Shelly Newell v. Heritage Senior Living
673 F. App'x 227
| 3rd Cir. | 2016Background
- Newell worked as a marketing manager at Traditions of Hanover (senior independent living) from Oct 2010 to May 2012. Her duties included representing Traditions positively to referral sources.
- Beginning early in her employment Newell repeatedly complained internally that proposed resident-admission guidelines and certain practices discriminated against people with disabilities in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA); she also contacted the Fair Housing Council anonymously and later identified herself.
- Tensions with her supervisor Murphy escalated; Newell was placed on a 30-day action plan in March 2012 for attitude/insubordination concerns.
- In May 2012 Newell submitted an LVAIP board application statement that management considered public and derogatory toward Traditions; management also perceived a potential conflict of interest involving Newell’s husband. Newell was sent home May 14 and fired May 15, 2012.
- Newell sued under the FHA, alleging retaliation for opposing unlawful housing discrimination; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants. The Third Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Newell’s Argument | Defendants’ Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Newell engaged in protected activity under the FHA | She repeatedly opposed and reported policies she believed violated the FHA and contacted the Fair Housing Council | Defendants did not dispute protected activity for purposes of appeal (court assumed it) | Court assumed protected activity for argument’s sake and proceeded to next steps |
| Whether there is a causal link between protected activity and termination | Temporal proximity and recent disclosure to Fair Housing Council show retaliation | Termination was motivated by LVAIP statement, conflict-of-interest concern, and chronic insubordination; the LVAIP statement interrupted any causal chain | Court found insufficient evidence of causation/pretext; LVAIP statement was a legitimate, independent reason that undercuts temporal inference |
| Whether defendants’ proffered non-discriminatory reasons were pretextual | Defendants’ reasons were pretext: permission to run for LVAIP, coworker made similar comments without discipline, long history of FHA complaints | Defendants produced three specific, contemporaneous reasons (public negative LVAIP statement, conflict-of-interest, attitude/insubordination); taken as true they suffice to shift burden back to plaintiff | Court held Newell failed to show all proffered reasons were pretextual; at least the LVAIP-ground was not shown to be fabricated or unworthy of credence |
| Whether temporal proximity alone supported an inference of retaliation | Close-timed acts (email to Fair Housing contact days before firing) created inference | The intervening public LVAIP incident and other documented, discussed performance problems broke the temporal chain | Court held timing insufficient to show causation/pretext given intervening legitimate reasons |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (sets burden-shifting framework for retaliation/discrimination claims)
- Fuentes v. Perskie, 32 F.3d 759 (3d Cir. 1994) (plaintiff must show employer’s proffered reasons are pretextual; describes how to rebut employer’s reasons)
- Farrell v. Planters Lifesavers Co., 206 F.3d 271 (3d Cir. 2000) (elements of prima facie retaliation and discussion of temporal proximity)
- Mylan Inc. v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 723 F.3d 413 (3d Cir. 2013) (standard of appellate review of summary judgment)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment standard; burden on nonmoving party)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (genuine dispute and materiality standards for summary judgment)