Johnson v. St Luke Hosp , 307 F. App'x 670 ( 2009 )

Opinions of the United
2009 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
1-23-2009
Johnson v. St Luke Hosp
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 07-4467
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009
Recommended Citation
"Johnson v. St Luke Hosp" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 1992.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/1992
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2009 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 07-4467
ANNETTE JOHNSON,
Appellant
v.
ST. LUKE’S HOSPITAL,
Appellee
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. No. 06-cv-03417)
District Judge: Honorable Stewart Dalzell
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
October 31, 2008
Before: Sloviter, Stapleton, Tashima,* Circuit Judges
(Filed: January 23, 2009 )
OPINION
TASHIMA, Circuit Judge.
*
The Honorable A. Wallace Tashima, Senior United States Circuit Judge, United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.
Annette Johnson (“Johnson”) appeals the District Court’s grant of summary
judgment in favor of her former employer, St. Luke’s Hospital (“St. Luke’s”), on her
claim that she was terminated on account of her race in violation of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. We have
jurisdiction to review the District Court’s decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and will
affirm the grant of summary judgment.
Because we write for the parties, we recite only those facts necessary to our
analysis of the issues presented on appeal. Our review of a grant of summary judgment is
plenary and “we must grant all reasonable inferences from the evidence to the non-
moving party.” Knabe v. Boury Corp., 114 F.3d 407, 410 n.4 (3d Cir. 1997). The moving
party carries the burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.
Celotex Corp. v. Cartrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).
Johnson, an African-American woman, began working at St. Luke’s on November
28, 2000, as a personal care assistant in the personal care service department.
Subsequently, she sought and secured employment in the hospital’s phlebotomy
department, and began working as a phlebotomist on March 5, 2002. Her employment in
that department continued through January 19, 2006, when St. Luke’s officially
terminated her. According to St. Luke’s, the hospital terminated Johnson because she
had “shown that [she was] either unwilling or unable to comply with St. Luke’s standards
of performance/customer service expectations and [her] behavior clearly [demonstrated] a
2
pattern of repeated failure to interact appropriately with [her] co-workers . . . .”
Because this is a Title VII claim, we employ the Supreme Court’s McDonnell
Douglas-Burdine burden-shifting analysis.1 See St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S.
502 (1993); Tex. Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981); McDonnell
Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) .
Under this framework, Johnson must first make out a prima facie case of
employment discrimination. Id. at 802. If a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, the
burden then shifts to the defendant to proffer a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason, for
the plaintiff’s discharge. Id. If the defendant establishes a legitimate reason for the
discharge, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff, who must then show that the defendant’s
proffered reason is pretextual. Id. at 804.
Even when viewed in the light most favorable to Johnson, the record does not
contain sufficient evidence to establish the elements of a prima facie case of employment
discrimination. In order to establish a prima facie case, Johnson must show that she: (1)
is a member of a protected class; (2) was qualified for the position she held; (3) was fired
from that position; and (4) suffered adverse action under circumstances that give rise to
an inference of discrimination. Jones v. Sch. Dist. of Phila., 198 F.3d 403, 410-11 (3d
Cir. 1999). The parties do not dispute that Johnson has satisfied the first three elements;
1
Although Johnson alleges a violation of two separate statutes, we apply the
same legal analysis to both, because both claims require the same elements of proof. See
Lewis v. Univ. of Pittsburgh, 725 F.2d 910, 915 n.5 (3d Cir. 1983).
3
however, we agree with the District Court that she has failed to satisfy the fourth.
Johnson relies on a disparate treatment theory to establish an inference of racial
discrimination. To proceed in this fashion, Johnson mush show that St. Luke’s treated
her less favorably than similarly situated employees who were not in her protected class.
Doe v. C.A.R.S. Protection Plus, Inc. 527 F.3d 358, 366 (3d Cir. 2008). Further, Johnson
must establish a “causal nexus” between the alleged disparate treatment and St. Luke’s
decision to terminate her employment. See Sarullo v. U.S. Postal Serv., 352 F.3d 789,
798 (3d Cir. 2003).
Johnson’s evidence of disparate treatment consists solely of assertions contained
within her own affidavit. The affidavit recounts several incidents where Johnson claims
that St. Luke’s treated her unfairly. Each of the incidents set forth in her affidavit fails to
raise an inference of discrimination because they are either (1) purely speculative; (2)
unsupported by facts in the record; or (3) factually unrelated to St. Luke’s decision to
terminate her employment.
The majority of Johnson’s disparate treatment allegations fall into the first
category–the purely speculative. For example, Johnson claims that her supervisor, Marie
Koehler, allowed white employees to take time off of work for personal appointments,
but would not allow Johnson to do so, and that only white employees were permitted to
drink coffee in workrooms. These examples are not reflective of Johnson’s personal
knowledge or of corroborating evidence; indeed, they are purely speculative and
4
conclusory.2 “A non-moving party may not ‘rest upon mere allegations,’ general denials
or . . . vague statements . . . .” Trap Rock Indus., Inc. v. Local 825, 982 F.2d 884, 890 (3d
Cir. 1992) (quoting Quiroga v. Hasbro, Inc., 934 F.2d 497, 500 (3rd Cir. 1991)); see also
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) (stating that judgment “shall be entered” against a nonmoving party
unless affidavits or other evidence “set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine
issue for trial.”).
Several of Johnson’s allegations fall into the second category–those where there is
no suggestion that employees of a different race were treated differently. For example,
Johnson claims that her supervisor, Marie Koehler, along with a hospital administrator,
Cindy McKellin, unfairly wrote her up for workplace misconduct. However, there is no
evidence in the record suggesting that other employees were treated differently. To the
contrary, St. Luke’s has provided uncontraverted evidence that other employees were
routinely written up for similar workplace violations, and in each incident cited by
Johnson involving a co-worker, the co-worker was also written up or reprimanded.
Only one of Johnson’s allegations falls into the final category. Johnson’s affidavit
describes an incident where, without first investigating the matter, her supervisor falsely
accused her of creating a mess in one of the workrooms. Johnson alleges that the
2
When asked, in a deposition, about specific facts supporting her allegation
that other employees were not disciplined for leaving work to attend private
appointments, Johnson replied, “I know for a fact. They did it all the time, certain people.
I know.”
5
supervisor entered a room of employees and ordered her (the only African-American
present) to clean up the workroom. Although Johnson’s version of events describes an
instance of disparate treatment, she sets forth no specific facts suggesting that the incident
was at all related to St. Luke’s decision to terminate her employment, and thus, the
“causal nexus” that Sarullo requires is not present. See 352 F.3d at 798.
Johnson has failed to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination. The un-
corroborated allegations in her affidavit are either purely speculative and conclusory, do
not allege race discrimination, or are not causally related to her termination.
For the forgoing reasons we will AFFIRM the District Court’s decision granting
summary judgement in favor of St. Luke’s.
6