# Beverly A. Azzaro v. County of Allegheny Tom Foerster, an Individual and Chairman, Allegheny County Commissioners and Wayne Fusaro, Beverly Azzaro > Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · April 11, 1997 · 110 F.3d 968 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9490180 ## Case - **Full name:** Beverly A. AZZARO v. COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY; Tom Foerster, an Individual and Chairman, Allegheny County Commissioners and Wayne Fusaro, Beverly Azzaro, Appellant - **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit - **Decided:** April 11, 1997 - **Citations:** 110 F.3d 968; 12 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1343; 70 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 44,646; 73 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 930; 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 6924; 1997 WL 170285 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurrence by Becker - **Judges:** Alito, Becker, Cowen, Greenberg, Mansmann, Nygaard, Rosenn, Sarokin, Scirica, Sloviter, Stapleton - **Cited by:** 153 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9490180 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - holding that gender discrimination, “when practiced by those exercising authority in the name of a public official [an executive assistant to the County Commissioner], is as much a matter of public concern as racial discrimination practiced under similar circumstances” and spe… - finding that defendant’s affirmative recognition that “complaints about sexual harassment were important to its ability to serve the public ... [constituted] an ac-knowledgement ... that communications in the manner and place of [plaintiffs] do not pose an undue threat of disr… - concluding that, even though there was “no evidence” that those who took adverse action had knowledge of plaintiffs complaint, summary judgment was inappropriate because there was circumstantial evidence raising an inference of knowledge - holding that Plaintiff's first amendment retaliation claim precluded summary judgment because it created a factual issue even where the assertion of a non-retaliatory reason would have justified the termination of Plaintiff’s employment ## Opinion text BECKER, Circuit Judge, concurring. I join in the majority’s opinion with the understanding that, under its rendering of Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 , 103 S.Ct. 1684 , 75 L.Ed.2d 708 (1983), in part III, it has not created anything close to a per se rule under which reports of sexual harassment will always constitute public concern speech. It seems to me that there will be many complaints of sexual harassment, about more aggravated conduct than that described in footnote 4 of the opinion, which will not qualify as matters of public concern.and with respect to which summary judgment for the defendant will be appropriate. This will include cases where the offender is a non-supervisory co-worker and the incident is more than “isolated,” though neither egregious nor repeated with great frequency; where the incident is not known to the “powers that be”; where, even if a; supervispr is involved, the incident is minor or questionable; where the motive or credibility of the complainant is significantly in doubt; or where a combination of these factors is at work. Under the majority’s approach, the opposite result might attain, incorrectly I submit. I am satisfied that the record in the case at bar supports the denial of summary judgment, though hot by much. I note in this regard Azzaro’s delayed and offhand non-report to Fox which became a “report” to Sirabella only in the context of the political crossfire in which she became caught when Hohman sought to use her report to combat his dwindling influence with Foerster. Indeed, the record is far from clear that she was not targeted for dismissal because of possible support for Brimmeier, see Carver v. Foerster, 102 F.3d 96 (3d Cir.1996), rather than her non-complaint of sexual harassment. Judges SCIRICA, ROTH and ALITO join in this opinion. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9490180. Public record. Not legal advice.