Milka Anderson v. Boeing Co
694 F. App'x 84
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Milka A. Anderson sued Boeing for discrimination (pregnancy, sex, race, national origin), retaliation, hostile work environment, and IIED after her April 18, 2013 termination in a reduction-in-force (RIF). IIED dismissal was not appealed.
- Anderson gave birth on April 5, 2010; her termination occurred ~3 years later. She alleged discriminatory treatment before and after her leave, including negative performance reviews and supervisor misconduct.
- Boeing moved for summary judgment; the District Court granted it. Anderson appealed to the Third Circuit, which reviews summary judgment de novo.
- Timeliness rules limited Title VII and PHRA claims to acts within the applicable filing windows, leaving the 2013 termination as the operative adverse action for those statutes; § 1981 had a longer four-year limitations period but did not yield a viable claim.
- The court applied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework to discrimination and retaliation claims and the established multi-factor test for hostile work environment claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy discrimination (PDA) based on 2013 termination | Anderson argued pregnancy-related discrimination despite birth in 2010, asserting ongoing effects or related adverse treatment | Boeing argued she was not pregnant or affected by pregnancy-related conditions at termination; timing precludes PDA protection | Court: No prima facie PDA show; pregnancy ended long before RIF and no evidence pregnancy effects persisted |
| Sex and race discrimination in RIF | Anderson claimed she was similarly situated to retained employees outside protected classes | Boeing showed retained comparators were also female and African-American; no evidence of discriminatory animus | Court: Failed prima facie case (no proper comparators); summary judgment affirmed |
| Retaliation for complaints about discrimination | Anderson claimed she engaged in protected complaints and was terminated in retaliation | Boeing proffered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason (RIF); any temporal/causal link speculative; plaintiff offered no non-speculative pretext evidence | Court: Even assuming prima facie, Anderson failed to prove pretext; summary judgment affirmed |
| Hostile work environment (race, national origin, § 1981) | Anderson alleged pervasive discriminatory conduct creating hostile environment | Boeing argued record lacks evidence of race/national-origin motivated conduct or pervasive harassment | Court: Claim fails at threshold (no intentional, pervasive discrimination shown); summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishes three-step burden-shifting framework for circumstantial discrimination)
- Abramson v. William Paterson Coll. of N.J., 260 F.3d 265 (Third Circuit reviews grant of summary judgment de novo)
- Mandel v. M & Q Packaging Corp., 706 F.3d 157 (timeliness rules: discrete acts outside filing window are time-barred)
- In re Carnegie Ctr. Assocs., 129 F.3d 290 (prima facie requirements for RIF-based discrimination claims)
- Jones v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co., 541 U.S. 369 (statute of limitations for § 1981 post-1990 legislation)
- Moore v. City of Phila., 461 F.3d 331 (elements of prima facie retaliation under McDonnell Douglas)
- Cardenas v. Massey, 269 F.3d 251 (elements required to establish hostile work environment)
- Cowell v. Palmer Twp., 263 F.3d 286 (continuing violation doctrine as equitable tolling exception)
- Willis v. UPMC Children’s Hosp. of Pittsburgh, 808 F.3d 638 (application of McDonnell Douglas to discrimination)
- Estate of Oliva v. State of New Jersey, 604 F.3d 788 (retaliation under § 1981 requires an underlying § 1981 violation)
- Shell Petroleum, Inc. v. United States, 182 F.3d 212 (argument not raised below is waived)
- Solomen v. Redwood Advisory Co., 183 F. Supp. 2d 748 (PDA claim fails where childbirth preceded adverse action by many months)