Jones v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14094
| 3rd Cir. | 2015Background
- Michelle Jones worked for SEPTA as an administrative assistant from 2001; supervisor Alfred Outlaw suspended her with pay on Dec. 1, 2010 after apparent timesheet irregularities.
- Jones immediately complained of sexual harassment and retaliation to SEPTA’s EEO Office and later filed a PHRC charge in March 2011.
- SEPTA’s Office of Inspector General investigated and concluded Jones submitted fraudulent timesheets; she was suspended without pay on Feb. 22, 2011 and terminated in April 2011.
- Jones sued SEPTA and Outlaw alleging Title VII gender discrimination and retaliation, PHRA claims, and § 1983 Fourteenth Amendment claims; district court granted summary judgment to defendants.
- Third Circuit framed the central legal question as whether a paid suspension is an “adverse employment action” under Title VII’s substantive discrimination provision and reviewed the discrimination, hostile-work-environment (Faragher–Ellerth), and retaliation (including cat’s-paw) theories.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a suspension with pay is an adverse employment action under Title VII substantive provision | Jones: her indefinite paid suspension was an adverse action | SEPTA: paid suspension without more does not alter compensation or employment terms and is not an adverse action | Paid suspension (here, Dec.1–Feb.22) generally is not an adverse employment action under Title VII substantive provision |
| Whether suspension without pay and termination reflect gender discrimination | Jones: disparate treatment (male employees treated more favorably) supports inference of discrimination | SEPTA: investigation showed Jones alone submitted fraudulent timesheets; male comparators not similarly guilty | No causal nexus shown; summary judgment for SEPTA affirmed on discrimination claim |
| Hostile work environment and employer vicarious liability (Faragher–Ellerth) | Jones: Outlaw’s conduct was severe/pervasive and SEPTA is liable | SEPTA: harassment did not culminate in a tangible employment action; employer investigated and took remedial steps; plaintiff failed to use available EEO safeguards | Faragher–Ellerth defense applies; even assuming harassment, SEPTA not liable because no tangible employment action and plaintiff failed to avail herself of protections |
| Retaliation, including cat’s-paw and temporal proximity | Jones: complaints caused adverse actions; Outlaw’s animus led to investigation and termination (cat’s-paw); timing supports causation | SEPTA: OIG’s independent investigation (forensic analysis, access records), lack of evidence Outlaw controlled outcome; timing not unusually suggestive | No evidence of causation or proximate reliance on biased supervisor; cat’s-paw and temporal-proximity theories fail; summary judgment affirmed on retaliation |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishes prima facie framework for discrimination claims)
- Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (employer affirmative defense for supervisor harassment absent a tangible employment action)
- Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (same; defines tangible employment action and employer liability framework)
- Staub v. Proctor Hospital, 562 U.S. 411 (cat’s-paw/proximate-cause theory for supervisor bias leading to adverse action)
- Fuentes v. Perskie, 32 F.3d 759 (3d Cir.) (standards for showing pretext at summary judgment)
- Storey v. Burns Int’l Sec. Servs., 390 F.3d 760 (3d Cir.) (definition of adverse employment action)
- Joseph v. Leavitt, 465 F.3d 87 (2d Cir.) (paid administrative leave during an investigation is not, without more, an adverse employment action)
- McKenna v. City of Philadelphia, 649 F.3d 171 (3d Cir.) (application of cat’s-paw theory in Title VII context)