Manhua Lin v. Rohm and Haas Co, 685 F. App'x 125

Background

Manhua “Mandy” Lin, a former Rohm and Haas senior scientist and inventor on a patented catalyst, left the company after an EEOC settlement; the settlement restricted disclosure of Rohm and Haas confidential information and required pre-approval of materials.
Lin gave a 2000 ACS presentation that the company believed disclosed post-1996 confidential material; Rohm and Haas sued in Pennsylvania court alleging trade-secret/disclosure violations and obtained preliminary and later permanent injunctive relief and monetary sanctions for discovery noncompliance.
Lin filed multiple EEOC charges alleging retaliation; this suit arises from her fourth EEOC charge claiming Rohm and Haas served burdensome discovery and otherwise retaliated in the Montgomery County litigation and by contacting the DOE.
Rohm and Haas pursued aggressive discovery, sought information from Temple and the DOE, showed confidential Rohm and Haas documents in depositions, and made a settlement offer in 2007 conditioned on broad releases and licenses; Lin allegedly disclosed 45 pages of Rohm and Haas documents to the DOE in violation of a confidentiality stipulation.
The District Court conducted an 11-day bench trial, credited Rohm and Haas’ in-house lawyer Vouros’s testimony that actions were motivated by good-faith concerns that Lin was misusing confidential information, and entered judgment for Rohm and Haas on Title VII and PHRA retaliation claims.
On appeal, Lin challenged only the District Court’s credibility finding regarding Vouros and argued inconsistencies, a missing-witness inference for an uncalled attorney (Shaw), and that the court improperly credited parts of Vouros’s testimony despite assuming he lied about a settlement threat.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the District Court clearly erred in crediting Vouros’s testimony that Rohm and Haas acted for non-retaliatory reasons	Lin: Vouros’s testimony contained inconsistencies, memory gaps, and contradicted evidence; thus credibility finding was clear error	Rohm & Haas: Vouros acted on reasonable, good-faith concerns about Lin’s use of confidential information; inconsistencies are minor given passage of time	Court: No clear error. Credibility determinations deferred to trial court; evidence supports legitimate, non-retaliatory motive
Whether a missing-witness inference against Rohm and Haas was required because it did not call Shaw to testify about the settlement discussion	Lin: Failure to call Shaw warrants adverse inference that Rohm & Haas’s story was false	Rohm & Haas: District Court implicitly assumed the disputed threat occurred and thus no inference was needed; Shaw’s testimony unnecessary	Court: No error. The court assumed the threat for purposes of analysis and declined to draw inference from Shaw’s absence
Whether the court could credit parts of Vouros’s testimony if it assumed he lied about the settlement threat	Lin: If Vouros lied about the threat, all his testimony should be suspect	Rohm & Haas: A factfinder may credit some parts of a witness’s testimony and reject others; other evidence independently supports motive	Court: Permissible to credit portions of testimony; even assuming falsehood, abundant non-retaliatory facts supported Rohm & Haas’s motive
Whether Lin proved but-for causation for retaliation under Title VII/Nassar	Lin: EEOC charges were the cause of adverse litigation and DOE contacts	Rohm & Haas: Actions would have occurred absent EEOC charges because of concerns over misuse of confidential information	Court: Lin failed to prove but-for causation; legitimate business reasons motivated Rohm & Haas’s conduct

Key Cases Cited

CG v. Pa. Dep’t of Educ., 734 F.3d 229 (3d Cir. 2013) (standard of review for bench-trial factual findings)
Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564 (1985) (appellate review; deference to trial court credibility findings)
Moore v. City of Phila., 461 F.3d 331 (3d Cir. 2006) (elements of Title VII retaliation claim)
Atkinson v. LaFayette Coll., 460 F.3d 447 (3d Cir. 2006) (PHRA interpreted coextensively with Title VII)
Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 133 S. Ct. 2517 (2013) (retaliation claims require but-for causation)
Lin v. Rohm & Haas Co., 301 F. Supp. 2d 403 (E.D. Pa. 2004) (prior related litigation and summary-judgment disposition)
Lambert v. Blackwell, 387 F.3d 210 (3d Cir. 2004) (factfinder may accept portions of witness testimony and reject others)