Background
- Zack De Piero, a White former writing professor at Penn State Abington, sued Penn State and several employees alleging, among other things, that he was retaliated against for filing complaints of racial discrimination.
- Earlier in the case, the court dismissed several of De Piero’s claims, including disparate treatment and hostile work environment claims under Title VII, §1981, Title VI, and the PHRA.
- Only retaliation claims under Title VII and the PHRA remained after summary judgment was granted to defendants on the hostile work environment claims.
- De Piero’s retaliation claims were based on Penn State issuing a "Performance Expectations" memorandum (placed in his personnel file) and downgrading his annual performance review, which he argued were in response to his discrimination complaints.
- The court reviewed whether these actions constituted adverse employment actions sufficient to support a prima facie case of retaliation.
- The court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants, holding De Piero failed to show a genuine dispute of material fact regarding adverse employment action or retaliation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do a written reprimand and downgraded review after discrimination complaints constitute adverse employment action for retaliation? | De Piero: The reprimand and performance downgrade were in retaliation for protected activity and materially adverse. | Penn State: Neither action materially changed De Piero’s employment conditions; reprimands and negative reviews alone are not adverse actions. | Court: These acts, absent further negative consequences, are not adverse employment actions under Title VII or PHRA. |
| Did surrounding circumstances and other alleged mistreatment make the reprimand and evaluation retaliatory? | De Piero: Cited broader context and alleged selective enforcement, prejudgment, and biased investigation. | Penn State: There is no record evidence substantiating these claims or demonstrating material adverse effect. | Court: Plaintiff failed to cite evidence creating a genuine dispute of fact; summary judgment for defendants. |
| Was there a material change in employment terms or conditions after protected activity? | De Piero: The negative evaluation and reprimand affected his employment standing. | Penn State: No pay, benefits, or contract renewal was affected; De Piero got a raise and contract renewal. | Court: No material change in employment; no adverse action established. |
| Can conclusory or unsupported allegations withstand summary judgment? | De Piero: Asserted a variety of alleged retaliatory motives and incidents. | Penn State: Plaintiff's claims lacked support or citation to evidence. | Court: Unsupported claims and lack of legal authority mean claims are waived or insufficient. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden-shifting framework for circumstantial evidence of discrimination or retaliation)
- Weston v. Pennsylvania, 251 F.3d 420 (written reprimands must cause a material change to constitute adverse action)
- Geraci v. Moody-Tottrup, Int’l, Inc., 82 F.3d 578 (plaintiff must raise a genuine issue of material fact on each element of the prima facie case)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard: must be genuine issue of material fact)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (burden on non-moving party to show genuine issue at summary judgment)