504 F.Supp.3d 411
E.D. Pa.2020Background
- Tina McLintock, a long‑time Philadelphia municipal employee and DBHIDS Fiscal Director, is not an accountant and had documented interpersonal/supervisory problems after 2015.
- She was told years earlier to "shadow" CFO James Hoefler; Hoefler retired in Jan 2020 and DBHIDS sought a new CFO via an executive search firm and panel.
- McLintock did not apply for the CFO post (the opening was not formally posted); the panel recommended Joseph Lowry (an African‑American candidate) and Mitchell Appleson; Commissioner David Jones (decisionmaker) hired Lowry.
- McLintock filed an EEOC charge two days after Lowry’s appointment and alleged race discrimination (Title VII, § 1981, PHRA, PFPO) and retaliation/First Amendment claims based on earlier complaints about Ops/Fisc and later exclusionary acts.
- Alleged retaliatory incidents included public criticism about not being an accountant, missed or late meeting invitations, and reassignment of a subordinate; she remained Fiscal Director.
- Court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, concluding McLintock failed to make out discrimination or retaliation claims and that her evidence was insufficient to defeat summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to promote—discrimination (pretext) | McLintock says Jones groomed her then refused to promote because she is Caucasian | DBHIDS says she never applied; decision based on managerial shortcomings and requirement for CFO accounting experience | Summary judgment for defendants: no prima facie adverse action and proffered nondiscriminatory reasons not shown to be pretextual |
| Failure to promote—mixed‑motive / § 1981 | Race was a motivating factor; City diversity efforts and isolated statements show bias | No evidence decisionmakers considered race; selection process and qualifications motivated choice | Held for defendants: insufficient direct or circumstantial evidence that race motivated hiring decision |
| Retaliation for internal complaints (2018) | McLintock says complaining about Ops/Fisc race‑based behavior led to being denied CFO | Defendants: her complaints were not objectively reasonable Title VII claims and she suffered no adverse action (she didn’t apply) | Summary judgment for defendants: no protected activity reasonably grounded and no causal adverse action shown |
| Retaliation / hostile work environment after EEOC filing & First Amendment claim | She alleges exclusion, criticism, and meetings changes constituted retaliatory hostile environment and First Amendment retaliation | Defendants: alleged acts are minor, not materially adverse or severe/pervasive; speech was within official duties (Garcetti) | Held for defendants: incidents were petty/slights, not materially adverse or sufficiently severe; speech not protected or retaliation insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment burden allocation)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (standard for genuine issue of material fact)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden‑shifting framework for discrimination)
- Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (U.S. 1989) (mixed‑motive analysis)
- Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa, 539 U.S. 90 (U.S. 2003) (mixed‑motive proof by circumstantial evidence)
- Fuentes v. Perskie, 32 F.3d 759 (3d Cir. 1994) (what plaintiff must show to prove pretext)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (U.S. 2006) (material adversity standard for retaliation)
- Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (U.S. 2006) (public employees’ speech pursuant to duties not protected)
- Walden v. Georgia‑Pacific Corp., 126 F.3d 506 (3d Cir. 1997) (direct‑evidence requirements and temporal/decisionmaker nexus)