Rene Flores v. Carl Danberg
706 F. App'x 748
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Rene Flores, a DOC corrections officer, applied for captain positions in 2010–2011; selection panels ranked him below the top two candidates and he filed grievances and an EEOC charge alleging race/national-origin discrimination and later retaliation.
- The selection panel unanimously rated other candidates higher based on interview performance; panel members and the panel chair commented Flores ‘‘stumbled’’ or rambled in answers.
- Around the same time, DOC investigated Flores for unauthorized, non-work DELJIS searches (including repeated accesses of a complainant’s record), found multiple violations, and DELJIS required retraining.
- Commissioner Danberg and others concluded Flores had been dishonest in explaining searches to investigators and that honesty is central to law-enforcement officers; Danberg terminated Flores in 2012.
- Flores sued under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 alleging discriminatory denial of promotion and retaliatory termination; District Court granted summary judgment for defendants and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of promotion (discrimination) | Flores: not promoted due to race/national origin; selection reasons were pretextual | DOC: panel legitimately selected stronger candidates based on interview performance | Affirmed: Flores failed to show pretext; no reasonable jury could find intentional discrimination |
| Termination (retaliation) | Flores: fired in retaliation for EEOC/complaint activity | DOC: terminated for extensive DELJIS misuse and dishonesty discovered in investigation | Affirmed: Flores did not prove but-for causation or that stated reasons were pretext for retaliation |
| Burden/causation standard in retaliation claims | Flores: lower causation standard at prima facie stage | DOC: relied on but-for causation at pretext stage; employer’s nondiscriminatory reason met burden | Court assumed prima facie but held Flores failed at pretext (but-for) causation; summary judgment proper |
| § 1983 equal protection claim | Flores: alleged denial of equal protection | DOC: argued claim not pursued or supported | Waived on appeal; alternatively, would fail for same lack of discriminatory intent |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (Burden‑shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (prima facie elements and burden of persuasion remain with plaintiff)
- Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 133 S. Ct. 2517 (retaliation requires but‑for causation for relief)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard; genuine dispute for jury)
- Moore v. City of Phila., 461 F.3d 331 (elements of retaliation prima facie case)
- Farrell v. Planters Lifesavers Co., 206 F.3d 271 (causation and pretext discussion in retaliation cases)
- Jones v. Sch. Dist. of Phila., 198 F.3d 403 (plaintiff retains ultimate burden of persuasion)