559 F. App'x 183
3rd Cir.2014Background
- Blakney, an African-American, was hired in 1988 as Director of the Older Adult Center in Philadelphia's Parks and Recreation Department.
- He filed an EEOC complaint alleging race discrimination and later sued the City and two city officials in the prior action.
- In January 2011, Blakney resigned to care for his terminally ill mother, providing FMLA documentation.
- In September 2011, the district court granted summary judgment for the City, Turner, and Spiro in the prior action.
- Blakney demanded reinstatement in September 2011; the City filled the position and he received no response to his letter.
- He again sought reinstatement in December 2011 and the EEOC issued a right-to-sue; he filed suit on November 8, 2012 alleging retaliation under Title VII and PHRA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Blakney proved causation for retaliation | Blakney contends temporal proximity plus evidence shows antagonism. | City argues no sufficient causation; actions were neutral and not causally linked. | No plausible causation; timing plus lack of antagonistic evidence insufficient. |
| Whether § 1981 and Title VII/PHRA claims fail for same reasons | Blakney's § 1981 claim arises from the same facts as Title VII claim. | If Title VII fails, § 1981 must fail for identical reasons. | § 1981 claim fails for the same reasons as Title VII/PHRA claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Shaner v. Synthes, 204 F.3d 494 (3d Cir. 2000) (temporal proximity can satisfy causation when unusually suggestive)
- Robinson v. City of Pittsburgh, 120 F.3d 1286 (3d Cir. 1997) (temporal proximity alone may be insufficient for causation)
- Farrell v. Planters Lifesavers Co., 206 F.3d 271 (3d Cir. 2000) (timing plus other evidence required when proximity not unduly suggestive)
- Jalil v. Avdel Corp., 873 F.2d 701 (3d Cir. 1989) (proximate timing to file date used for causation analysis)
- Cardenas v. Massey, 269 F.3d 251 (3d Cir. 2001) (protected activity over long period may be insufficient for causation)
- LeBoon v. Lancaster Jewish Cmty. Ctr. Ass’n, 503 F.3d 217 (3d Cir. 2007) (three months not unusually suggestive)
- Anspach v. City of Phila., 503 F.3d 256 (3d Cir. 2007) (plenary review of district court dismissal; standard of review)
- Univ. of Texas Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 133 S. Ct. 2517 (U.S. 2013) (but-for causation standard for retaliation claims)