Jennifer Welchko v. UPMC Altoona
21-3014
| 3rd Cir. | Feb 22, 2022Background
- Welchko worked at UPMC Altoona as a medical assistant beginning in 2017 after ten years in hospital administrative roles.
- UPMC had a rule forbidding "pre-charting" (entering patient care activities before they occur); pre-charting is a terminable offense.
- Welchko pre-charted in September 2017 (received a supervisor admonition) and again in October 2017 (investigation, suspension, and termination). She asked for more charting training but says she did not receive it.
- A male comparator, nurse Trent McConnell, had pre-charting incidents: he received a written warning in 2016, was suspended, later pre-charted again, was fired, and ultimately was reinstated after his union pursued arbitration.
- Welchko’s union withdrew the grievance and declined arbitration; she filed an EEOC charge and then sued alleging sex discrimination under Title VII. The District Court granted summary judgment for UPMC; this appeal challenges that ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Welchko's Argument | UPMC's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Welchko can establish a Title VII disparate-treatment claim | She was treated worse than a male coworker (McConnell) for the same misconduct | UPMC fired for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason: pre-charting violations | Court assumed prima facie could be established but resolved case on pretext and summary judgment for UPMC |
| Whether UPMC provided a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for termination | N/A (disputes UPMC’s stated reason as pretext) | Termination was for prohibited pre-charting after prior warning(s) | UPMC offered a valid reason (pre-charting); burden shifted to Welchko to show pretext |
| Whether comparator evidence (McConnell) establishes pretext | McConnell got a written warning and was later reinstated after arbitration, showing disparate treatment | McConnell received a prior written warning but was later fired for a subsequent infraction; reinstatement resulted from his union’s arbitration, not UPMC’s discriminatory animus | Disparities in warnings and different grievance/arbitration outcomes do not establish pretext; comparator evidence insufficient |
| Whether lack of training supports a finding of pretext | She lacked sufficient charting training, causing the pre-charting errors and showing discriminatory motive | Lack of training (or mistaken/poor decision) does not prove discriminatory animus | Insufficient to show discrimination; plaintiff cannot convert an employer mistake into discrimination at summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Blunt v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 767 F.3d 247 (3d Cir. 2014) (standard of review for summary judgment in employment appeals)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment and the standard for genuine dispute of material fact)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for disparate-treatment claims)
- Fuentes v. Perskie, 32 F.3d 759 (3d Cir. 1994) (standards for proving pretext under the McDonnell Douglas framework)
- Mandel v. M & Q Packaging Corp., 706 F.3d 157 (3d Cir. 2013) (elements of prima facie case under Title VII)