Denine Hood v. Citizens Bank of Pennsylvania
694 F. App'x 80
3rd Cir.2017Background
- Denine Hood, an African-American branch manager at Citizens Bank, was terminated after admitting she entered a false driver’s-license expiration date to open a customer account and opened an account for a customer not physically present—both violations of bank policy.
- Hood initially claimed she misread the license but later admitted falsifying the date and telling the customer to return with valid ID or face account closure.
- Citizens investigated and terminated Hood; she sued alleging race, gender, and age discrimination under Title VII and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.
- Citizens moved for summary judgment; the Magistrate Judge and District Court concluded Citizens offered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason (policy violations) and Hood failed to show pretext.
- Hood relied principally on a purported comparator, white manager G.P., who received only a warning after suspected structuring; the courts found G.P. was not similarly situated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hood showed pretext such that the employer’s articulated reason for termination is disbelieved | Hood: Citizens treated nonprotected employees (esp. G.P.) more favorably for comparable conduct, showing pretext | Citizens: Hood violated clear bank policies; other employees cited were not similarly situated and facts do not show pretext | Court: No pretext; summary judgment for Citizens affirmed |
| Whether G.P. was a valid comparator | Hood: G.P. committed comparable misconduct but received little discipline | Citizens: Record lacks evidence Citizens believed G.P. guilty; facts differ materially | Court: G.P. not similarly situated; not a valid comparator |
| Whether Hood’s actions were within managerial discretion or terminable offenses | Hood: Her actions were within managerial discretion and not necessarily terminable; inconsistency in ID policies and discipline practices | Citizens: Bank policy required unexpired photo ID; serious misconduct can justify immediate termination | Court: Hood admitted policy violations; termination permissible under policy; deviation from progressive discipline not probative absent similar comparators |
| Whether inconsistent application of discipline shows discriminatory intent | Hood: Citizens’ alleged departure from progressive discipline toward her indicates discrimination | Citizens: Policy allows immediate termination for serious misconduct; other disciplined employees not similarly situated | Court: No evidence of discriminatory intent; discipline disparities not probative without similar comparators |
Key Cases Cited
- Marten v. Godwin, 499 F.3d 290 (3d Cir. 2007) (standard of review for summary judgment in employment cases)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (party opposing summary judgment must show an essential element with admissible evidence)
- Matreale v. N.J. Dep’t of Military & Veterans Affairs, 487 F.3d 150 (3d Cir. 2007) (view evidence in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
- Fuentes v. Perskie, 32 F.3d 759 (3d Cir. 1994) (standards for proving pretext or discriminatory motive at summary judgment)
- Simpson v. Kay Jewelers, Div. of Sterling, Inc., 142 F.3d 639 (3d Cir. 1998) (requirement that comparator be similarly situated to be probative of pretext)