Garner v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, 16 A.3d 1189

Garner was dismissed by Comcast in May 2005 for unauthorized possession of Comcast property (an A-frame ladder) left at his rental property.
Garner, an African-American, alleged race-based discrimination under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act after his dismissal.
Hearing evidence included surveillance tapes showing Garner taking the ladder and Comcast witnesses describing his conduct and honesty.
Garner offered comparative and statistical evidence (two white employees with warnings; race-based workforce and dismissal statistics) to prove discrimination.
The hearing examiner found Garner failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination; the Commission adopted and dismissed the complaint.
On review, the Commonwealth Court affirmed, holding Garner did not prove race was a factor in his termination.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the non-suit proper when both sides presented evidence?	Garner argues the Commission should reach the merits because evidence was present.	Comcast/Commission contend the hearing examiner properly granted non-suit as there was no prima facie case.	Non-suit affirmed; no reversible error.
Does a mixed-motives framework require direct evidence in this case?	Garner asserts direct evidence not required in mixed-motives cases.	Defendants maintain the record lacked evidence that race was a factor.	Court rejects status as mixed-motives requiring direct evidence; Garner failed to prove race as a factor.
Did Garner's statistical and comparator evidence show discrimination?	Garner contends statistics show disproportionate termination of African-Americans.	Defendant asserts data was inconclusive, not properly analyzed, and not probative of discrimination.	Court holds statistics/comparators did not establish discrimination; evidence insufficient to prove a prima facie case.
Did the Commission properly apply McDonnell Douglas framework?	Garner argues framework properly applied to infer discrimination.	Defendants claim Garner failed to establish the fourth McDonnell Douglas element.	Court affirms application; Garner failed to show inference of discrimination.

Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa, 539 U.S. 90 (U.S. 2003) (mixed-motives evidence may be direct or indirect)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination cases)
Burdine, Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1981) (employer's burden to articulate non-discriminatory reasons)
Aikens, 460 U.S. 711 (U.S. 1983) (distinguishes administrative proceedings from district-court rulings on dispositive motions)
Lilly v. Harris-Teeter Supermarket, 720 F.2d 326 (4th Cir. 1983) (standard deviation analysis for statistical evidence in discrimination)