Patricia Jennings-Fowler v. City of Scranton
680 F. App'x 112
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Patricia Jennings‑Fowler, a long‑time City of Scranton housing inspector, had complained about sex discrimination, supported political opponents of the mayor, and filed an EEOC charge. She was later placed under video surveillance, suspended without pay at a termination meeting on Sept. 25, 2013, and terminated Oct. 2, 2013.
- She sued the City, Mayor Doherty (in his official capacity), and an “Unknown Decision Maker,” asserting five counts: (1) due process (insufficient pretermination process), (2) political retaliation, (3) equal protection for selective surveillance, (4) sex discrimination/hostile work environment (Title VII/PHRA/§1983), and (5) gender retaliation for filing an EEOC charge.
- The district court dismissed several claims (including both retaliation claims sua sponte), denied leave to further amend, and later granted summary judgment to the City on the due process claim. Jennings‑Fowler appealed those rulings.
- On appeal, the Third Circuit reviews de novo dismissals under Rule 12(b)(6) and summary judgment, drawing inferences for the nonmoving party.
- The panel reversed summary judgment on the due process claim (finding the corrected Notice of Charges and oral statements failed to explain the employer’s evidence), reinstated the gender‑retaliation claim (sua sponte dismissal was inappropriate), and affirmed dismissal of the equal protection and sex discrimination claims. The denial of leave to amend was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of pretermination process (Due Process) | Jennings‑Fowler: corrected Notice and meeting lacked explanation of employer’s evidence (esp. on theft/falsification charges); she was told no video existed though she asked. | City: corrected Notice cured defects; notice given at hearing was adequate. | Reversed summary judgment — corrected Notice used boilerplate and defendants lied about evidence, depriving meaningful explanation; remand. |
| Selective enforcement / Equal Protection (secret surveillance) | Surveillance was applied discriminatorily as part of a City policy/custom targeting her. | City: no nondiscretionary policy or rule authorizing surveillance; no policy alleged. | Affirmed dismissal — plaintiff failed to allege an official policy or nondiscretionary rule supporting selective‑enforcement claim. |
| Sex discrimination / Hostile work environment (Title VII / PHRA / §1983) | Jennings‑Fowler: coworker’s harassment and City’s failure to remedy created hostile environment and constructive discharge. | City: incidents were not severe or pervasive; no adverse action proved; no municipal policy/custom or supervisory acquiescence alleged for §1983. | Affirmed dismissal — conduct not severe or pervasive; constructive discharge not shown; §1983 municipal liability not plausibly alleged. |
| Gender retaliation (retaliation for EEOC charge) — sua sponte dismissal | Jennings‑Fowler: protected activity and adverse actions (suspension/termination) temporally proximate to retaliation, supporting causation inference. | District court dismissed sua sponte for failure to state claim. | Reversed sua sponte dismissal — claim not patently meritless; temporal proximity supports causation at pleading stage. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cleveland Bd. of Ed. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985) (pretermination process requires notice of charges, explanation of employer’s evidence, and opportunity to respond)
- Fraternal Order of Police Lodge No. 5 v. Tucker, 868 F.2d 74 (3d Cir. 1989) (meaningful hearing requires sufficient explanation of evidence; deficient charges can defeat summary judgment)
- Mandel v. M & Q Packaging Corp., 706 F.3d 157 (3d Cir. 2013) (standards for reviewing Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals)
- Hill v. City of Scranton, 411 F.3d 118 (3d Cir. 2005) (selective enforcement equal protection framework)
- Andrews v. City of Philadelphia, 895 F.2d 1469 (3d Cir. 1990) (municipal liability requires policy or custom; policymaker acquiescence doctrine)
- Connelly v. Lane Constr. Corp., 809 F.3d 780 (3d Cir. 2016) (causation in retaliation can be shown by temporal proximity)
- Ray v. Kertes, 285 F.3d 287 (3d Cir. 2002) (sua sponte dismissal without notice is inappropriate unless defect is apparent on the face of the complaint)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard for plausibility; effect on supervisory liability acknowledged)