126 F. Supp. 3d 477
M.D. Penn.2015Background
- Kimes, hired as a University of Scranton Public Safety Officer in 2008, was the only female officer on her shifts and became a sworn police officer in 2010. She accumulated a history of reprimands and corrective notices from 2009–2013.
- Kimes requested intermittent FMLA leave in December 2011 and used FMLA leave in July 2012; supervisors criticized her use of leave and called it “inconsiderate.”
- Kimes alleges repeated gender-based disparate treatment and sexist comments by supervisors (orders to perform menial tasks, remarks that women shouldn’t be officers, suggestions she work as a secretary). Coworkers provided certifications supporting differential treatment.
- Kimes prepared an incident/ambulance report for a September 14, 2013 student assault; supervisors altered the report and later concluded her police report misrepresented facts. The University terminated Kimes on October 21, 2013.
- Kimes filed EEOC/PHRA charges and sued asserting: (1) FMLA interference and retaliation; (2) Title VII and PHRA gender discrimination and hostile work environment; (3) Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law violation. The University moved for summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Title VII / PHRA gender discrimination (termination) | Kimes: supervisors’ sexist comments, disparate assignments, biased discipline and the altered-report investigation show discrimination and pretext for termination. | Univ.: termination was for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons — poor performance, disciplinary history, and a false/misleading police report. | Denied summary judgment; Kimes established a prima facie case and raised genuine issues of fact (timing, inconsistent accounts, improved recent performance, history of bias) sufficient to permit a jury to find pretext. |
| Hostile work environment (Title VII / PHRA) | Kimes: repeated sexist comments and differential treatment over years created an abusive environment. | Univ.: incidents are isolated/non-severe and insufficient as a matter of law to be pervasive or severe. | Granted for Univ.; court found comments and incidents, while inappropriate, were not sufficiently severe or pervasive to establish a hostile work environment. |
| FMLA interference / chilling (29 U.S.C.) | Kimes: employer failed to notify her of FMLA designation and supervisors’ reactions (calling leave “inconsiderate”) chilled her exercise of rights. | Univ.: Kimes was not denied FMLA and in fact used leave later; any procedural lapses caused no injury. | Mixed: summary judgment granted on failure-to-notify theory (no demonstrable injury), but denied on interference/chilling and on FMLA retaliation — timing (16 days to adverse evaluation), supervisor comments, and circumstances create genuine fact issues on chilling and retaliation pretext. |
| Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law (43 P.S. § 1423) | Kimes: reported alteration of police report (fraud/violation of rules) and was retaliated against. | Univ.: Kimes did not report objective ‘‘wrongdoing’’ as required (no showing of violation of statute/regulation/or code of conduct); asserted legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for discipline/termination. | Granted for Univ.; court held Kimes failed to prove an objectively defined ‘‘wrongdoing’’ (statute/regulation or code violation) by a preponderance, so whistleblower claim fails. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard for genuine dispute)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden‑shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (allocation of burdens under McDonnell Douglas)
- Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (continuing violation doctrine vs. discrete acts)
- Fuentes v. Perskie, 32 F.3d 759 (pretext standard in discrimination cases)
- Conoshenti v. Pub. Serv. Elec. & Gas Co., 364 F.3d 135 (employer notice obligations under FMLA regulations)