STOCKER v. GREENE, TWEED & CO., INC., 2:18-cv-04503

Background

Plaintiff Emmanuel F. Stocker sued Green, Tweed & Co., Inc. (GTC) asserting Title VII hostile work environment and race-discrimination claims and an FMLA-retaliation claim; GTC moved for summary judgment and then for reconsideration of the court’s partial denial of that motion.
Stocker alleges repeated discipline by his supervisor, George Landes, between April 2016 and March 7, 2017 (including written warnings for sleeping, cellphone use, loitering, and a Level One write-up on October 31, 2016 upon return from leave); termination followed on March 7, 2017 after progressive discipline.
Stocker took combined FMLA and short‑term disability leave from about June 1, 2016 through October 31, 2016; he filed an EEOC charge on December 27, 2017 (triggering a 300‑day limitations look‑back to March 2, 2017).
Union representative Aaron Holmes testified Stocker was treated differently than non‑African‑American employees (e.g., stricter enforcement by Landes), which Plaintiffs rely on to show discriminatory treatment and pretext.
The court previously denied summary judgment in part; GTC sought reconsideration arguing (1) the hostile‑work‑environment claim is time‑barred, (2) the FMLA retaliation inference is undermined by misdating the end of FMLA leave, and (3) certain evidence (Holmes’s testimony) should not have been considered for the race claim.
The court denied reconsideration in full, explaining why each of GTC’s arguments does not show the kind of manifest error or newly discovered evidence required for relief under Rule 59(e).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Stocker’s Title VII hostile‑work‑environment claim is time‑barred	Stocker argues the hostile environment was continuous through his March 7, 2017 discipline, so at least one actionable act falls within the limitations period	GTC contends only discrete acts count and that the claim is barred because most acts predate the 300‑day window	Court held claim is timely under the continuing‑violation doctrine because March 7, 2017 discipline is part of the same practice and falls within the limitations period; denial of reconsideration affirmed
Whether temporal proximity supports an inference of FMLA retaliation	Stocker points to a Level One discipline issued on the day he returned from combined FMLA/short‑term disability leave as unduly suggestive of retaliation	GTC argues the court misstated leave length (Stocker exceeded 12 weeks of FMLA) and therefore temporal proximity is weak	Court found the mischaracterization of leave type was not dispositive: discipline occurred the first opportunity after return and temporal proximity is sufficiently suggestive to survive summary judgment; denial affirmed
Whether Holmes’s testimony and related evidence may be considered in assessing race discrimination and pretext	Stocker relies on Holmes’s observations that Stocker was treated more harshly than non‑African‑American employees to create an inference of discrimination	GTC argues Holmes’s testimony is speculative, hearsay, or otherwise inadmissible and that some incidents were not attributable to Landes	Court held Holmes’s testimony was based on personal observation or is admissible (capable of being testified to at trial), not merely speculative; credibility is for the jury; reliance on this evidence was proper, so denial affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Howard Hess Dental Labs. Inc. v. Dentsply Int’l, Inc., 602 F.3d 237 (3d Cir.) (reconsideration standards and overview of Rule 59(e) grounds)
Max’s Seafood Café ex rel. Lou‑Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669 (3d Cir.) (motion for reconsideration purpose and limits)
Mandel v. M & Q Packaging Corp., 706 F.3d 157 (3d Cir.) (continuing‑violation doctrine in hostile work environment claims)
Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (U.S.) (distinguishing discrete acts from continuing violations under Title VII)
Lichtenstein v. Univ. of Pittsburgh Med. Ctr., 691 F.3d 294 (3d Cir.) (temporal‑proximity standard for FMLA retaliation and no bright‑line rule)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S.) (burden‑shifting framework for discrimination claims)
Shelton v. Univ. of Med. & Dentistry of New Jersey, 223 F.3d 220 (3d Cir.) (hearsay may be considered on summary judgment if admissible at trial)
Tomasso v. Boeing Co., 445 F.3d 702 (3d Cir.) (describing the evidence needed at the pretext stage to survive summary judgment)
In re Energy Future Holdings Corp., 904 F.3d 298 (3d Cir.) (motion for reconsideration should be granted sparingly; focus on gravity of error)
Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (U.S.) (summary judgment standards about taking facts in the light most favorable to the nonmovant)