Catherine Willis v. Childrens Hospital of Pittsbur
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 22308
| 3rd Cir. | 2015Background
- Catherine Willis, a neonatal nurse practitioner employed at UPMC Children’s Hospital from 1993 until her termination on January 13, 2012, was 61 at termination and brought ADEA and PHRA claims.
- From 2001–2011 Willis served as co‑lead NNP; supervisors included Lamouree, Valenta, and Hupp.
- Children’s issued discipline (warnings/demotion/termination) based on three incidents (Aug 2011 profanity incident; early Jan 2012 alleged raised‑voice incident; mid‑Jan 2012 failure to complete/admit orders and inconsistent reporting). Willis acknowledged some of the conduct but disputed aspects of characterization.
- Willis filed an EEOC charge in April 2012 and suit in federal court in Jan 2013. The district court granted summary judgment to Children’s; Willis appealed.
- The panel reviewed summary judgment de novo under McDonnell Douglas burden‑shifting, asking (1) whether Willis established a prima facie case (disputed as to the fourth element) and (2) whether Children’s proffered nondiscriminatory reasons were pretextual.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Willis established prima facie age discrimination (fourth element: replacement or disparate treatment of substantially younger similarly situated employees) | Willis: younger employees were treated more favorably (points to demotion replacement and hiring of younger NNPs; claims lack of discipline for similar conduct) | Children’s: record lacks evidence that similarly situated substantially younger employees engaged in the same misconduct and escaped discipline; demotion replacement and hires do not show replacement for termination | Court: Willis failed to raise an inference of age discrimination; fourth element not met based on record as a whole |
| Whether Children’s legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons (three disciplinary incidents) were pretext for age discrimination | Willis: reasons contained inconsistencies and others engaged in similar conduct without discipline; rumors of non‑discipline of younger NNP support pretext | Children’s: documentation and supervisors’ perceptions about Willis’s communication and conduct were legitimate bases for discipline and termination | Court: even assuming a prima facie case, Willis failed to show pretext under either Fuentes method; reasons were not implausible or contradicted by record |
| Whether plaintiff could recover despite failure to mitigate (employment search) | Willis did not pursue post‑termination NNP jobs due to emotional effect | Children’s argued failure to mitigate would bar some relief | Court: did not reach mitigation argument in depth because Willis failed on prima facie / pretext stages |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (framework for burden‑shifting in discrimination cases)
- Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (U.S. 2009) (age discrimination requires but‑for causation)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standards and burdens)
- Fuentes v. Perskie, 32 F.3d 759 (3d Cir. 1994) (methods for proving pretext under McDonnell Douglas)
- Simpson v. Kay Jewelers, 142 F.3d 639 (3d Cir. 1998) (evidence of disparate treatment must be viewed in full record at pretext stage)
- Keller v. Orix Credit Alliance, Inc., 130 F.3d 1101 (3d Cir. 1997) (application of McDonnell Douglas in ADEA cases)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (definition of genuine issue of material fact for summary judgment)
- St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (U.S. 1993) (prima facie case creates inference of discrimination but employer may proffer nondiscriminatory reasons)