Ferraro, B. v. Temple University
185 A.3d 396
Pa. Super. Ct.2018Background
- Plaintiff Barbara Ferraro (age 62 at firing) was terminated from Temple University in January 2012 after discipline she imposed on a subordinate (Diane James) over alleged FMLA/attendance violations. Temple said termination was for improper handling of FMLA and an improper citation; Ferraro claimed age discrimination and retaliation.
- Prior events: Ferraro filed an internal age-discrimination complaint in 2010 after alleged exclusion from training and comments about retirement; an HR investigation found no discrimination. Ferraro also claimed a younger colleague (Tiffany Richardson, mid-30s) received preferential treatment.
- James had ongoing performance and attendance issues, applied for FMLA, and submitted a September 27, 2011 email about a same-day doctor appointment that triggered further inquiry and complaints. James filed harassment complaints against Ferraro, leading to HR investigations.
- Ferraro filed an EEOC complaint (unsubstantiated) and then a PHRA suit in 2015 asserting age discrimination and retaliatory discharge. Bench trial was held in January 2017; trial court ruled for Temple and denied Ferraro’s post-trial motions; Ferraro appealed.
- The trial court found Ferraro made a prima facie case of age discrimination (replaced by someone ~12 years younger) but concluded Temple articulated a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason; although the court found Temple’s witnesses not credible at step two, Ferraro failed to prove pretext at step three or to demonstrate causation for retaliation. Appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether employer credibility may be considered when employer meets its production burden (step 2 of McDonnell Douglas framework) | Ferraro: credibility of Temple’s proffered reason is relevant; lack of credibility can prove pretext | Temple: at step two employer need only produce a legitimate reason; credibility is not assessed until plaintiff attempts to show pretext | Court: Credibility is irrelevant to employer’s production burden at step two; plaintiff bears burden at step three to prove pretext |
| Whether Ferraro proved pretext for age discrimination | Ferraro: email chain and differential treatment of younger coworker show pretext | Temple: provided nondiscriminatory reasons (FMLA violations, improper citation); record lacks pattern showing age animus | Court: Although it found Temple’s explanations not credible, Ferraro failed to prove those explanations were a pretext for age-based termination; discrimination claim fails |
| Whether younger coworker’s preferential treatment establishes age discrimination | Ferraro: Richardson’s flexible schedule and lighter discipline show age-based preferential treatment | Temple: differences explained by childcare needs and separate disciplinary bases; no evidence decisions were age-motivated | Court: Trial court reasonably concluded record lacked proof that preferential treatment was due to age; no relief granted |
| Whether Ferraro established retaliation based on her 2010 internal complaint | Ferraro: filing internal complaint led to retaliatory animus culminating in 2012 firing; witnesses lied about discussing complaint | Temple: lack of close temporal proximity and absence of a pattern of antagonism or other evidence linking complaint to termination | Court: No unusually suggestive temporal proximity and no demonstrated pattern of antagonism; plaintiff failed to show causal connection for retaliation |
Key Cases Cited
- Kroptavich v. Pa. Power & Light Co., 795 A.2d 1048 (Pa. Super. 2002) (sets out three-part burden-shifting framework for PHRA age-discrimination claims)
- Fuentes v. Perskie, 32 F.3d 759 (3d Cir. 1994) (evidence types that can show employer’s reason is pretext; credibility and timing relevant at pretext stage)
- Brewer v. Quaker State, 72 F.3d 326 (3d Cir. 1995) (discusses evidence employees may rely on to show pretext)
- Lauren W. ex rel. Jean W. v. DeFlaminis, 480 F.3d 259 (3d Cir. 2007) (retaliation causation: temporal proximity, pattern of antagonism, or record evidence to infer causation)
- Talbert, 129 A.3d 536 (Pa. Super. 2015) (standard of review for bench trials; appellate court will not reweigh credibility or evidence)
- Sempier v. Johnson & Higgins, 45 F.3d 724 (3d Cir. 1995) (discusses patterns and comparators in discrimination analysis)
- Spanish Council of York, Inc. v. Pa. Human Relations Comm’n, 879 A.2d 391 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (elements of a prima facie retaliation claim under Pennsylvania law)