Darlena Clarkson v. SEPTA, 700 F. App'x 111

Clarkson, a union employee since 1989, applied for a supervisory VEM Warranty Administrator position first posted in 2009; SEPTA did not interview anyone then and the position was left unfilled until relisted in 2012.
Clarkson reapplied in 2012, was interviewed, and accepted the promotion in November 2012; days after accepting she filed an EEOC/PHRC complaint alleging the 2009 nonpromotion was retaliation for refusing a supervisor’s personal request.
She filed a second EEOC/PHRC complaint in March 2013 alleging retaliation for filing the first complaint; both administrative complaints were dismissed and she received a right-to-sue letter.
Clarkson sued SEPTA in 2014 under Title VII and the PHRA for gender discrimination and retaliation; the District Court dismissed her failure-to-promote claims under Rule 12(b)(6) as time-barred and granted summary judgment for SEPTA on her remaining retaliation claims.
On appeal, Clarkson argued the 2009 nonpromotion should be tolled (discovery rule or equitable tolling) and that post-2012 actions (extra duties, an embarrassing meeting, conflicting directives, threats, gossip) constituted retaliatory adverse actions or a hostile work environment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of 2009 failure-to-promote claim	Clarkson: she could not know unlawful motivation until July 2012; apply discovery rule or equitable tolling	SEPTA: claim accrued in 2009; Clarkson failed to pursue or inquire earlier, no extraordinary circumstances	Affirmed dismissal; claim untimely and no tolling warranted
Whether post-2012 actions are materially adverse (retaliation prima facie second element)	Clarkson: extra tasks, forced meeting, conflicting directives, threats, gossip and disparagement were adverse and would deter reporting	SEPTA: actions consistent with managerial duties, minor annoyances, no discipline or objective harm; not materially adverse	Affirmed summary judgment; actions not materially adverse
Hostile work environment (retaliation theory)	Clarkson: cumulative conduct created hostile environment	SEPTA: incidents isolated/minor, not severe or pervasive	Affirmed; conduct not severe or pervasive enough to create hostile work environment
Causation between protected activity and alleged actions	Clarkson: timing and context show causal link	SEPTA: no actionable adverse acts, so causation question moot	Court did not reach causation because plaintiff failed to establish adverse action

Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. 2009) (Rule 12(b)(6) standard)
Blunt v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 767 F.3d 247 (3d Cir. 2014) (summary judgment standard)
Evancho v. Fisher, 423 F.3d 347 (3d Cir. 2005) (motion to dismiss review and legal sufficiency)
W. Penn. Allegheny Health Sys., Inc. v. UPMC, 627 F.3d 85 (3d Cir. 2010) (timeliness review from complaint face)
Woodson v. Scott Paper Co., 109 F.3d 913 (3d Cir. 1997) (PHRA/Title VII exhaustion principles)
Noel v. The Boeing Co., 622 F.3d 266 (3d Cir. 2010) (accrual rule for promotion decisions)
Oshiver v. Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman, 38 F.3d 1380 (3d Cir. 1994) (discovery rule for accrual)
Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (2005) (equitable tolling requires diligence and extraordinary circumstances)
Carvalho-Grevious v. Delaware State Univ., 851 F.3d 249 (3d Cir. 2017) (retaliation prima facie elements)
Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (standard for materially adverse retaliatory acts)
Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002) (hostile work environment standard and accrual principles)