Faherty v. Secretary United States Department of Homeland Security
705 F. App'x 118
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Helena Faherty, a Caucasian TSA Supervisory Transportation Security Officer at Philadelphia International Airport, was investigated following an anonymous letter alleging overtime and scheduling abuses by supervisors.
- A Federal Air Marshal’s preliminary audit flagged Faherty as one of seven supervisors who potentially falsified time and attendance records; TSA management completed the disciplinary process.
- Faherty denied wrongdoing, saying a now-deceased former manager had authorized her time practices and occasional telework; she provided explanations and disputed some discrepancies.
- Acting Deputy Federal Security Director George Clisby terminated Faherty, citing inconsistent accounts and a perceived lack of responsibility and poor rehabilitation potential.
- Of the seven supervisors, six were separated (two resigned; four, including Faherty, were fired); one supervisor (CH), an African American man, was demoted instead of fired after offering a manager’s sworn statement and admitting fault.
- Faherty sued under Title VII claiming race and gender discrimination, arguing CH’s misconduct was equal or worse; the District Court granted summary judgment for TSA, finding Faherty failed to show pretext. The Third Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Faherty showed TSA’s stated reason for termination was pretext for discrimination | Faherty: CH’s misconduct was similar or worse; disparate treatment shows race/gender bias | TSA: Clisby relied on manager corroboration and CH’s admission of responsibility—legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons | Court: Faherty failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact that TSA’s reasons were pretextual; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether the District Court improperly made credibility determinations at summary judgment | Faherty: District Court improperly resolved credibility by crediting Clisby’s reasons for treating CH differently | TSA: Court referenced nondiscriminatory reasons (manager’s statement; CH’s admission) without resolving impermissible credibility issues | Court: No improper credibility resolution—court acknowledged Clisby’s stated reasons and applied summary judgment standard correctly |
| Whether evidence curated by TSA staff showed discriminatory animus | Faherty: Audit/data selection by TSA employees reflects bias in curator decisions | TSA: No evidence that employees who prepared the audit acted with discriminatory animus | Court: Plaintiff did not show discriminatory animus by those who curated the data; summary judgment proper |
| Whether procedural/waiver issues limit appellate review of certain arguments | Faherty: Raised hearsay and unspecified factual objection about District Court’s reliance on facts | TSA: Some arguments were not developed and therefore waived | Court: Peripheral hearsay/fact-identity claims were not developed and thus waived |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Se. Pa. Transp. Auth., 796 F.3d 323 (3d Cir. 2015) (describing McDonnell Douglas framework and summary judgment review in discrimination cases)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (establishing burden-shifting framework for disparate-treatment claims)
- Montone v. City of Jersey City, 709 F.3d 181 (3d Cir. 2013) (summary judgment and credibility principles in civil rights cases)
- Faherty v. Johnson, 209 F. Supp. 3d 797 (E.D. Pa. 2016) (district-court opinion granting summary judgment for TSA)
- Goldman v. Citigroup Global Mkts., Inc., 834 F.3d 242 (3d Cir. 2016) (arguments not developed on appeal are waived)