Scott v. Sunoco Logistics Partners, LP
918 F. Supp. 2d 344
E.D. Pa.2013Background
- Scott, an African American female, was hired April 7, 2005 as Administrative Clerk at Fort Mifflin; Raikos then Haygood were her supervisors.
- She was the only Administrative Clerk at Fort Mifflin; Administrative Assistants (all white or not) earned more and had different hours.
- In 2008 Scott alleged intimidation by a coworker, treated as a complaint of intimidation rather than harassment or discrimination.
- Scott became pregnant in 2009; she took maternity leave and a temporary worker was hired during her absence.
- In 2010 Scott applied for an Administrative Assistant position but was not interviewed; Hassett, a white candidate with more relevant experience, was hired.
- Scott faced warnings for lateness in 2010, had restrictions post-maternity leave, and was placed on leave in 2011 while Sunoco paid her STD and later alleged overpayments; Sunoco eventually asserted overpayment notices in August 2011.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Disparate treatment: failure to promote Scott | Scott was qualified and not promoted; Hassett was more qualified | Hassett was the most qualified; Sunoco had a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason | Scott's failure-to-promote claim fails; summary judgment for Sunoco |
| Retaliation claim after protected activity | Scott engaged in protected activity in 2010 and suffered retaliatory actions | Most alleged actions occurred before/without causal link; only possible is investigation handling | No actionable retaliation; Sunoco granted summary judgment on retaliation claim |
| §1981 and PHRA claims against Individual Defendants | Scott asserts aiding-and-abetting discrimination | If Sunoco isn’t liable, individuals aren’t liable | Claims abandoned; granted summary judgment on these counts to Sunoco |
| Conversion and unjust enrichment counterclaims | Overpayments were not properly returned; Scott may have obligation | Overpayment facts insufficient; evidentiary record lacking | Denial of Sunoco’s summary judgment on counterclaims; triable issues remain |
| Overall summary judgment posture | Sunoco’s evidence shows discrimination/retaliation | Record insufficient to establish facts needed for plaintiff’s claims | Sunoco granted summary judgment against Scott on plaintiff’s claims; counterclaims survive |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (Supreme Court, 1973) (establishes three-step burden-shifting framework)
- Jones v. School Dist. of Philadelphia, 198 F.3d 403 (3d Cir.1999) (applies McDonnell Douglas framework to Title VII/§1981)
- Fuentes v. Perskie, 32 F.3d 759 (3d Cir.1994) (pretext evaluation standard under McDonnell Douglas)
- Barber v. CSX Distribution Services, 68 F.3d 694 (3d Cir.1995) (protected activity requires explicit/implicit link to a practice)
- Curay-Cramer v. Ursuline Acad., of Wilm., Del., Inc., 450 F.3d 130 (3d Cir.2006) (general complaint not protected activity unless linked to unlawful practice)
- Daniels v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 701 F.3d 620 (10th Cir.2012) (failure to investigate as retaliation action typically not adverse)
- Fincher v. Depository Trust & Clearing Corp., 604 F.3d 712 (2d Cir.2010) (investigation-related actions not adverse absent demonstrable harm)
- Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 548 U.S. 53 (Supreme Court, 2006) (defining material adversity in retaliation claims)
- Keller v. Orix Credit Alliance, Inc., 130 F.3d 1101 (3d Cir.1997) (pretext framework—not required to show business judgment; must show discrimination)
- Durham Life Ins. Co. v. Evans, 166 F.3d 139 (3d Cir.1999) (definition of adverse action in employment cases)