry, however. Ms. Wright is also allowed to offer

circumstantial evidence to potentially prove that Providence’s decision to terminate was

pretextual. Ms. Wright has not met her burden on this front, either.

3. Ms. Wright Has Not Offered Sufficient Circumstantial Evidence to Support

a Finding of Pretext.

Disability discrimination claims may also be analyzed under the McDonnell Douglas

burden-shifting framework.

Pursuant to that framework, Ms. Wright must first establish a prima facie case of

discrimination by showing that: (1) she has a disability; (2) she was qualified for the position

with or without a reasonable accommodation; and (3) she suffered an adverse employment action

as a result of her disability. Williams v. Phila. Housing Auth. Police Dept., 380 F.3d 751, 761

(3d Cir. 2004). For purposes of the motion, Defendants do not dispute that Ms. Wright has met

this burden. [ECF 66, at 7-15].

Once plaintiff has successfully established a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the

defendant-employer to put forth a non-discriminatory reason for the adverse action. Fuentes v.

Perski, 32 F.3d 759, 763 (3d Cir. 1994). The Third Circuit has held that this is a “relatively light

burden,” which is satisfied if the employer can “articulat[e] a legitimate reason for the

unfavorable employment decision[.]” Id.

Providence asserts that Ms. Wright was terminated for engaging in a disruptive and

unprofessional shouting match with her co-worker on September 23, 2016. [ECF 67, at ¶¶ 40-

42]. Providence promptly terminated both employees directly involved in this incident. [Id. at

¶¶ 42-43]. Providence considered Ms. Wright’s behavior to be “very serious misconduct” under

its employee handbook, which she was warned could result in discharge for a first offense. [Id.

at ¶ 40]. Ms. Wright does not contest that Providence has satisfied its “light burden” or

articulating a legitimate reason for her termination. [ECF 72, at 12-19].

Thus, the “burden then shifts back to [Ms. Wright] to establish that the defendant’s

asserted reason was actually a pretext for discrimination.” Hatch v. Franklin Cnty. Jail, No. 14-

2318, 2017 WL 6397830, at *8 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 29, 2017), aff’d, 755 F. App’x 194 (3d Cir.

2018).

In proving pretext, a plaintiff may survive a motion for summary judgment “by either (1)

discrediting the proffered reasons, either circumstantially or directly, or (2) adducing evidence,

whether circumstantial or direct, that discrimination was more likely than not a motivating or

determinative cause of the adverse employment action.” Fuentes, 32 F.3d at 764 (emphasis

added).

“To discredit the employer’s proffered reason, however, the plaintiff cannot simply show

that the employer’s decision was wrong or mistaken, since the factual dispute at issue is whether

discriminatory animus motivated the employer, not whether the employer is wise, shrewd,

prudent, or competent.” Id. at 765 (citations omitted). Rather, the plaintiff “must demonstrate

such weaknesses, implausibilities, inconsistencies, incoherencies, or contradictions in the

employer’s proffered legitimate reasons for its action that a reasonable fact-finder could

rationally find them ‘unworthy of credence,’ and hence infer ‘that the employer did not act for

[the purported] non-discriminatory reasons.’” Id. (citations omitted).

“This proof may consist of evidence that: ‘(1) the defendant previously discriminated

against the plaintiff; (2) the defendant discriminated against others within the plaintiff’s

protected class; or (3) the defendant has treated similarly situated [persons not within the

protected class] more favorably.’” Terrell v. Main Line Health, Inc., 320 F. Supp. 3d 644, 657

(E.D. Pa. 2018) (quoting Willis v. UPMC Children’s Hosp. of Pittsburgh, 808 F.3d 638, 645 (3d

Cir. 2015)).

Ms. Wright points to several categories of evidence that she claims are sufficient for a

factfinder to reasonably disbelieve Providence’s stated reason for her termination, or believe that

a discriminatory reason for her termination was more likely than not a motivating or

determinative cause of Providence’s action. The Court disagrees.

(a) The Evidence Offered Does Not Cast Doubt on Providence’s Reason

for Termination.

According to Providence, Ms. Wright was terminated for her role in the altercation with

Ms. Sawyer. [ECF 67, at ¶ 43]. While the particulars of what happened during that altercation

may be in dispute, what is not in dispute is that, in response, Providence collected numerous eye

witness statements, evaluated those statements, and then took action against Ms. Wright based on

the guidelines set forth in Providence’s established policies. [ECF 67, at ¶¶ 31-43; ECF 75, at ¶¶

81-96]. Even if Ms. Wright vehemently disagrees with the version of events described in some

of those statements and believes that Providence came to the “wrong” conclusion about what

happened, it does not matter. As the Third Circuit has clearly stated, courts “do not sit as a

super-personnel department that reexamines an entity’s business decisions.” Brewer v. Quaker

State Oil Ref. Corp, 72 F.3d 326, 332 (3d Cir. 1995) (internal marks and citation omitted). This

is true “[n]o matter how medieval a firm’s practices, no matter how high-handed its decisional

process, no matter how mistaken the firm’s managers….” Id.

The PCC Handbook states that “[e]mployees are expected to observe reasonable

standards of conduct and to always consider the best interest of the resident as their primary

responsibility.” [ECF 68-8, at PCC000812]. Employees are further instructed to exercise

“appropriate conduct in dealing with a supervisor, fellow employees, and residents.” [Id.]

(emphasis added). The PCC Handbook classifies “[f]ighting, assault or any other disorderly

conduct” as “very serious misconduct” and explicitly warns that a “first offense” of such

misconduct “may result in Discharge.” [Id. at PCC000814] (emphasis in original).

Ms. Wright admitted during a grievance meeting related to her termination that: (1) “she

did get loud, and told [Ms. Sawyer] ‘You will do what I tell you to do’” [ECF 67, at ¶ 37]; (2)

her involvement in the altercation violated Providence’s policies [id. at ¶ 38]; and (3) getting into

an altercation with another employee is “disorderly conduct” that the employee handbook warns

may result in termination [id. at ¶ 39]. Moreover, at that same grievance hearing, neither Ms.

Wright nor her union representative mentioned alleged discrimination or retaliation claims.

[ECF 68-15]. Thus, Ms. Wright “does not deny serious violations of [Providence’s] employee

rules, and thus has not provided any evidence that would allow a reasonable jury either to

disbelieve [Providence’s] nondiscriminatory and non-retaliatory reasons for terminating her, or

to believe that any discriminatory or retaliatory animus would have ‘had a determinative effect’

on her termination.” Oden v. SEPTA, 671 F. App’x 859, 862 (3d Cir. 2016); see also Paynter v.

Aramark Corp., No. 07-2214, 2008 WL 11364245, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 7, 2008) (granting

summary judgment on discrimination claim and explaining that “[t]hough she disputes some of

the details surrounding the January 12, 2006 fight, she admitted in her written statement to

participating in the altercation” and did not “make any showing that the decision to terminate

her—given her involvement in a fistfight within a prison facility—was in any way implausible or

self-contradictory”) (emphasis in original).

(b) The Evidence Does Not Establish That Discrimination Was “More

Likely Than Not” a Motivating Factor or Determinative Cause of Ms.

Wright’s Termination.

Ms. Wright has also not offered evidence that would allow a reasonable jury to conclude

that the application of Providence’s conduct policy to Ms. Wright was pretextual. On this point,

Ms. Wright attempts to offer comparator evidence in the form of the allegation that “[m]any

other staff members who yelled at Lutz, in front of Lutz, or who had altercations in the

workplace were never terminated.” [ECF 72, at 17]. There are several problems with this

supposed evidence.

First, although plaintiff “can establish pretext by showing that the employer has treated

similarly situated persons not within the protected class … more favorably,” Ms. Wright offers

no specific details about those other incidents or the other employees involved. Litzinger v.

Allegheny Lutheran Soc. Ministries, No. 15-306, 2017 WL 3089022, at *8 (W.D. Pa. July 20,

2017). As a result, it is impossible to tell whether those other altercations were as disruptive as

the incident involving Ms. Wright or whether those employees were or were not part of the same

protected class. This failure is critically important because to be valid comparators, the other

employees must be “similarly situated in all respects,” including having dealt with the same

supervisor, being subjected to the same standard, and engaging in the same conduct. In re

Tribune Media Co., 902 F.3d 384, 403 (3d Cir. 2018). There is simply no way for a factfinder to

engage in such an analysis based on the current record. See Litzinger, 2017 WL 3089022, at *9

(rejecting comparator evidence and granting summary judgment because “other than mentioning

her, Litzinger presents no evidence regarding this nurse aide; the record is devoid of any

evidence about whether this nurse aide was similarly situated, whether she was younger than 40

or not disabled, or what the circumstances of the underlying incident were”).

Second, the comparator evidence that must be considered in this case unequivocally

supports Providence’s stated reason for termination. Providence terminated the other, non-

disabled employee, Ms. Sawyer, for her involvement in the altercation. The undisputed fact that

Providence took the same adverse employment action against the only other person involved in

the alteration significantly undercuts any claim that the same action taken against Ms. Wright

was motivated by discriminatory animus. See Paynter, 2008 WL 11364245, at *3 (finding no

inference of reverse racer-based employment discrimination where both parties were placed on

suspension immediately following an altercation and both were terminated on the same day for

violating the Workplace Violence Policy).

Accordingly, the Court will GRANT Defendants’ Motion on Ms. Wright’s ADA and

PHRA disability discrimination claims in Counts I and II of the Second Amended Complaint.

B. Hostile Work Environment Claims Under the ADA and PHRA.

1. Existence of Claim.

As a preliminary matter, Defendants “note” in their brief that “the Third Circuit has not

expressly confirmed that the ADA even creates a cause of action for hostile work environment.”

[ECF 66, at 20]. It is unclear to the Court whether Defendants are arguing that a hostile work

environment claim does not exist under the ADA. Assuming Defendants are making such an

argument, it is misplaced for two reasons.

First, the Third Circuit has repeatedly acknowledged the existence of such a claim.

The Third Circuit did so for the first time in Walton v. Mental Health Association of

Southeastern Pennsylvania, 168 F.3d 661 (3d Cir. 1999). In that case, the Third Circuit

concluded that the statutory framework “indicates that a cause of action for harassment exists

under the ADA.” Id. at 666. To reach that conclusion, the Third Circuit pointed to the language

of the ADA that states “[n]o covered entity shall discriminate against a qualified individual with

a disability because the disability of such individual in regard to…[the] terms, conditions, and

privileges of employment.” Id. at 666 (citing 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a)). The Third Circuit further

noted that the Supreme Court previously held that “language in Title VII that is almost identical

to the above language in the ADA creates a cause of action for a hostile work environment.” Id.

(citing Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 491 U.S. 164, 180 (1989)). The Third Circuit then

went on to explain that “in the context of employment discrimination, the ADA, ADEA and Title

VII all serve the same purpose—to prohibit discrimination in employment against members of

certain classes. Therefore, it follows that the methods and manner of proof under one statute

should inform the standards under the others as well.” Id. (quoting Newman v. GHS

Osteopathic, Inc., 60 F.3d 153, 157 (3d Cir. 1995)) (internal marks omitted). The court,

however, stopped just short of expressly confirming the cause of action because the plaintiff

below “did not show that she can state a claim.” Id.

In the years since Walton, the Third Circuit has repeatedly analyzed hostile work

environment claims under the ADA without so much as mentioning that the existence of the

claim remains “unsettled.” See, e.g., Hatch v. Franklin County, 755 F. App’x 194, 201-02 (3d

Cir. 2018); McGlone v. Phila. Gas Works, 733 F. App’x 606, 611-12 (3d Cir. 2018); Ballard-

Carter v. Vanguard Grp., 703 F. App’x 149, 151-52 (3d Cir. 2017). It is not a stretch to assume

that after two decades of unquestioningly analyzing ADA hostile work environment claims, the

Third Circuit believes that such a claim exists. The same could be said for all of the district

courts in this Circuit. Indeed, this Court could not find a single case from this Circuit in which a

court held that such a claim did not exist.

Second, other Circuit Courts of Appeals that have directly addressed this issue have all

held that such a claim exists. See, e.g., Fox v. Gen. Motors Corp., 247 F.3d 169, 176 (4th Cir.

2001) (“For these reasons, we have little difficulty in concluding that the ADA, like Title VII,

creates a cause of action for hostile work environment harassment.”); Flowers v. S. Regional

Physician Servs. Inc., 247 F.3d 229, 234 (5th Cir. 2001) (“[W]e find that a cause of action for

disability-based harassment is viable under the ADA….”). The Court finds the reasoning set

forth in Fox particularly instructive.

There, the Fourth Circuit concluded that because Congress enacted the ADA after the

Supreme Court recognized a hostile work environment claim under Title VII, “we can presume

that Congress was aware of the Court’s interpretation of ‘terms, conditions, or privileges of

employment’ when it chose to use parallel language in the ADA.” Fox, 247 F.3d at 175 (citing

Cannon v. Univ. of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677, 696-96 (1979)). Such a presumption is especially

valid here because in the “ADA itself Congress evidenced its knowledge of, and reliance on, the

parallel nature of the two statutes, providing that ‘the powers, remedies, and procedures set forth

in [Title VII] shall be the powers, remedies, and procedures [the ADA] provides.’” Id. (quoting

42 U.S.C. § 12117(a)).

While this Court believes a hostile work environment claim exists under the ADA, it

need not reach a final decision on that issue because, even assuming such a claim does exist, Ms.

Wright has not shown that she can meet the requirements of the claim.

2. Applicable Legal Standard.

To establish a hostile work environment claim, Ms. Wright must prove that:

(1) she is a qualified individual with a disability under the ADA;

(2) she was subject to unwelcome harassment;

(3) the harassment was based on her disability;

(4) the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions

of her employment and to create an abusive working environment; and

(5) that her employer knew or should have known of the harassment and

failed to take prompt effective remedial action.

Walton, 168 F.3d at 667 (citations omitted).

“To be sufficiently severe or pervasive, [the] harassment must be shown to be both

objectively and subjectively hostile or abusive.” Hatch, 755 F. App’x at 202. “To determine

whether a work environment contains sufficiently severe or pervasive harassment, courts

consider the totality of the circumstances.” Id. “Generally, courts look to whether a workplace

was ‘so heavily polluted with discrimination as to destroy completely the emotional and

psychological stability of [the harassed employees]….” Id. (quoting Meritor Sav. Bank, FSB v.

Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 66 (1986)).

Defendants argue that the evidence offered does not establish the type of “severe or

pervasive” discriminatory conduct necessary to create an abusive or hostile work environment.

[ECF 66, at 21]. The Court agrees.

3. The Conduct at Issue Was Not Severe or Pervasive.

Ms. Wright asserts that the conduct to which she was allegedly subjected while at

Providence was sufficiently severe or pervasive to constitute a hostile work environment on the

basis of her disability. To support her assertion, Ms. Wright cites to a litany of complaints about

her workplace. [ECF 72, at 27]. This list of grievances is identical to the one considered by

Judge Conti when she originally dismissed Ms. Wright’s hostile work environment claim under

Title VII. [ECF 25, at 9-10].

That list was adeptly summarized by Judge Conti as follows: “Wright received two

pretextual disciplines in January and March 2016…; Lutz encouraged her to go on disability

rather than returning to work; Wright was required to come into work while on leave to be tested

for tuberculosis; management provided nurses with a bushel of bananas, although aware that

Wright was allergic; Lutz ignored Wright and talked to … co-workers; Wright was falsely

accused of bullying a co-worker to work on a different floor; Wright was falsely accused of

violating the medication errors policy; and Wright was forced to work on days she requested

vacation.” [Id.] Assuming these allegations were true, Judge Conti nevertheless concluded that

“[n]one of these allegations is sufficient for this court to infer that there was an extremely serious

isolated incident.” [Id.] She also concluded that “[t]his handful of incidents over nine months,

as pled, are not sufficient for this court to reasonably infer that there was pervasive

discrimination altering the conditions of Wright’s employment.” [Id.] This Court sees no reason

to deviate from Judge Conti’s well-reasoned conclusion simply because Ms. Wright has

repackaged her same allegations as a violation of the ADA rather than Title VII. After all, as

noted above, Congressional intent and well-established precedent demand that the two statutes

be interpreted consistently. Moreover, Judge Conti’s conclusion is amply supported by

established precedent.

In the Third Circuit, the plaintiff must satisfy a “high” threshold to satisfy the “severe or

pervasive” element. Greer v. Mondelez Global, Inc., 590 F. App’x 170, 173 (3d Cir. 2014).

That is because the “ADA anti-discrimination mandate does not require a happy or even a civil

workplace.” Ballard-Carter, 703 F. App’x at 152. “Ordinary tribulations of the workplace, such

as the sporadic use of abusive language, jokes, and occasional teasing are not enough to sustain a

hostile work environment claim.” Id. (internal marks and citation omitted).

Although Ms. Wright claims she was subjected to harassing treatment on “a daily and

weekly basis,” the evidence of record does not support that characterization. At best, Ms. Wright

points to a handful of incidents that appear to have been spread out over the course of many

months. [See ECF 75, at ¶¶ 33-34, 36-37, 43, 49, 53, 58-59, 65-66, 69-70, 71, 76, 81-82]. Such

sporadic conduct is not pervasive enough to paint a picture of a hostile work environment

permeated by a “steady barrage of opprobrious [discriminatory] comments.” Al-Salem v. Bucks

Cty. Water & Sewer Auth., No. 97-6843, 1999 WL 167729, at *5 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 25, 1999)

(internal marks and citation omitted); see also Tourtellotte v. Eli Lily & Co., No. 09-0774, 2013

WL 1628606, at *6 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 16, 2013) (“No reasonable juror could conclude that these

particular encounters over the course of eighteen months amounted to ‘pervasive’ or regular

conduct.”); Sessoms v. Trs. of Univ. of Pa., No. 16-2954, 2017 WL 2271817, at *6 (E.D. Pa.

May 24, 2017) (“While [plaintiff] characterizes the harassment as very frequent in her deposition

testimony, the notes she kept contemporaneously tell a somewhat different story—they outline

eleven instances that occurred over the course of nine months.”).

Neither are the various incidents, either taken individually or collectively, sufficiently

severe. Ms. Lutz telling Ms. Wright that she should “collect disability” [ECF 75, at ¶ 76],

treating her in an unspecified “rude and condescending manner” [id. at ¶ 58], and ignoring her

[id.], is not, objectively speaking, the kind of conduct that could “destroy completely the

emotional and psychological stability” of someone. Hatch, 755 F. App’x at 202; see also

Mlinarchik v. Brennan, No. 16-257, 2018 WL 4922925, at *5 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 10, 2018) (no

hostile work environment where plaintiff’s supervisor “told her to go home, take medication,

seek out disability benefits, or see a psychiatrist”). Indeed, Ms. Wright even testified that she

never reported or complained about the rude or ignorant behavior. [ECF 75-23, at 85:19-86:7].

The Third Circuit has affirmed summary judgment in cases where the plaintiff has

offered similar workplace conduct as evidence of a hostile work environment. See, e.g., Ballard-

Carter, 703 F. App’x at 152; Lescoe v. Pa. Dep’t of Corrections-SCI Frackville, 464 F. App’x

50, 54 (3d Cir. 2014).

For example, in Ballard-Carter, the court found the following comments made about a

hearing-impaired employee insufficient:

• “Oh, that’s right, I forgot you were deaf”;

• “You’re supposed to be talking loudly at your desk”;

• “We just said that you weren’t listening”; and

• Quotations around the word “heard” in an email to the plaintiff regarding a

client request.

703 F. App’x at 152.

In Lescoe, the court held that frequent “jokes and comments about [plaintiff’s] weight,

the size of his belly, and not being able to see his groin area” did not “reach a level of sufficient

severity or pervasiveness to alter the conditions of his employment.” 464 F. App’x at 54.

Ms. Wright’s own testimony also undercuts the purported severity of other alleged

incidents of harassment. For example, with respect to the bushel of bananas being delivered on

her first day back from FMLA leave, Ms. Wright testified that “they were immediately removed

after Wright’s request for removal.” [ECF 75, at ¶ 70].

Ms. Wright’s contentions that she was transferred briefly to a less desirable unit, was

falsely accused of bullying a co-worker, and falsely accused of violating policies and procedures,

similarly do not save the day. First off, it is unclear from the record how any of these actions

was connected in any way to her disability. Even assuming that they were connected, such

conduct does not cross the line into “severe.” See Andrekovich v. Borough of Punxsutawney, No.

17-1041, 2018 WL 5442441, at *10 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 29, 2018) (finding insufficient allegations

that plaintiff suffered “verbal abuse, false accusations of criminal conduct and neglect of duty, by

his fellow officers; unwarranted disciplinary proceedings and imposition of additional duties

which interfered with his ability to do his job; attempts to discredit him with his friends,

government officials, co-workers and the public in general; interference with his work equipment

and materials; and ostracism by his coworkers”) (internal marks omitted).

At bottom, the conduct described by Ms. Wright is materially different from the kind of

persistent and extreme harassment that this Court has previously found sufficient to support a

hostile work environment claim. See Mangel v. Graham Packaging Co., L.P., No. 14-147, 2016

WL 1266257, at *5 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 1, 2016); Martsolf v. United Airlines, Inc., No. 13-1581,

2015 WL 4255636, at *13 (W.D. Pa. July 14, 2015).

For example, in Mangel, his co-corkers “made fun of his limp and leg braces, calling him

‘Forrest Gump,’ ‘cripple,’ ‘Gumby,’ and ‘crippled ninja.’” 2016 WL 1266257, at *5. This

harassment also included his supervisor calling him “ratchet ass” and “Gumby.” Id.2

In Martsolf, plaintiff testified that her co-workers “constantly screamed at her when she

could not hear them, complained when they could not understand her, and mocked and imitated

the way that she spoke.” 2015 WL 4255636, at *13. She was also subjected to insults of “stupid

or dummy” and other co-workers “making faces and gestures of a gun to the head” toward her.

2 Significantly, the mistreatment suffered by plaintiff in Mangel was also corroborated by a co-

worker. 2016 WL 1266257, at * 5.

Unlike in those cases, none of the acts of which Ms. Wright complains, either singularly

or in combination, were so severe or pervasive as to change the conditions of her employment.

The Court will GRANT Defendants’ motion as to Ms. Wright’s hostile work environment

claims under the ADA and PHRA in Counts I and II of the Second Amended Complaint.

C. Retaliation Claims under the ADA, PHRA, and FMLA.

1. The Court Has Subject Matter Jurisdiction Over Ms. Wright’s Retaliation

Claim under the ADA.

Defendants first argue that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Ms. Wright’s

ADA retaliation claim because it relies upon alleged conduct that is unrelated to her termination.

[ECF 66, at 15-16]. Defendants premise this argument on two claims. First, Ms. Wright did not

indicate that her retaliation claim was “ongoing” in her Second EEOC Charge. [Id. at 15].

Second, Ms. Wright testified during her deposition that her retaliation allegation is based on the

protected activity of filing her First EEOC Charge in September 2015. [Id. at 15-16]. Neither is

sufficient to wrest away the Court’s jurisdiction to hear this claim.

The Court finds that Ms. Wright sufficiently alleged that she experienced retaliation for

her termination and for discussing her health issues and accommodation needs in her Second

EEOC Charge. [ECF 73-20]. It is of no moment that Ms. Wright did not allege that she was

suffering any “ongoing” problems in her Second EEOC Charge because her employment had

already ended, so it is reasonable that she believed, by definition, that it could not be “ongoing.”

Ms. Wright also indicated that she had been subjected to a hostile work environment in the

Charge, which implicates a period of time predating her termination. “An administrative charge

is not…a blueprint for the litigation to follow” and Ms. Wright did enough on her Second EEOC

Charge to put Defendants on notice. See Reddinger v. Hosp. Cent. Servs., Inc., 4 F. Supp. 2d

405, 410 (E.D. Pa. 1998).

Ms. Wright’s testimony regarding the basis for her legal claims is also not dispositive on

the issue of this Court’s jurisdiction. Ms. Wright is not required to know the precise contours of

all of her legal claims—that is the job of counsel.3

Therefore, the Court finds that it has jurisdiction to consider Ms. Wright’s ADA

retaliation claim. However, this claim, along with Ms. Wright’s other retaliation claims under

the PHRA and FMLA, fail for the reasons set forth below.

2. Applicable Legal Standard.

Where, as is the case here, direct evidence is lacking, retaliation claims asserted under the

ADA, PHRA, or FMLA are also analyzed under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting

3 This testimony is, however, relevant to the analysis of the viability of her retaliation claim, as

discussed below.

framework.4 See Williams, 380 F.3d at 759 n.3; Lichtenstein v. Univ. of Pittsburgh Med. Ctr.,

691 F.3d 294, 302 (3d Cir. 2012).

The first step is the same regardless of the statute being invoked: Ms. Wright must

establish a prima facie case, which requires a showing that “(1) she was engaged in ‘protected

activity,’ (2) she experienced an adverse employment action, and (3) there was a causal

connection between the employee’s involvement in protected activity and the adverse

employment action.” Hatch, 755 F. App’x at 200 (citation omitted). Ms. Wright has not

satisfied her burden with respect to the third element.

3. Ms. Wright Has Not Established a Causal Connection Between Her

Termination and Any Protected Activity.

Ms. Wright argues in her briefing that she engaged in three protected activities: (1) filing

her First EEOC Charge on September 15, 2015; (2) requesting accommodations for her

disability; and (3) taking FMLA block-medical leave from March 2016 through July 2016. [ECF

72, at 22-23]. At the outset, the Court notes that Ms. Wright’s position in her summary judgment

briefing is inconsistent with the testimony she provided during her deposition that she believed

her First EEOC Charge was the basis for the alleged retaliation she suffered:

MS. WRIGHT: [Ms. Lutz] was mad at me because I filed EEOC charges against

her, and she found any way possible to get back at me, and she found

the first thing to fire me for, and that’s what she did.

Q: That first thing – so you’re claiming that she’s retaliating against you

for filing an EEOC charge?

A: Yeah, because I never did anything to her. Nothing. I never disrespected

her. I never got smart with her. I never did anything.

[ECF 75-23, at 234:21-235:8]. Putting this inconsistency aside, Ms. Wright cannot establish a

causal connection between any of these protected activities and an adverse employment action.

A causal link between protected activity and adverse activity may be inferred from an

unusually suggestive temporal proximity between the two events, an intervening pattern of

antagonism following the protected conduct, an employer’s inconsistent explanation for taking

an adverse employment action, or the proffered evidence examined as a whole. Carvalho-

Greivous v. Del. State Univ., 851 F.3d 249, 2860 (3d Cir. 2017). Ms. Wright concedes that

“[t]he adverse action in this case occurred in September of 2016, when Plaintiff was terminated.”

[ECF 20, at 11-12].

Here, too much time passed between any of the protected activities and her termination

on September 27, 2016 to be “unusually suggestive.” Ms. Wright filed her First EEOC Charge

more than 12 months before her termination. [ECF 67, at ¶ 48]. The last accommodation sought

by Ms. Wright was her request for extended FMLA leave. [See generally ECF 75]. She returned

4 Ms. Wright concedes she is proceeding on a pretext theory for her retaliation claims. [ECF 72, at

23-25].

from leave on July 11, 2016—more than two months before she was terminated. [Id. at ¶ 18].

“Two months is not so close to be unduly suggestive of causation.” Moore v. Shinseki, 487 F.

App’x 697, 698 (3d Cir. 2012) (affirming grant of summary judgment in Title VII case); see also

Williams, 380 F.3d at 760 (holding two months between protected activity and adverse

employment action not unduly suggestive); Davis v. Davis Auto, Inc., No. 10-3105, 2011 WL

5902220, at *10 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 22, 2011) (“When more than two months lapses between the

request for an accommodation and the date of termination, the temporal proximity is not so close

as to be unduly suggestive, and the plaintiff must put forth other evidence to demonstrate a

causal link.”).

Absent temporal proximity, other evidence, looked at as a whole, may also suffice to

raise the inference of an employer’s retaliatory motive. Rhoden v. Childrens Hosp. of Pittsburgh

of UPMC Health Sys., 749 F. App’x 86, 90 (3d Cir. 2018). The reason being that “it is

causation, not temporal proximity itself, that is an element of plaintiff’s prima facie case, and

temporal proximity merely provides an evidentiary basis from which an inference can be drawn.”

Kachmar v. SunGard Data Sys., Inc., 109 F.3d 173, 178 (3d Cir. 1997).

In this case, any potential for an inference breaks down because of the intervening event

of the altercation, which occurred just four days before her termination. “[A] causal link

between an employee’s protected activity and an adverse employment action against that

employee may be broken by intervening events….” Outten v. Genesis Health Care, LLC, No.

13-4708, 2014 WL 3964918, at *12 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 12, 2014). Even assuming that Ms. Lutz’s

stray remarks and allegedly rude behavior directed toward Ms. Wright that occurred between the

last of Ms. Wright’s protected activities and her termination could be evidence of a “causal link,”

Ms. Wright broke the causal chain when “she undisputedly engaged in conduct that went against

a known practice of [Providence] and for which [Providence says it] terminated her.” Id.; see

also Calero v. Cardone Indus., Inc., No. 11-3192, 2012 WL 2547356, at *10 (E.D. Pa. June 29,

2012) (causal link between plaintiff’s FMLA leave and plaintiff’s termination was broken where

plaintiff—a factory worker—lied to his employer about his arrival times); Naber v, Dover

Healthcare Assocs., Inc., 765 F. Supp. 2d 622, 647 (D. Del. 2011) (causal link between

plaintiff’s request for FMLA leave and plaintiff’s termination was broken where plaintiff—a

recreation assistant at a nursing home facility—falsified records).

Not every case will present such a clear instance of an intervening event cutting off any

potential inference of retaliatory conduct. Here, the Court is presented with an undisputed,

discrete event (i.e., the altercation) that occurred just four days before the termination, while all

of the protected activities occurred many months earlier. The close proximity between the

altercation and the termination, and the distance from when Ms. Wright engaged in protected

activity is strong evidence of an intervening causal event.

Thus, even viewing the record in the light most favorable to Ms. Wright, the Court cannot

find that Ms. Wright has met her burden to establish a prima facie case for retaliation under any

statute because she cannot show a causal link between any of her alleged protected activities and

her termination. The Court will GRANT Defendants’ motion as to Ms. Wright’s retaliation

claims under the ADA, PHRA, and FMLA in Counts I, II, and III of the Second Amended

Complaint.5

V. CONCLUSION

For all of the reasons discussed above, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF

65] will be GRANTED in its entirety. An appropriate Order follows.

DATED this 24th day of September, 2019.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ J. Nicholas Ranjan

United States District Judge

5 The Court need not address Defendants’ argument that Beaver Valley cannot be liable to Ms.

Wright under the ADA, PHRA, and FMLA because the Court has dismissed all substantive claims on

other grounds.