Faherty v. Johnson
209 F. Supp. 3d 797
| E.D. Pa. | 2016Background
- Helena Faherty, a Supervisory TSA Transportation Security Officer since 2002, was investigated after an anonymous tip and an audit found falsified time records; seven supervisors (including Faherty) were implicated.
- Air Marshal Jeffrey Brown conducted a payroll audit, identifying days where employees appeared not to be at work; his audit applied the same standards to all supervisors and he did not know their identities.
- Faherty denied wrongdoing, claimed a deceased former manager had authorized work-from-home time, but the decision-maker (Acting Deputy Federal Security Director George Clisby) found her explanation not credible and that she failed to accept responsibility.
- Four supervisors received Notices of Proposed Removal; three (including Faherty) were removed, while one ("CH") was demoted after admitting responsibility and presenting corroborating evidence from his manager.
- Faherty sued for race- and sex-based discrimination; defendant moved for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment for the TSA and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Faherty established a prima facie case of discrimination | Faherty is a member of protected classes, was qualified, suffered adverse action, and similarly situated comparators (e.g., CH) were treated better | TSA conceded first three elements for summary judgment purposes and argued differences in treatment were non-discriminatory | Court treated prima facie burden as satisfied but proceeded to employer’s articulated reasons; summary judgment not defeated on this ground |
| Whether TSA articulated legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for removal | N/A (burden shifts to TSA at this stage) | Clisby evaluated records, explanations, prior discipline, and mitigation; Faherty’s explanation lacked documentation and credibility; CH accepted responsibility and had corroboration | Court found TSA met its burden: legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons articulated |
| Whether Faherty showed pretext or discriminatory motive | Argued investigation/audit was incomplete and CH should have been charged similarly; claimed differential treatment shows discrimination | TSA showed CH had corroborating manager statement and admitted fault; audit standards applied uniformly; different mitigation facts explained disparate outcomes | Court held Faherty failed to present sufficient evidence to disprove TSA’s reasons or show discrimination was more likely than not |
| Relevance of prior incidents (accusation of racism; uninvestigated sexual-harassment complaint) | Pointed to prior interpersonal incidents and alleged failures to investigate as evidence of discrimination | TSA argued prior incidents did not result in adverse actions or connect to time-sheet discipline | Court found those incidents insufficiently connected and not evidence of discriminatory motive for termination |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (established burden-shifting framework for employment discrimination claims)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard—materiality and genuine dispute analysis)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (party opposing summary judgment must present concrete evidence supporting essential elements)
- Fuentes v. Perskie, 32 F.3d 759 (ways plaintiff may show pretext or discriminatory motive at summary judgment)
- Makky v. Chertoff, 541 F.3d 205 (Third Circuit discussion of comparator evidence and pretext analysis)