Thom Parson v. Vanguard Group Inc
702 F. App'x 63
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Parson, a 51-year-old African-American employee, worked at Vanguard from 1987 until his termination on May 12, 2014, as a Level B Document Research Process Associate.
- From 2010–Jan 2014 Parson reported to Angela Rodden; from mid-Jan 2014 until termination he reported to Anthony Perilli; both and their supervisor Kyle Easterbrook are Caucasian.
- Parson received performance counseling and written alerts in 2010–2013, culminating in a December 2013 Formal Warning requiring immediate sustained improvement; he acknowledged the warning and did not submit a rebuttal.
- Perilli discovered a productivity-measurement glitch after becoming supervisor and told Parson the erroneous numbers would not be held against him; the glitch was not resolved.
- Perilli reported continued ‘‘fall out items’’ after the formal warning; Perilli and Vanguard’s Crew Relations specialist terminated Parson on May 12, 2014.
- Parson alleged race discrimination (Title VII and § 1981) citing: Rodden’s remarks that "Vanguard may not be the place for your type," being miscalled by another employee’s name, and a purported pattern where 11 of 13 departmental separations were African-American. The district court granted summary judgment for Vanguard; Parson appealed as to race claims only.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prima facie race discrimination under McDonnell Douglas | Parson argued his protected status, termination, and circumstances (manager comments, name-calling, disproportionate firings) support an inference of discrimination | Vanguard argued no sufficient evidence to infer discriminatory intent; legitimate non‑discriminatory reason exists | Court assumed prima facie case on race but proceeded to next stage; ultimately found plaintiff failed to show pretext |
| Legitimate non‑discriminatory reason for termination | Parson contended performance criticisms began only under Rodden and thus were pretextual | Vanguard maintained documented, repeated poor performance over 2011–2013 justified termination | Court held Vanguard offered legitimate reason: documented poor performance over several years |
| Pretext — can plaintiff discredit employer's reason? | Parson pointed to prior good record, Rodden’s remarks, name‑calling, statistics about departmental separations, and alleged manipulation of productivity numbers | Vanguard argued past good performance does not negate recent poor reviews; remarks were either by non‑decisionmakers or unrelated; no evidence linking statistics or data manipulation to discriminatory intent | Court held Parson failed to present evidence to disbelieve Vanguard’s reason or show discriminatory motive more likely than not; pretext not shown |
| Weight of stray remarks/statistics | Parson argued Rodden’s comment and firing statistics show bias | Vanguard responded that Rodden did not make the termination decision and statistics lack comparator context | Court held stray remarks by non‑decisionmakers or temporally remote comments carry little weight; statistics without comparator analysis insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (framework for burden‑shifting in disparate treatment cases)
- Fuentes v. Perskie, 32 F.3d 759 (standards for proving pretext or discriminatory motive)
- Ezold v. Wolf, Block, Schorr & Solis‑Cohen, 983 F.2d 509 (limited weight of stray remarks and need to analyze comparators for statistical evidence)
- Kautz v. Met‑Pro Corp., 412 F.3d 463 (past positive reviews do not as a matter of law defeat more recent performance criticisms)
- Makky v. Chertoff, 541 F.3d 205 (elements of prima facie case and burden‑shifting articulation)
- Brown v. J. Kaz, Inc., 581 F.3d 175 (applying McDonnell Douglas to § 1981 claims)
- Howley v. Mellon Fin. Corp., 625 F.3d 788 (summary judgment standard review)