GERTRUDE W. ABRAMSON, Aрpellant v. WILLIAM PATERSON COLLEGE OF NEW JERSEY
NO. 00-5026
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
August 3, 2001
260 F.3d 265
Before: NYGAARD, ALITO, and RENDELL, Circuit Judges,
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. Civil No. 95-cv-04353) District Judge: Honorable Katharine S. Hayden Argued January 25, 2001
Abramson v. William Paterson
Precedential or Non-Precedential:
Docket 00-5026
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2001
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2001 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
Recommended Citation “Abramson v. William Paterson” (2001). 2001 Decisions. Paper 173. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2001/173
Phyllis Gelman Lindsay N. Feinberg [ARGUED] Gelman & Feinberg 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 1060 New York, NY 10165 Counsel for Appellant Gertrude W. Abramson
Bruce J. Solomon [ARGUED] Office of Attorney General of New Jersey Division of Law Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex Trenton, NJ 08625 Counsel for Appellee William Paterson College of New Jersey
OPINION OF THE COURT
RENDELL, Circuit Judge.
Gertrude Abramson appeals the summary judgment granted to her former employer, William Paterson College (“WPC“),1 against whom she filed hostile work environment, religious discrimination, and unlawful retaliation claims under Title VII and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“NJLAD“). Abramson, former tenure-track Associate Professor in the Department of Curriculum & Instruction (“C&I“) of the School of Education at WPC, claimed she was subjected to harassment and ultimately terminated, both because of her Orthodox Jewish beliefs and practices, and because she complained of WPC‘s religious discrimination agаinst her. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of WPC on all claims, and Abramson now appeals. We conclude that Abramson established a prima facie case for all three causes of action, and that the District Court erred in the way that it
I.
A. Facts
Most of the underlying facts are undisputed. Where there is a dispute, we view the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Drinkwater v. Union Carbide Corp. , 904 F.2d 853, 854 n.1 (3d Cir. 1990). WPC hired Abramson, an Orthodox Jew, for one year as a tenure-track Associate Professor, effective September 1, 1990. Abramson has a Doctor of Education degree in Communications, Computing and Technology from Columbia University, and New York State teacher certifications in elementary education and early childhood education. In 1990, she had been teaching for ten years at the college level, had published in peer-reviewed academic publications, and had a national reputation in education technology. At the time WPC hired her until her termination, Abramson was the only Orthodox Jew employed in the School of Education at WPC.
At the start of her first year at WPC, Abramson informed her Department Chair, Jim Peer, that she would not be able to teach on Jewish holidays. He suggested that she work out her schedule with her students, which she did, and the days she missed on account of Jewish holidays were not counted as sick days. App. at 134-35.
The Review Process
As part of WPC‘s written policies and procedures regarding retention and tenure, an untenured professor‘s academic performanсe was to be reviewed on an annual basis. New Jersey state law does not allow a state college to offer tenure to a faculty member upon appointment, but does permit it to offer tenure to a professor after two years of employment upon a showing of extraordinary circumstances.
Retention and tenure decisions in Abramson‘s department are first considered by the Curriculum and Instruction Retention Committee (“the Committee“). The criteria used to determine retention and tenure, as set forth in WPC‘s written retention policy, are as follows: (1) professional performance; (2) professional growth; and (3) potential contributions to the academic department and the University in terms of present and future programs. The Department Chair is an ex-officio member of the Committee. Though not a voting member, the Chair does choose whether or not to sign the Committee‘s recommendation. App. at 707. By not signing a recommendation, the Chair indicates a lack of support for the Committee‘s evaluation. App. at 708. The Dean then makes a recommendation to the Provost. Finally, the President of WPC makes a determination whether or not to recommend retention (or tenure, where applicable) to the Board of Trustees. The WPC Board of Trustees then decides whether to retain and/or grant tenure based on the recommendation of the President.
Abramson‘s First Two Years at WPC
Abramson‘s first “annual” review occurred shortly after she began teaching at WPC, and on November 7, 1990, the Committee “strongly” recommended the retention of Abramson for the 1991-92 academic year. App. at 203. The Committee applauded her teaching, scholarly achievement and service, and noted Abramson‘s ability to teach many C&I courses, opining that “[t]his flexibility makes her most valuable for future planning.” Id. It went on to say that the C&I Department “has long been in need of just such expertise as Professor Abramson brings . . . [WPC] stand[s] to benefit from her work as a teacher and scholar.” Id.
In the fall of 1991, during Abramson‘s second year at WPC, Nancy Seminoff became the Dean of WPC‘s School of Education, and in October 1991, she appointed Shelley Wepner to chair the C&I Department. On October 29, 1991,
Abramson‘s Third Year at WPC
During Abramson‘s third year, she began to experience difficulties. First, Abramson was charged for sick days for each day of work she missed due to Jewish holidays, despite the fact that WPC was closed on several Christian holidays. App. at 13, 135, 159. In June 1992, after Abramson submitted routine forms in connection with a professional conference she would be attending during that summer, Seminoff required Abramson to meet with her to account for the number of conferences and absences in the prior year. Linda Dye, the head of the faculty union, stated that this was “unprecedented” in a situation where a professor‘s absences had not exceeded the standards set by Human Resources. App. at 157-58.
In addition, Abramson was charged a day of sick leave for a Jewish holiday on October 20, 1992, when she was not even scheduled to teach. App. at 250, 677. After protesting orally and in writing, this error was corrected six months later. App. at 685. Then, in November 1992, during a C&I Department meeting called to plan the 1993-94 class schedules, Abramson stated her intention to schedule her classes so that they did not conflict with the fall Jewish holidays. According to Abramson, “Wepner started to scream that she was tired of hearing about [Abramson] and [her] holidays; when [Abramson] quietly tried to explain [her]self, Chair Wepner yelled that [Abramson‘s] holidays were . . . personal private issues and that she did not want them mentioned at the scheduling meetings.” App. at 137.
During the fall of 1992, at a Technology Committee
On October 12, 1992, the Committee once again recommended Abramson for retention for the 1993-94 school year. The evaluation highlighted the “dynamic” nature of Abramson‘s discipline, described her as a “caring educator” and “reflective teacher,” noted she engaged in a “wide range of scholarly activity” and was “active in several national conferences in her field.” App. at 225-28. This time, however, the Committee‘s evaluation noted some “minor concern about her teaching performance and her contribution to department activities . . . .” App. at 231. However, it also “recognized her numerous scholarly pursuits and professional contributions” and recommended her retention “in light of the department‘s present and future needs for a technology educator.” Id. Wepner signed the recommendation. Seminoff, noting “an imbalance in productivity” due to Abramson‘s focus on scholarly activity, expressed that she had “serious concerns about Dr. Abramson‘s reappointment,” and recommended Abramson “with some reservation.” App. at 929-30.
On October 22, 1992, Abramson wrote a seven-page letter to President Speert, stating that she took “strong exception to the negative tenor and substance of the recommendations made for [her] retention by [her] department and Dean Seminoff.” App. at 1253. She went on to write, “I have lived as an Orthodox Jew all my life . . . . The non-discrimination policy of William Paterson College precludes the need to defend either religious observances or pursuit of career goals.” Id. Abramson attached the July 12,
In a March 1993 meeting, Wepner scheduled an annual C&I Department lunch for May on a Jewish holiday, even after Abramson informed her she could not attend. App. at 137. On April 1, 1993, Wepner‘s secretary commented to Abramson, in the presence of Wepner, that “other faculty members are complaining about the way your religious absences inconvenience them“; Wepner did not comment. Id.
On April 27, 1993, Abramson sent a letter to Speert, the Provost, her union representative, the Chair of the Faculty Senate, and the entire Board of Trustees. App. at 939. She attached the letter she had written to Seminoff after their meeting on March 23, 1993, a meeting that Abramson said was another event in a series of “continued and unwarranted negativism toward [her].” App. at 940. The attached letter refuted Seminoff ‘s suggestions and criticisms regarding Abramson‘s teaching, leadership, professionalism, and collegiality, and said it was written to “counter the negative ‘facts’ [Seminoff] continue[d] to disseminate about [her].” App. at 939. The letter accused Seminoff of having “ill-concealed hostility” toward Abramson and of having a management style that “stifles collegiality, deprives the departments and the college of faculty creativity . . . and reduces innovative and effective teaching.” App. at 947. Abramson testified in her deposition that this letter was sent to “challenge the judgment of the Dean.” App. at 1070.
On April 28, 1993, Provost Smith wrote a letter to Abramson stating that it was highly unprofessiоnal for her to circulate such a letter so widely. App. at 1072-73. Abramson, however, continued to circulate letters that were
On May 6, 1993, at a Technology Committee meeting, Seminoff suggested holding a technology conference on a Saturday. Abramson explained that she could not participate due to the Sabbath. According to Abramson, Seminoff screamed at her, saying that if Abramson would not run a conference for her on Friday night and Saturday, nothing Abramson did would have any value. App. at 137-38, 157. And during the 1993-94 academic year, Wepner suggested that faculty meetings be moved from Tuesdays, the day when they had been held for many years, to Friday afternoons, which would conflict with Abramson‘s observance of the Sabbath. App. at 163-64.
Final Review for Retention
On September 20, 1993, five out of seven members of the Committee voted to recommend Abramson‘s retention for a fifth year, and for her early tenure. The Committee‘s report stated the following:
Dr. Abramson is a skilled teacher and instructional designer in the interactive classroom setting. . . . Students also recognize Dr. Abramson‘s excellence as a teacher/educator. . . . She encourages students to listen, think, and communicate and to develop their intеllectual skills. . . . Dr. Abramson‘s working relationships with faculty are flavored with respect. She is genuinely considerate and thoughtful of others and is willing to assist in any way possible. . . . [She] does her share to further educational and professional meetings. . . . She is a well rounded professional . . . who represents the college admirably . . . . On campus, Dr. Abramson has distinguished herself in a variety of roles. . . . Not only is she a fine scholar, but she is a valued colleague as well.
The two other voting members of the committee, Aitken and Coletta, were not present at the meeting. Wepner was also absent. On September 23, 1993, Aitken, Coletta and Wepner appended comments to the Committee‘s recommendation. Aitken wrote that she had “reservations regarding the [C]ommittee‘s recommendation,” while Coletta and Wepner noted that they did “not agree with the Committee‘s recommendation.” App. at 974.
Seminoff then wrote a memorandum to the Provost, stating that she did not recommend Abramson‘s retention. She cited concerns with three of the four applicable criteria fоr retention and tenure -- teaching, research/scholarly activity and service. App. at 975. Speert then undertook an analysis of Abramson‘s retention folder.
On September 22, 1993, Abramson wrote a letter to Robie Cagnina, WPC‘s Affirmative Action Officer, stating in part: “This is the . . . third [year] in which religious discrimination has been directed at me. I am being subjected to bias, discriminatory treatment, harrassment [sic], and outright hatred because I live as an Orthodox Jew.” App. at 311. At the bottom of the letter, Cagnina wrote the following: “September 22, 1993 Met with Dr. Abramson regarding this issue; discussed options for the filing of a complaint. Choice was to file with the Division of Civil Rights. RSC” Id.
On October 13, 1993, Wepner complained to Abramson, during a lengthy attack on her professional contribution during a graduate curriculum meeting: “[T]he trouble with you is that it doesn‘t show that you are Orthodox.” App. at
Abramson then went through an appeals process, but Speert reaсhed the same conclusion once again. In his deposition, he explained his reasons for not retaining Abramson. Speert said that the main reason was that the retention folder presented to him contained evidence of her inability to take leadership and guidance. App. at 1098. He clarified that the referred-to evidence involved issues related both to grants and to the accreditation visit by the National Council on the Accreditation of Teachers of Education (“NCATE“).3 He also noted that Abramson had failed to create a concentration in technology and refused to work with administrators to create an Apple computer lab.
Abramson also offered affidavits from several WPC faculty members. The affidavit of Linda Dye, WPC professor and president of the faculty union from 1993-94, supported many of Abramson‘s allegations. She stated that Speert had refused to say at Abramson‘s appeal meeting why she was terminated, App. at 159, and also that the reasons given by WPC could all be refuted, App. at 160-61. She declared the following:
All but three or four faculty members in the School of Education had difficulties with Dean Seminoff. Even within that context, Dean Seminoff ‘s conduct toward Professor Abramson stood out for its personal hostility. In contrast to her treatment of other faculty members, Dean Seminoff required Professor Abramson to justify every one of her actions in each and every area of Professor Abramson‘s work . . . . Dean Seminoff ‘s criticisms of Professor Abramson‘s performance were without basis . . . . Especially notable was her insistence that Professor Abramson be excluded from the committee preparing the School of Education for an accreditation visit by a team from [NCATE], since Professor Abramson had special expertise as she was a member of NCATE . . . . Seminoff ‘s unfair criticism of Professor Abramson‘s performance and her hostile conduct toward Professor Abramson were motivated by her disapproval of Professor Abramson‘s strict adherence to Jewish religious laws . . . .
App. at 156-57.
The affidavit of Stanley Wollock, a tenured professor in Abramson‘s department, noted that Friday afternoon meetings were changed because “Wepner was aware that Professor Abramson was unable to attend . . . because of her observance of the Jewish Sabbath.” App. at 163. He also recounted that Wepner had stated that Abramson “would not be fulfilling her duties” if she did not attend the faculty meetings. App. at 164. In addition, he noted that Dean Seminoff said “you people” to Abramson more than once and treated her “much more harshly than she treated other faculty members.” Id. According to his observations,
Doris White, a tenured professor in Abramson‘s department who was a member of the Retention and Tenure Committee in the Fall of 1993, stated, “Dean Seminoff was prejudiced against Jews,” assigning both Abramson and another untenured Jewish faculty member to work on many Friday nights, though White was never asked to teach on a Friday night. App. at 168. She also declared that faculty meetings were only scheduled on Fridays while Abramson was in the C&I Department. Id. Additionally, White stated that Abramson had more technological expertise and had published more than the rest of the faculty in the C&I Department. App. at 167.
Finаlly, Abramson submitted the declaration of her former colleague, Cordelia Towney. Abramson and Towney had both been on the faculty at a different college earlier in their careers, and had worked on a book together while Abramson worked at WPC. WPC had also employed Towney for one semester. Towney stated that “[t]he religious harassment which [Abramson] suffered at WPC made her feel like a beaten puppy. She became sallow, stooped, [and] she looked broken.” App. at 174.
In addition to these declarations and her own affidavit, Abramson submitted a Post-It note written by Wepner that was contained in Abramson‘s file. App. at 445. The note said, “If you are dealing with grad program teachers - work all day -- Logical for any working class college to have conferences on Sat[urday] - needs of institution conflict with her practicing religion -- go. Conferences on Saturday to deal.” Id. Abramson also introduced into evidence extremely positive student evaluations she had received during the 1992-93 academic year, faculty evaluation forms completed between April 1992 and May 1993 praising her work,4 as well as ten letters written to Speert by students and faculty members who strongly supported her retention. App. at 183-85, 347-62, 380-93.
On November 3, 1993, Abramson filed a complaint of employment discrimination with both the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC“) and the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights (“NJDCR“). App. at 141. After filing a grievance with her union that was eventually denied, Abramson filed a complaint of religious discrimination and retaliation with the NJDCR and the EEOC on September 2, 1994. After receiving a right to sue letter from the EEOC, Abramson commenced this action in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on August 17, 1995.
The District Court delivered its summary judgment ruling from the bench on December 10, 1999, disposing of the issues raised in a lengthy oral opinion that was interspersed with dialogue between the Court and counsel. The Court entered its order on December 14, 1999, granting summary judgment in favor of WPC on all claims. In its oral opinion, the District Court briefly considered Abramson‘s hostile work environment claim, rejecting it because it found that Abramson did not present evidence that would satisfy the prima facie case. The Court focused primarily on Abramson‘s failure to make out the first element of the prima facie case: intentional discrimination on the basis of religion. In its view, there were too many other explanations for Wepner‘s conduct, making the religious animus explanation unreasonable. Dist. Ct. Op. at 78-79. Furthermore, it stated that the “same evidence works for both” discrimination and hostile work environment claims, and indicated it was considering Abramson‘s inability to prove pretext in its analysis of her hostile work environment claim. Id. at 77-78. Overall, it found that “at best, [Abramson] raises a scintilla of evidence.” Id. at 83.
The vast majority of the District Court opinion addressed Abramson‘s religious discrimination claim. The District Court was unpersuaded by the evidence relied on by Abramson to support her claim, though it did not refer at all to the declarations submitted by Abramson‘s fellow professors. It stated that because the Committee voted to grant Abramson tenure, the focus of the inquiry should be
The District Court dismissed the comments made about Abramson‘s religion as “stray remarks.” Id. at 30. The Court opined that there was a lack of evidence that people acted negatively toward Abramson because of her religious absences. Id. at 58-59. The Court expressed its belief that Wepner was “hotheaded” and that her bad treatment of Abramson was unrelated to religion. Id. at 59-60, 78.
The District Court then examined Wepner‘s statement to Abramson (“The trouble with you is that it doesn‘t show that you are Orthodox.“) at length, acknowledging that it sounded “angry” and “confrontative” [sic]. Id. at 52. However, after reading Wepner‘s deposition, the Court “gleaned from that a position that [Wepner] as a Jew has, which is that she felt that her own religious practices were down-played [sic] and low-keyed by her, as a matter of her dealing with the issue of possible Antisemitism . . . .” Id. at 53. The District Court asked whether or not Wepner‘s remark, “standing alone . . . establishes a religious bias,” and found that “[t]here‘s just no way I find for someone to hear Shelly Wepner‘s remark and draw any kind of an inference that that per se remark is evidence of discriminatory animus towards Abramson . . . .” Id. at 53-55. Instead, it determined that it only showed a “clear difference of opinion with respect to Abramson‘s open acknowledgment and requests for acknowledgment of her Orthodoxy . . . .” Id. at 55.
The District Court then addressed Wepner‘s Post-It as a “stand-alone document to give us a vision of Shelly Wepner‘s mind-set [sic] with respect to Abramson.” Id. The Court was persuaded that the note “establishes even more strongly that Wepner moved from a difference of opinion with plaintiff regarding the practice of her religion and
The District Court was similarly unconvinced that Abramson‘s absence from Friday faculty meetings affected her job performance, and it also rejected the argument that the rescheduling of faculty meetings was done in an effort to harass Abramson or to discriminate against her. Furthermore, the Court did not believe that Seminoff ‘s request that Abramson account for her absences was related to religion. It ascribed her being charged with a sick day on a Jewish holiday when she was not scheduled to teach, and the six-month delay in correcting it, to “administrative and bureaucratic bumbling.” Id. at 69. The Court stated that it was considering the record as a whole, and in doing so, it found that Abramson did not disprove the legitimate nondiscriminatory reason WPC gave for not retaining Abramson. Id. at 83.
In rejecting Abramson‘s retaliation claim, the District Court held Abramson did not give “a clеar enough indication that she was raising religious discrimination as an issue.” Id. at 76. The Court considered only Speert‘s alleged change in demeanor when evaluating the adverse employment action prong of the retaliatory inquiry, and held that “whatever Speert did or didn‘t do with respect to friendliness would call for rank speculation on the part of the jury, if that jury was asked to say or to find that there was retaliation.” Id. The District Court did not consider Abramson‘s ultimate termination as an adverse employment action.
Abramson appeals, arguing that the District Court erred in dismissing her Title VII and NJLAD religious
II.
The District Court had subject matter jurisdiction under
Abramson‘s first claim is that she was subjected to a hostile work environment based on her religion. To make out a prima facie case for a religiously hostile work environment5 under Title VII, a plaintiff must demonstrate five elements: “(1) the employee[ ] suffered intentional discrimination because of [religion]; (2) the discrimination was pervasive and regular;6 (3) the discrimination
Under the NJLAD, a plaintiff states a claim for а religiously hostile work environment by showing that the “complained-of conduct (1) would not have occurred but for the employee‘s [religion]; and it was (2) severe or pervasive enough to make a (3) reasonable [Orthodox Jew] believe that (4) the conditions of employment were altered and the working environment was hostile or abusive.” Hurley v. Atlantic City Police Dep‘t, 174 F.3d 95, 114 (3d Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1074 (2000) (quoting Lehmann v. Toys R Us, Inc., 626 A.2d 445, 453 (N.J. 1993)).7
The proper inquiry at this stage was whether a reasonable factfinder could view the evidence as showing that Abramson‘s treatment was attributable to her religious faith and practice. Further, by asking whether a reasonable person would “necessarily construe” the conduct in question as being improperly motivated, the District Court appears to have viewed the evidence in the light most favorable to the party making, not the party opposing, the summary judgment motion. See Howley v. Town of Stratford, 217 F.3d 141, 151 (2d Cir. 2000) (“It is not the province of the court itself to decide what inferences should be drawn.“).
By requiring that Wepner‘s conduct be “linked” to a “discriminatory animus,” Dist. Ct. Op. at 79, and stating that the record did not sufficiently “reveal[ ] [what was in the] mind of Shelley Wepner,” id. at 83, the District Court seemingly required Abramson to introduce direct evidence of Wepner‘s intentional discrimination against her based on her religious beliefs. However, Supreme Court precedent does not support the need for a plaintiff to demonstrate direct evidence of her harasser‘s motivation for discrimination against her. In Oncale, the Court discussed a hostile work environment claim on the basis of sex, and stated the following:
A trier of fact might reasonably find [sex] discrimination, for example, if a female victim is harassed in such sex-specific and derogatory terms by another woman as to make it clear that the harasser is motivated by general hostility to the presence of women in the workplace. A same-sex harassment plaintiff may also . . . offer direct comparative evidence about how
523 U.S. at 80-81. Similarly, we have never required a plaintiff to demonstrate direct proof that her harasser‘s intent was to create a discriminatory environment. Instead, we have held that, with respect to certain conduct, the intent to discriminate can be inferred. Andrews, 895 F.2d at 1482 n.3 (referring to sexual misconduct). We have also noted that because discrimination is “often simply masked in more subtle forms,” it is often difficult to discern discriminatory animus. Aman v. Cort Furniture Rental Corp., 85 F.3d 1074, 1082 (3d Cir. 1996); see also Iadimarco v. Runyon, 190 F.3d 151, 157 (3d Cir. 1999) (“The Supreme Court has recognized that an employer who discriminates will almost never announce a discriminatory animus or provide employees or courts with direct evidence of discriminatory intent.“). Thus, we have held that even the use of “code words” such as “all of you” and “one of them” could be sufficient evidence from which a jury could find an intent to discriminate. See Aman, 85 F.3d at 1083 (“The words themselves are only relevant for what they reveal -- the intent of the speaker.“); see also Howley, 217 F.3d at 145, 148, 154-55 (finding hostile work environment claim on basis of sex viable where conduct at issue, though lacking any sexual component or reference to plaintiff‘s sex, could, in context, reasonably be interpreted as having been directed at plaintiff because of sex).
The first prong of the Andrews test was not designed to protect harassers who fail to recognize the hostile or abusive nature of their comments and actions. Our case law does not indicate that the first prong requires a factfinder to peer inside the harasser‘s mind. Rather, it merely requires a showing that the offender‘s behavior was, as required by both
Regardless of what a harasser‘s intention is, if a plaintiff presents sufficient evidence to give rise to an inference of discrimination by offering proof that her “workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim‘s employment and create an abusive working environment,” Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), and the conduct is based on one of the categories protected under
Turning to the remaining elements of the prima facie case for hostile work environment, we find that the evidence Abramson presented was sufficient to satisfy her burden on the other prongs as well. We conclude that the many incidents recounted by Abramson, coupled with the declarations of other WPC professors, are relevant and probative as to prongs two through four of the prima facie case for hostile work environment claims.8 Though we will
First, a jury could find that the harassment was pervasive. The events alleged occurred over a period of two years and could be found to have infected Abramson‘s work experience; even other faculty members mentioned it to Speert prior to Abramson‘s filing suit. App. at 390-91, 513, 540-41. No one event alone stands out from the rest, but all of the events could be found to aggregate to create an environment hostile to a person of Abramson‘s religion. See Durham Life Ins. Co. v. Evans, 166 F.3d 139, 155 (3d Cir. 1999) (“[I]t is settled law that courts should not consider each incident of harassment in isolation. Rather, a court must evaluate the sum total of abuse over time.“) (internal citation omitted). Taken as a whole, all the events alleged indicate that the harassment rose to the level of pervasiveness required to withstand summary judgment.
In determining whether the fourth prong, the objective test, is met,10 we must “look[ ] at all the circumstances. These may include the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee‘s work performance.” Harris, 510 U.S. at 23. The Supreme Court has stated that
With respect to the fifth prong of the hostile work environment claim, the existence of respondeat superior
An employer is subject to vicarious liability to a victimized employee for an actionable hostile environment created by a supervisor with immediate (or successively) higher authority over the employee. When no tangible employment action is taken, a defending employee may raise an affirmative defense to liability or damages . . . . No affirmative defense is available, however, when the supervisor‘s harassment culminates in a tangible emplоyment action, such as discharge . . . .
524 U.S. at 807. Here, it is undisputed that Abramson was terminated. Hence, WPC cannot assert an affirmative defense, and the evidence of liability is clear. Because Abramson presented evidence sufficient to meet all five elements of the prima case, we reverse the District Court‘s grant of summary judgment on Abramson‘s hostile work environment claim.11
B. Religious Discrimination Claim
Abramson claims that she was terminated because her supervisors were motivated by discriminatory animus stemming from her insistence that she be allowed to observe her religious holy days. She alleges that WPC‘s
To prove a claim under the “disparate treatment” theory, the prima facie case and evidentiary burdens of an employee alleging religious discrimination mirror those of an employee alleging race or sex discrimination. Chalmers, 101 F.3d at 1017. Accordingly, we apply the familiar
Abramson also asserts a claim of religious discrimination under the
(1) the complainant must come forward with sufficient evidence to constitute a prima facie case of discrimination; (2) the employer must then show a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for its decision; and (3) the complainant must be given the opportunity to show that the employer‘s stated reason was merely a pretext or discriminatory in its application.
Chou v. Rutgers, the State Univ., 662 A.2d 986, 993 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1995) (citing Dixon v. Rutgers, the State Univ. of N.J., 541 A.2d 1046, 1051 (N.J. 1988)).13
Here, the District Court assumed, and the parties did not dispute on appeal, that Abramson met all three requirements of the prima facie case: (1) religion is a protected category under
Seminoff wrote that after reviewing Abramson‘s retention file, she did not recommend Professor Abramson for retention due to concern “regarding the quality of accomplishment in [teaching, research, scholarly activity and service], with particular concern for the area of service.” App. at 364. In Speert‘s memo to Abramson explaining his decision not to recommend her for reappointment, he wrote that her “overall record of contribution to the College and Community and potential contribution to the Department, Program and the College in terms of present and future programs do not justify reappointment.” App. at 979. Later, in response to Abramson‘s discrimination complaint to the NJDCR, WPC claimed she was deficient in the following areas: scholarship and teaching, interpersonal skills during small group discussions, professional service on campus-wide and department committees/activities, and her scholarly record. App. at 404.
Finally, in Speert‘s deposition, he gave other reasons never previously mentioned, among them that Abramson failed to create a concentration in technology and refused to work with administrators to create an Apple computer lab. When pressed, Speert asserted that the main reason he did not retain Abramson was that the folder that hаd been presented to him contained evidence of her inability to take leadership and guidance. App. at 1098. Upon further inquiry, he said that this was based on Abramson‘s failure to follow proper procedures in securing grants, and her failure to be involved in the NCATE accreditation process. App. at 1099-110. Because WPC‘s burden at this stage is merely a burden of production, we agree with the District Court that WPC met its burden at this stage. See Ezold, 983 F.2d at 523 (referring to defendant‘s burden as burden of production).
The burden shifted to Abramson, who had to “point to some evidence, direct or circumstantial, from which a
In Fuentes, we addressed just how much evidence of pretext a plaintiff needs to avert summary judgment. We held that “to avoid summary judgment, the plaintiff ‘s evidence rebutting the employer‘s proffered legitimate reasons must allow a factfinder reasonably to infer that each of the employer‘s proffered non-discriminatory reasons was either a post hoc fabrication or otherwise did not actually motivate the employment action (that is, the proffered reason is a pretext).” Id. (internal citations and emphasis omitted). Importantly, we qualified that statement with the following footnote:
[The plaintiff need not] cast doubt on each proffered reason in a vacuum. If the defendant proffers a bagful of legitimate reasons, and the plaintiff manages to cast substantial doubt on a fair number of them, the plaintiff may not need to discredit the remainder. That is because the factfinder‘s rejection of some of the defendant‘s proffered reasons may impede the employer‘s credibility seriously enough so that a factfinder may rationally disbelieve the remaining proffered reasons, even if no evidence undermining those remaining rationales in particular is available.
Id. at 764 n.7. We then noted that it is not enough for a plaintiff to show that the employer‘s decision was wrong or mistaken, because the issue is whether the employer acted with discriminatory animus. Hence, to make a sufficient showing of pretext, Abramson must “demonstrate such weaknesses, implausibilities, inconsistencies, incoherencies, or contradictions” in WPC‘s reasons that “a reasonable factfinder could rationally find them `unworthy of credence.’ ” Id. at 765 (citation omitted). And if Abramson can successfully demonstrate pretext, she need not present affirmative evidence of discrimination beyond her prima facie showing if a rational factfinder could conclude from the evidence of pretext that WPC‘s actions were discriminatory. Reeves, 530 U.S. at 147.
Abramson refutes the first set of reasons by noting that Speert admitted in his deposition that these reasons were unfounded, saying that her folder gave evidence of “very good performance in both areas” of teaching and scholarship, App. at 468, and that her level of service “would not have raised a concern,” App. at 498. In addition, WPC admitted at oral argument that these reasons were not the actual basis for Abramson‘s termination. This admission alone might suffice to satisfy Abramson‘s burden, but we need not decide based solely on that admission, because Abramson‘s evidence also refutes the second set of reasons given later by Speert.
With respect to Abramson‘s alleged failure to follow instructions insofar as she purportedly did not use proper protocols for proposed grants and programs, she argues that she was unaware of any protocols. App. at 147. She points to Speert‘s inability to identify at his deposition where the protocols were outlined in either the policy manual or the faculty handbook. App. at 478-79. Abramson presented testimony of the president of the faculty union stating there were not any protocols, App. at 160, and noted WPC‘s failure to include in the record any documents setting forth such protocols.
Abramson also attacked the legitimacy of WPC‘s reliance on the fact that she failed to accept leadership from Seminoff and Wepner as grounds for her termination. She argues that because these two women were her alleged harassers, and because her poor relationship with them was directly related to their hostility toward her religion, her difficulty working with them should not be credited as a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for her termination. She also submitted evidence of her positive сontributions in teaching and scholarship (glowing teaching evaluations,
Abramson also argues that the ever-changing nature of the proffered reasons can be considered as detracting from their legitimacy. We agree. If a plaintiff demonstrates that the reasons given for her termination did not remain consistent, beginning at the time they were proffered and continuing throughout the proceedings, this may be viewed as evidence tending to show pretext, though of course it should be considered in light of the entire record. See Fuentes, 32 F.3d at 765 (listing “inconsistencies” and “contradictions” in employer‘s reasons among ways plaintiff could show pretext); see also Waddell v. Small Tube Prods., Inc., 799 F.2d 69, 73 (3d Cir. 1986) (noting that district court could “appropriately” have taken employer‘s inconsistent explanations for termination into account in finding causation necessary to satisfy prima facie case of retaliatory discharge).
We find that based on the record as a whole, Abramson has successfully “demonstrate[d] such weaknesses, implausibilities, inconsistencies, incoherencies, or contradictions” such that “a factfinder could reasonably . . . disbelieve the employer‘s articulated legitimate reasons.” Fuentes, 32 F.3d at 765. And as the Supreme Court recently stated in Reeves, this alone could support the inference that WPC‘s motivation was discriminatory:
In appropriate circumstances, the trier of fact can reasonably infer from the falsity of the explanation that the employer is dissembling to cover up a discriminatory purpose. Such an inference is consistent with the general principle of evidence law that the factfinder is entitled to consider a party‘s
dishonesty about a material fact as “affirmative evidence of guilt.” Moreover, once the employer‘s justification has been eliminated, discrimination may well be the most likely alternative explanation, especially since the employer is in the best position to put forth the actual reason for its decision. Thus, a plaintiff ‘s prima facie case, combined with sufficient evidence to find that the employer‘s asserted justification is false, may permit the trier of fact to conclude that the employer unlawfully discriminated.
530 U.S. at 147-48 (internal citations omitted).
However, the factfinder does not need to rely on that evidence alone. Abramson has also presented evidence from which a reasonable factfinder could infer that “an invidious discriminatory reason was more likely than not a motivating or determinative cause of [WPC]‘s action.” Fuentes, 32 F.3d at 764. The confrontations with Seminoff and Wepner, the very probative declarations of Abramson‘s fellow professors, the laudаtory faculty evaluations and Committee report, and Wepner‘s Post-it note all provide strong evidence to support Abramson‘s claim.
We note that the District Court appears to have viewed the evidence as a factfinder,14 which contributed to the ruling. In addition, the District Court seems to have viewed each piece of independently, rather than in its entirety.15 “In
We note, also, that while the District Court relied heavily on the fact that it found no evidence in the record demonstrating that Speert himself possessed discriminatory animus toward Abramson, a rational jury could find that Speert did not make his decision in a vacuum. A reasonable inference that could be drawn from the record is that Speert was influenced by both Seminoff and Wepner. In fact, Speert even stated in his deposition that before making his decision not to retain Abramson, he sought Seminoff‘s counsel. App. at 487. Moreover, there is an additional piece of evidence not mentioned in the District Court opinion that supports our view of the record on this point. The record contains a memo sent on October 21, 1993, from Seminoff to Speert with a subject line that read: “Request for information - Professor Gertrude Abramson,” thus supporting the conclusion that Speert had sought input on the decision to retain Abramson.16 App. at 378. Under our case law, it is sufficient if those exhibiting discriminatory animus influenced or participated in the decision to terminate. See Abrams v. Lightolier Inc., 50 F.3d 1204, 1214 (3d Cir. 1995) (stating in ADEA case that if plaintiff ‘s supervisor participated in decision to terminate him, even though president of company formally terminated him, evidence of supervisor‘s age-related animus would be relevant in determining if discriminatory motive at play); see also Russell v. McKinney Hosp. Venture, 235 F.3d 219, 226 (5th Cir. 2000) (“If the employee can demonstrate that others had influence or leverage over the official decisionmaker . . . it is proper to impute their discriminatory attitudes to the formal decisionmaker.“); Santiago-Ramos v. Centennial P.R. Wireless Corp., 217 F.3d 46, 55 (1st Cir. 2000) (stating that “discriminatory comments . . . made by . . . those in a position to influence the decisionmaker” can be evidence of pretext); Griffin v. Washington Convention Ctr., 142 F.3d 1308, 1312 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (“[E]vidence of a subordinate‘s bias is relevant where the ultimate decision maker is not insulated from the subordinate‘s influence.“). As we noted in Roebuck v. Drexel University, 852 F.2d 715, 727 (3d Cir. 1988), “it is plainly permissible for a jury to conclude that an evaluation at any level, if based on discrimination, influenced the decisionmaking process and thus allowed discrimination to infect the ultimate decision.” Clearly, Wepner and Seminoff played a role in the ultimate decision to terminate Abramson, and their involvement thus makes their conduct toward her relevant and probative of discriminatory animus.
Considering the record before us, we find ample evidence to support Abramson‘s religious discrimination claim.
C. Retaliation Claim
Abramson‘s third and final claim is for retaliation. To advance a prima facie case of retaliation under
We conclude that there is ample evidence of all three elements in the record, and disagree with the District Court‘s determination that Abramson did not make out a prima facie case.
1) Abramson engaged in protected activity.
On Oct. 22, 1992, Abramson wrote a letter to Speert, stating:
I have lived as an Orthodox Jew all my life . . . . The non-discrimination policy of William Paterson College precludes the need to defend either religious observances or pursuit of career goals. Nevertheless, . . . it has been necessary for me to justify my lifestyle. See, for example, the attached memo sent to Dean Seminoff in response to her request for an explanation of my “conferences/absences” when I submitted a pro-forma travel request for an August conference.
App. at 932. On October 12, 1993, Abramson once again wrote to Speert after Seminoff gave a negative recommendation to the Committee regarding her future employment with WPC. App. at 377. This letter complained thаt “Dean Seminoff‘s bias against [Abramson] as an Orthodox Jew overwhelms her professional judgment.” Id. In addition to making her complaints known to President Speert, Abramson also complained to WPC‘s Affirmative Action Officer, Robie Cagnina. On September 22, 1993, Abramson filed a written complaint of religious discrimination with Cagnina, stating: “I am being subjected to bias, discriminatory treatment, harrassment [sic], and outright hatred because I live as an Orthodox Jew.” App. at 311.
The District Court determined that Abramson failed to make out the first element, holding that she “did not articulate clearly and in a formal manner a religious discrimination complaint . . . ” and that her “[October]18
Under our precedent, the letters Abramson wrote to Cagnina and Speert fall squarely within the requirements of the first prong of a retaliation claim. We have previously noted in the ADEA context that “we do not require a formal letter of complaint to an employer or the EEOC as the only acceptablе indicia of the requisite `protected conduct’ . . . .” Barber v. CSX Distrib. Servs., 68 F.3d 694, 701-02 (3d Cir. 1995) (citing Sumner v. United States Postal Serv., 899 F.2d 203, 209 (2d Cir. 1990) (explaining that acceptable forms of protected activity under
2) Abramson suffered adverse employment action.
With respect to the second element -- i.e., adverse employment action, the District Court only focused on Abramson‘s claim that Speert treated her differently after she voiced her complaints, rather than considering the more obvious adverse employment action of her termination. We hold that Abramson‘s termination clearly fulfills the second prong of the prima facie case for a retaliation claim. In addition, Seminoff‘s recommendation not to retain Abramson would also qualify as an adverse employment action sufficient to meet this element.
3) A causal link exists between the protected activity and the adverse action.
Given that the District Court viewed Speert‘s change in demeanor as the only advеrse action, it dismissed the issue of causation out of hand, stating that it “would call for rank speculation on the part of the jury” to ask it to find retaliation. Dist. Ct. Op. at 76. But because the two instances of adverse action we examine are Seminoff‘s recommendation not to retain Abramson and Abramson‘s ultimate termination, the analysis changes significantly.
Based on our case law and the evidence adduced, Abramson has made a sufficient showing of the causal connection required by the third prong of the prima facie case of retaliation. In Farrell, we recognized that our case law has focused on two main factors in finding the causal link necessary for retaliation: timing and evidence of ongoing antagonism. 206 F.3d at 281; see also Woodson v. Scott Paper Co., 109 F.3d 913, 920-21 (3d Cir. 1997) (“[T]emporal proximity . . . is sufficient to establish the causal link . . . . [A] plaintiff can [also] establish a link
In any event, we need not rely on timing alone because Abramson has presented additional evidence to prove the causal nexus. First, she has demonstrated ongoing antagonism from her department head and the dean, as we noted in our discussion of the facts above. Further, she introduced other types of circumstantial evidence regarding WPC‘s proffered reasons for terminating her, which we have previously recognized as potentially probative of a causal connection. Farrell, 206 F.3d at 284 (“[A] plaintiff may rely upon a broad array of evidence to [illustrate a causal link].“). For instance, we have noted that a plaintiff may show that her employer gave inconsistent reasons for terminating her. See Waddell, 799 F.2d at 73 (stating that district court could “appropriately” have taken inconsistent explanations into account in finding causation necessary to satisfy prima facie case). Revealing discrepancies in the proffered reasons can also constitute evidence of the causal link. See Farrell, 206 F.3d at 285-86 (listing plaintiff ‘s attacks on validity of reasons given). Here, as we found in our discussion of the discrimination claim, Abramson has succeeded in both casting doubt on the reasons WPC proferred for her termination, and in demonstrating that those reasons were vague and inconsistent. In light of this evidence, coupled with the “ongoing antagonism” reflected in the record, including Speert‘s change in demeanor after Abramson complained of discrimination,21 we find that the
III. Conclusion
As we stated in Farrell,
We recognize that different inferences might be drawn from the evidence presented in the record. On summary judgment, however, when viewing the sufficiency of the prima facie case, our role is not to act as fact finder. Instead, we must consider the evidence taken in the light most favorable to the non-movant and determine whether [the plaintiff] can show the causation required . . . .
206 F.3d at 286. Here, there is ample evidence from which a reasonable jury could draw inferences establishing all three of Abramson‘s claims. Accordingly, we will REVERSE the District Court‘s order granting summary judgment in favor of WPC on Abramson‘s claims of hostile work environment, religious discrimination and retaliation, and REMAND for further proceedings.
ALITO, Circuit Judge, concurring.
I write separately to add a brief explanation of my understanding of the basis for holding that the summary judgment record is sufficient to permit the plaintiff ‘s religious harassment claim to go to trial. Harassment is actionable under
The reason is that a reasonable trier of fact could infer that officials of the College intentionally pressured the plaintiff to violate the dictates of her faith in order to keep her job. As the brief of an amicus curiae observes:
When an employer deliberately reschedules important meetings for Friday afternoons, the message to an Orthodox Jewish employee is clear as a bell. Such rescheduling tells the employee that continued observance of his or her faith will be viewed as incompatible with adequate job performance. Repeated
requests that work be done on Saturdays or Jewish holidays -- or telephone messages left on a Jewish religious holiday demanding an `immediate’ response -- are aimed directly at an employee‘s religious observance. Criticism of an employee‘s effort to reconcile his or her schedule with the observance of Jewish holidays delivers the message that the religious observer is not welcome at the place of employment.1
Intentionally pressuring a person to choose between fаith and career is more “severe” and has a more direct effect on the conditions of employment than the sort of offensive remarks at issue in Heitzman. While case law provides only limited protection for employees whose religious obligations conflict with neutral job requirements, see Employment Div., Dep‘t of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990); Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63 (1977),
A True Copy:
Teste:
Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit