Mary Burton v. Teleflex Inc, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 3538

Burton founded medical device companies later sold to Teleflex; she signed employment agreements with Teleflex including 30-day termination notice and severance terms.
Burton, age 67 at the sale, became VP of New Business Development at SMD and supervised sales; Boarini, Teleflex SVP, supervised Burton and their relationship was strained.
In 2008, Burton and Boarini discussed Burton's lack of communication and undefined performance objectives; their trade-show meeting led Burton to believe Boarini wanted to discuss performance, not termination.
Boarini testified he did not inform Burton of any performance issues; Burton denied resigning and alleged Teleflex manufactured a resignation narrative after the meeting.
Two Teleflex employees later claimed Burton told them she resigned; Teleflex relied on these statements to conclude she had resigned and sent a resignation-acceptance letter with severance offer conditioned on non-compete/quit terms.
Burton never submitted a written resignation; Teleflex never confirmed she resigned; she remained on vacation and later received a formal letter accepting resignation, while her employment file stated she left to pursue other opportunities.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Burton terminated or did she resign?	Burton did not resign; she denied resignation and Teleflex relied on hearsay to conclude termination.	Teleflex reasonably believed Burton resigned based on Boarini's assessment and third-party statements.	Vacate summary judgment; dispute of fact exists.
Did Burton establish a prima facie case of ADEA/Title VII discrimination?	Evidence and inference support discrimination; there was an adverse action and a pretextual justification.	Burton failed to show an adverse action or plausible pretext.	Vacate and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Was Teleflex's proffered reason for Burton's separation pretextual?	Discrepancies and credibility issues undermine the stated resignation justification.	The stated reason was legitimate and not shown to be pretextual.	Vacate pretext footing; remand for full consideration.
Does Burton's breach of contract claim depend on resignation vs termination?	If terminated, Teleflex breached the Employment Agreement by not providing severance.	If Burton resigned, severance may not apply.	Vacate; material fact exists as to resignation vs termination.
Are Burton's state-law claims (good faith, interference, defamation) viable?	Duties and harms arise from Teleflex actions surrounding separation.	Contractual covenant is subsumed; certain claims lack independent tort basis.	Affirm dismissal of good faith, interference, and defamation; otherwise vacate.

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (Supreme Court 1973) (establishes the three-step framework for circumstantial discrimination claims)
Smith v. City of Allentown, 589 F.3d 684 (3d Cir. 2009) (applies McDonnell Douglas framework to ADEA cases with indirect evidence)
Scheidemantle v. Slippery Rock Univ. State Sys. of Higher Educ., 470 F.3d 535 (3d Cir. 2006) (applies McDonnell Douglas to Title VII gender discrimination)
Fuentes v. Perskie, 32 F.3d 759 (3d Cir. 1994) (two-part pretext framework; evidence need not be direct to show pretext)
Lichtenstein v. Univ. of Pittsburgh Med. Ctr., 691 F.3d 294 (3d Cir. 2012) (pretext can be shown by credibility and likelihood of discriminatory motives)
Sarullo v. U.S. Postal Serv., 352 F.3d 789 (3d Cir. 2003) (pretext and discrimination analyses guidance in Title VII context)
Doe v. C.A.R.S. Prot. Plus, Inc., 527 F.3d 358 (3d Cir. 2008) (burden-shifting framework for pretext showing at summary judgment)
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (Supreme Court 2000) (pretext evidence can be highly persuasive in proving discrimination)
Duffy v. Paper Magic Grp., 265 F.3d 163 (3d Cir. 2001) (emphasizes substantial evidence standard for prima facie case at summary judgment)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (Supreme Court 1986) (summary judgment standard; court may rely on credible evidence and not weigh evidence)