648 F. App'x 218
3rd Cir.2016Background
- L & M Agency, an Avis independent operator owned by Lakeisha and Leonard McClain (African-American), operated an Avis rental location under a 2003 Independent Operator Agreement (IOA).
- From 2007 onward relations with district manager Carol Mancini soured; L & M’s counsel sent a 2007 letter alleging racial discrimination, which Avis investigated but deemed unsubstantiated.
- In November 2011 Avis’ regional president Mark Osbourne inspected the location, criticized cleanliness, personal items onsite, and low counter sales; a confrontation followed between Mancini and the McClains.
- Avis sent a December 1, 2011 letter terminating the IOA (90 days’ notice), initially without stated reasons; after L & M’s lawyer complained, Avis later cited poor cleanliness and revenue performance in January 2012 and, in interrogatory responses, listed additional reasons.
- Osbourne’s deposition revealed he relied primarily on three factors (filth, hostile relationship, revenue) and disavowed several reasons given in interrogatory responses; L & M sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 for racial discrimination and retaliation.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Avis on both claims; the Third Circuit affirmed as to retaliation but reversed as to discrimination, finding genuine issues of pretext.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether L & M presented sufficient evidence of pretext to survive summary judgment on § 1981 discrimination | Inconsistencies in Avis’ articulated reasons (letters, interrogatory responses, decision-maker deposition) show many proffered reasons are fabricated or contradicted, permitting a reasonable factfinder to infer pretext | Avis proffered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons (cleanliness, poor revenue, failure to follow standards); plaintiff cannot simply show the employer was mistaken | Reversed: L & M presented enough doubt about a fair number of Avis’ reasons (per Fuentes) to defeat summary judgment on discrimination |
| Whether L & M made a prima facie retaliation claim under § 1981 | The 2007 letter complaining of racial discrimination was protected activity; termination was adverse action — causation follows from inconsistent employer explanations | The 2007 letter was too remote in time (4+ years) and decision-maker lacked knowledge of the letter; no other evidence of causal link | Affirmed: No causal connection shown between 2007 protected complaint and 2011 termination; other statements in 2011 did not allege discrimination |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishes burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Fuentes v. Perskie, 32 F.3d 759 (3d Cir.) (plaintiff may defeat summary judgment by casting substantial doubt on employer’s proffered reasons; bagful-of-reasons/few-discredited rationale)
- CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries, 553 U.S. 442 (§ 1981 prohibits racial discrimination and retaliation)
- Woodson v. Scott Paper Co., 109 F.3d 913 (3d Cir.) (McDonnell Douglas framework appropriate for pretext suits)
- Anderson v. Wachovia Mortg. Corp., 621 F.3d 261 (3d Cir.) (burden to prove purposeful discrimination; use of McDonnell Douglas)
- Brown v. J. Kaz, Inc., 581 F.3d 175 (3d Cir.) (independent contractors can bring § 1981 claims)
- Jalil v. Avdel Corp., 873 F.2d 701 (3d Cir.) (close temporal proximity can support causation for retaliation)
- Shellenberger v. Summit Bancorp, Inc., 318 F.3d 183 (3d Cir.) (timing plus other evidence may show causation)
- Williams v. Philadelphia Hous. Auth. Police Dep’t, 380 F.3d 751 (3d Cir.) (months-long gap may be insufficient to infer retaliation)
- Krouse v. American Sterilizer Co., 126 F.3d 494 (3d Cir.) (longer gaps undermine causation inference)
- Farrell v. Planters Lifesavers Co., 206 F.3d 271 (3d Cir.) (when timing is remote, plaintiff must produce additional evidence of causation)
- Daniels v. Sch. Dist. of Phila., 776 F.3d 181 (3d Cir.) (decisionmaker’s knowledge of protected activity is necessary for causal showing)
- Robinson v. Southeastern Pa. Transp. Auth., 982 F.2d 892 (3d Cir.) (pattern of antagonism can support retaliation inference)