*1 wrong. the sexual orientation is Whatever ABRAMSON, Appellant, plaintiff bringing
of a a same-sex sexual W. Gertrude claim, plaintiff required harassment to demonstrate harassment was WILLIAM PATERSON COLLEGE at him or her because of his or
directed OF NEW JERSEY. showing her sex. Once such a has been made, plaintiff the sexual orientation of the No. 00-5026. addition, is irrelevant. once it has been shown that the harassment was motivated United States Appeals, Court of sex, by the victim’s it is no defense that Third Circuit. may par- harassment have also been Argued Jan. 2001. tially anti-gay motivated anti-lesbian example,
animus. For had the Aug. Filed lesbian, Price Waterhouse been a that fact provided employer
would have with no
excuse for its decision to discriminate
against her because she failed to conform
to traditional stereotypes. feminine
Harassment on the basis of sexual orien- place society.
tation has no our See (harassment
Simonton,
the basis of sexual orientation “is
reprehensible whenever and whatever occurs, particularly
context it in the mod- workplace”); Higgins,
ern
(harassment because sexual orientation deserving
“is a noxious practice, of censure opprobrium”). See also Rene v. MGM Hotel, Inc.,
Grand
(9th Cir.2001) (quoting Higgins). Con- fit, however,
gress yet has not seen
provide protection against such harass- produced by
ment. Because indeed,
Bibby and, very his claim—indi- — only being
cated that he harassed orientation,
the basis his sexual rather sex,
than because of his District Court
properly determined that there was no
cause action under Title VII.
CONCLUSION reasons, foregoing
For the we will af- judgment
firm the of the District Court. *2 NYGAARD, ALITO,
Before: RENDELL, Judges. Circuit THE OPINION OF COURT *3 RENDELL, Judge. Circuit appeals Gertrude Abramson the sum- mary judgment granted to her former em- ployer, College William Paterson (“WPC”),1 against whom she filed hostile environment, religious work discrimina- tion, and unlawful retaliation claims under Jersey Title VII and the New Against Law (“NJLAD”). Abramson, Discrimination former tenure-track Associate Professor in of Curriculum & Instruc- Department (“C I”) & of the School of Education tion WPC, subjected claimed she was terminated, ultimately harassment and because of her Orthodox both Jewish be- practices, liefs and and because she com- plained of WPC’s discrimination against granted her. The District Court summary judgment in favor of WPC on all claims, appeals. and Abramson now We pri- conclude that Abramson established action, ma facie case for all three causes of and that the District Court erred in the way that it considered the evidence and applied legal principles. certain willWe grant summary therefore of reverse Gelman, Phyllis Lindsay Feinberg N. judgment proceed- and remand for further York, (Argued), Feinberg, Gelman & New ings. NY, Appellant for Counsel Gertrude W. Abramson. I. Miller, (Argued), Cassidy, Nathan Lewin A. Facts Lewis, DC, Washington, Larroca & Coun- underlying Most of the facts are undis- for Amicus-Appellant
sel National Jewish puted. dispute, is a Where there we view Commission Law and Public Affairs light in the facts most favorable to the (“COLPA”). plaintiff. Drinkwater v. Union Carbide (3d Cir.1990). Corp., (Argued), Bruce J. Solomon Office of 854 n. Abramson, Jew, Attorney Jersey, hired an General New Division WPC Orthodox Law, Trenton, NJ, Appellee year Counsel for for one as a tenure-track Associate Professor, College Jersey. September William Paterson of New effective 1990. WPC, institution, University now the William Paterson uate educational and is a state grad- Jersey. Jersey, undergraduate college of New New is an tenure, has a Doctor Education de- as set forth WPC’s written (1) Communications, gree Computing retention profes- are as follows: policy, (2) Technology University, from Columbia performance; professional sional teacher certifications in growth; potential New York State contributions elementary early education and childhood the and the department academic Univer- teaching sity education. she had present pro- been terms of and future level, had years college grams. Department ten The Chair an ex- published peer-reviewed publi- academic officio Though member the Committee. cations, reputation member, and had a national in not a the Chair voting does At technology. education sign the time WPC choose or not to whether Commit- *4 termination, hired her until her Abramson App. By tee’s recommendation. at 707. only recommendation, Jew employed was the Orthodox in not signing a the Chair at of Education support the School WPC. indicates a lack of for the Commit- tee’s App. evaluation. at 708. Dean The WPC, year At the start of her first at then a recommendation to Pro- makes informed her Department Abramson Finally, vost. of the President WPC Peer, Chair, Jim she not be would makes a determination whether or not to sug- holidays. able to teach Jewish He (or tenure, recommend retention where gested that work out her she schedule with applicable) to the Board of Trustees. The students, did, her which she days and the Board Trustees then. WPC decides account of holidays she missed on Jewish -grant whether to retain tenure and/or days. App. were not counted as sick at based on the recommendation the Presi- 134-35. dent. The Review Process First Two Years at Abramson’s WPC part policies
As of WPC’s-written “annual” Abramson’s first review oc- procedures regarding retention and ten- shortly began curred ure, teaching after she at professor’s an untenured academic WPC, and on November performance the Com- was to be on an reviewed mittee “strongly” recommended reten- Jersey annual basis. New state law does tion of for the 1991-92 Abramson academic college not allow a state to offer tenure to year. App. at 203. The ap- Committee faculty upon appointment, member but plauded scholarly teaching, her achieve- permit it to offer profes- does tenure to a service, ment and and noted years sor Abramson’s employment upon after two ability to I many courses, teach & extraordinary opin- C showing of circumstances. 1993). ing that (West flexibility makes § “[t]his Ann. her most N.J. 18A:60-9 Stat. planning.” valuable for future Id. It exceptional circumstances, went Barring an un- say on to Department that the C & I faculty “has tenured member must five serve long just expertise been in years need of such as being before considered in the fifth brings Professor ... year [WPC] for an award of tenure made effective stand[s] from her work year benefit employment. his or her sixth teacher Id. Id. and scholar.” §at 18A:60-8.
Retention and tenure In the during decisions fall of Abramson’s department year WPC, are Nancy first consid- second Seminoff be- ered the Curriculum and Instruction came the School of Dean WPC’s Edu- (“the Committee”). cation, Retention Committee she appointed and October Shelley The criteria used to I Wepner Depart- determine retention to chair the C & the Commit- ment. On October Abramson stated her intention to schedule tee recommended the retention Abram- her they classes so that did not .of conflict year, for the academic son 1992-93 and with fall Jewish holidays. According :the Abramson, Dean Seminoff concurred. The Commit- ‘Wepner started to scream service, significant tee noted Abramson’s hearing was tired of about top teaching ratings peer evalu- holidays; [Abramson] [her] when ators, exemplary scholarship. It stat- quietly explain [Abramson] tried exemplifies ed that “Professor Abramson [her]self, yelled Chair direction for the future.” App. WPC’s holidays ... personal [Abramson’s] were again, it strongly Once recommended private issues and that she did not want retention, Wepner signed the rec- them mentioned at scheduling meet- ommendation. President then rec- ings.” App. at 137. reappointment ommended Abramson’s . During the fall of at a Technology Board of Trustees. meeting by Seminoff, Committee chaired Wepner suggested Abramson, along
Abramson’s Third Year at WPC others, come in on Saturday *5 During year, Abramson’s third she be- prepare a technology Wepner, room. who First, gan experience to difficulties. herself, is Jewish made this suggestion charged days Abramson was for sick fully While aware that Abramson does not day each of work she missed due to Jewish work on Saturdays. Abramson told the holidays, despite the fact that WPC group that she could not attend because of closed on several holidays. App. Christian the Thereafter, Jewish Wepner Sabbath.2 13, 135, 1992, at In 159. June after continually questioned Abramson about Abramson submitted routine forms in con- availability her lack of Friday nights on professional nection awith conference she Saturdays. App. at 137-38. summer, attending during would be required Seminoff Abramson to meet with 12, 1992, On October the Committee her to account for the number of confer- again once recommended Abramson for ences prior year. and absences the Lin- retention for the year. 1993-94 school Dye, union, faculty da the head of the highlighted The “dynamic” evaluation stated “unprecedented” that this was in a discipline, nature of Abramson’s described professor’s situation where a absences had “caring her as a educator” and “reflective not exceeded the standards set Human teacher,” engaged noted she in a “wide Resources. at App. 157-58. range scholarly activity” and was “active addition, In charged Abramson was a in several national conferences in her day of sick leave for a holiday App. time, Jewish on field.” at 225-28. This howev- 20, 1992, er, October when she was not even the Committee’s evaluation noted some App. scheduled to teach. Af- teaching perfor- 677. “minor concern about her protesting orally ter in writing, department this mance and her contribution six, error However, was corrected months later. App. activities....” at 231. it Then, App. “recognized scholarly November also her numerous during a I Department C & meeting pursuits professional called contributions” plan schedules, the 1993-94 class light recommended her retention “in beliefs, conformity religious 2. approximately with her one hour after sundown on work, telephone Abramson does not use the Saturday. Friday drive car from until sundown them”; Wepner did not comment. future nience department’s present and of the technology educator.” Id. Id. for a' needs recommendation. signed 27, 1993, April Abramson sent On Seminoff, noting produc- “an imbalance Provost, her union Speert, letter to focus on scholar- tivity” due Abramson’s Faculty the Chair of the representative, had “serious ly activity, expressed Senate, Board of Trustees. and the entire reappoint- concerns about Dr. Abramson’s the letter she App. at 939. She attached ment,” “with and recommended Abramson after their meet- had written to Seminoff App. some reservation.” 929-30. meeting ing on March in a a Abramson said was another event Abramson wrote
On October and unwarranted ne- Speert, to President series of “continued seven-page letter App. at The “strong exception gativism toward stating [her].” that she took sugges- attached letter refuted Seminoffs negative tenor and substance regarding tions and criticisms recommendations made for retention [her] teaching, leadership, professionalism, and by[her] department and Dean Seminoff.” write, it collegiality, on to “I and said was written App. at 1258. She went my negative “counter ‘facts’ [Seminoff] as an Orthodox Jew all have lived policy [her].” non-discrimination to disseminate about continuefd] life.... The precludes at 939. The letter accused Seminoff College Paterson William having hostility” “ill-concealed toward need 'to defend either observ- having management and of pursuit goals.” of career Id. Abramson ances or deprives July style collegiality, letter that “stifles Abramson attached the *6 departments college faculty and the response she 'had to Seminoff to sent explanation creativity an ... and reduces innovative and the Dean’s for request App. teaching.” App. effective at 947. Abram- her absences. at 1261. She received Speert, deposition from and she has as- son testified her this response, no “challenge judgment her letter was sent to serted that his demeanor toward App. at changed dramatically after that. Instead of the Dean.” friendly being previously, as he was he 28, 1993, April Provost wrote On Smith “stopped speaking to and would turn [her] it stating a letter to Abramson that was away if on his heel and walk from [her] highly for her to circulate unprofessional [they] happened campus.” to meet on widely. App. at 1072-73. such a letter so 30, 1992, App. at 140. On October Presi- Abramson, however, continued to circulate Speert that he dent informed Abramson harshly that were critical of Dean letters intended to recommend her for retention June she wrote a Seminoff. On year. App. for a fourth at 931. “apply- attacking letter to Seminoff her for ing style an administrative that is autocra- meeting, Wepner a March 1993 upon Department scheduled an annual & I tic and confrontational and is based C outmoded, discredited, paternalistic, ap- May holiday, lunch for on a Jewish even an at proach management.” App. could 1076-77. after Abramson informed she added, 1,1993, “I April letter have not seen App. not attend. 137. On Abramson’s any you evidence that are a Wepner’s secretary commented to Abram- substantive son, App. at 1077. presence Wepner, in the that “oth- constructive administrator.” copies and Pro- faculty complaining er members are about Abramson'Sent way your religious inconve- vost absences Smith. record, lication May Technology speaking at a Com- and served On many university meeting, suggested hold- committees. It stated mittee Seminoff that she Saturday. expanded had “restructured and ing technology conference on graduate concentration in technology could not explained education_” App. at 239. It also dis- participate According due to the Sabbath. goals cussed the future of the institution Abramson, her, screamed at Seminoff expertise, to her field of find- if not run a saying that Abramson would ing that in position help she was WPC Friday night and conference for her on goals. attain It those stressed Abramson’s Saturday, nothing Abramson did would networking abilities her status as a 137-38, App. at 157. And have value. field,” “nationally recognized leader year, Wepner during the 1993-94 academic calling her “a valuable resource and an suggested faculty meetings be moved College.” asset to the Id. Tuesdays, day they from when had many years, Friday after- been held voting The two other members of the noons, which would conflict with Abram- committee, Coletta, Aitken and were not App. observance of the Sabbath. son’s present meeting. Wepner at the was also 163-64. September 1993, Aitken, On absent. Wepner appended
Coletta comments Final Review for Retention to the Committee’s recommendation. Ait- ken wrote she had “reservations re- 20,1993, September On five out of seven garding the recommenda- [C]ommittee’s of the voted to members Committee rec- tion,” while Coletta and noted that ommend retention for a fifth they agree did “not with the Committee’s year, early and for her tenure. The Com- recommendation.” report following: stated the mittee’s skilled Seminoff then a memorandum to wrote Dr. Abramson is a teacher and Provost, stating that she did not rec- designer instructional the interactive retention. ommend Abramson’s She cited setting_Students classroom also rec- applicable concerns with three four ognize Dr. Abramson’s excellence as a criteria for retention and tenure —teach- *7 encourages She teacher/educator.... listen, think, ing, research/scholarly activity and service. to communi- students and App. Speert at 975. then undertook an develop cate and to their intellectual skills_Dr. analysis of Abramson’s retention folder. working Abramson’s rela- tionships faculty with are flavored with 22,1993, September On Abramson wrote respect. genuinely She is considerate Cagnina, a Affirma- letter Robie WPC’s thoughtful willing and and is others Officer, stating Action “This part: tive in any way possible.... assist does [She] [year] is the ... third in which her share further educational and at I discrimination has been directed me. professional meetings.... is a She well bias, being subjected discriminatory am professional repre- ... rounded who [sic], treatment, outright harrassment college admirably.... sents the On cam- hatred I live as an because Orthodox Jew.” pus, distinguished Dr. Abramson has letter, at At App. the bottom of the in variety only herself of roles.... Not Cagnina following: “September wrote the scholar, a fine is she but she is valued 22,1993 regarding Met with Dr. Abramson colleague as well. issue; options filing this discussed for the App. complaint. at 234-38. The also not- of a Choice was to file with the Committee outstanding pub- Rights. ed that Abramson had an of Civil RSC” Id. Division grants and to the accreditation visit Wepner com- On October Abramson, during lengthy at- on the Accreditation of plained to National Council (“NCATE”).3 He professional contribution dur- Teachers of Education tack on her meeting: curriculum also noted that Abramson had failed ing graduate “[T]he you technology is that it doesn’t show trouble with create a concentration at 138. you App. are Orthodox.” refused to work with administrators to cre- week, following Abramson sent During Apple computer an lab. ate that, in Speert, asking light of a letter to Evidence Other Offered recommendation,. he negative
Seminoffs carefully. materials read her retention from Abramson also offered affidavits “It appears [Seminoffs] wrote: She faculty members. The affida- several WPC against me as an Orthodox Jew over- bias Dye, pres- professor vit of Linda WPC judgment.” App. professional whelms her 1993-94, faculty union from ident the' of. nearly two On October many allegations. supported of Abramson’s later, Speert Abramson a let- weeks wrote say Speert stated that had refused to She informing that he did not intend to ter why appeal meeting at Abramson’s App. reappointment. at recommend terminated, and also expressed 977. He later the reasons all given the reasons WPC could memorandum, in a sent to her his decision refuted, App. at 160-61. She declared the appears 1993. It clear on November following: from the memorandum that his reasons faculty All but three or four members In Speert’s differed from Seminoffs. Education had difficulties the School of opinion, “potential contribu- Abramson’s Dean Seminoff. Even within that Department, Program and the tion to her context, Dean Seminoffs conduct toward College justify reappoint- ... not [did] Professor Abramson stood out for its App. at 979. ment.” hostility. In contrast to her personal members, faculty treatment of other through appeals Abramson then went an required Professor Dean Seminoff process, Speert reached the same con- but justify every Abramson to one of her again. deposition, clusion his he once every area of Profes- actions each explained retaining for not his reasons sor work.... Dean Semi- main rea- Abramson. said noffs criticisms of Professor Abramson’s present- son was that the retention folder performance were without basis.... Es- to him contained evidence of her inabili- ed pecially notable was her insistence that ty leadership guidance. App. to take from clarified that the referred-to Professor Abramson be excluded 1098. He preparing issues related both to the committee the School of involved *8 Speert deposition program, 3. viduals not centered about the testified in his grant Abramson dealt with a for Merck and a program gains respect college with to the program with the Stevens of Tech- Institute college's analysis cost benefit with way nology in a that was "not consonant with respect program.” App. at Re- to that college processes.” App. at 1102. He stated accreditation, garding the NCATE tes- respect [Merck] that "her view with to the referring tified that he was to Abramson's grant limiting take ac- was and did not into being placed complaints about not on the count either circumstances at the school level committee, steering partici- and her refusal to college App. at 1101. level or level.” pate preparation for in the accreditation proposed program With to a with being steering visit after excluded from the Stevens, he said that "Dr. Abramson’s re- App. at 1107-09. committee. sponse indi- to the issue was centered about expertise published and had than accreditation visit more for an Education [NCATE], since Professor faculty from the rest of the in the & I team C De- special expertise as she Abramson had partment. App. at 167. member of NCATE.... Semi- was a Finally, Abramson submitted the decla- criticism of Professor noffs unfair colleague, ration of her former Cordelia performance and her hostile Abramson’s Towney. Towney Abramson and had both toward Professor Abramson conduct faculty college on the at a different been disapproval her were motivated careers, in their earlier had worked on adherence strict Professor Abramson’s together a book while Abramson worked at laws.... to Jewish employed Towney had also for WPC. WPC
App. at 156-57. Towney one semester. stated that “[t]he Wollock, Stanley a ten- The affidavit religious harassment [Abramson] which department, professor ured Abramson’s made suffered WPC her feel like meetings Friday noted that afternoon were sallow, puppy. beaten She became changed “Wepner was aware because stooped, App. she looked broken.” [and] to attend Professor Abramson was unable at 174. ... because of her observance Jew- In addition to these declarations her App. at 163. He also re- ish Sabbath.” affidavit, a Post own Abramson submitted had stated that counted by Wepner It note that was con- written fulfilling not her “would tained in Abramson’s file. at 445. faculty if did not attend the duties” said, you dealing The note “If are with addition, he meetings. App. at 164. day— all grad program teachers —work “you peo- noted that Dean Seminoff said college Logical any working class than once and ple” to Abramson more Saturday] conferences on have —needs harshly “much more than she treated her practicing conflict her reli- institution faculty other members.” Id. Ac- treated Saturday gion go. Conferences on — observations, believed the cording to his he Id. Abramson also introduced into deal.” Dean’s dislike of Abramson was based on extremely positive student evalu- religion. App. during the 1992-93 ations she had received White, professor a tenured Doris faculty forms year, academic evaluation department who was a mem- May April 1992 and completed between ber of the Retention and Tenure Commit- work,4 as well as ten praising 1993, stated, “Dean tee the Fall of Speert by students and letters written to Jews,” prejudiced against was Seminoff faculty strongly supported who members Abramson and another un- assigning both 347-62, 183-85, App. at her retention. faculty tenured member to work Jewish 380-93. many Friday nights, though White Friday night. never asked to teach on History B. Procedural that facul- App. at 168. She also declared Abramson filed On November only on Fri- ty meetings were scheduled complaint employment discrimination I days Abramson was the C & while Equal Employment Oppor- Additionally, stat- with both Department. Id. White *9 (“EEOC”) and the New tunity technological that had more Commission ed Abramson by Wepner. peer 4. One review was much more critical of others; Abramson than the this was written it refer at all to the declarations
Jersey Rights Division on Civil did not (“NJDCR”). profes- filing at 141. After a submitted Abramson’s fellow union that was eventu- sors. It stated that because Commit- grievance with her tenure, denied, complaint grant a of ally Abramson filed tee voted inquiry retaliation focus of the should be on whether religious discrimination and Sep- on President failed to make a tenure with the NJDCR the EEOC right discriminatory a animus. receiving tember 1994. After decision because EEOC, It that no evidence of sue letter from the Abramson com- found there was at this action in the States such animus. Id. 81-82. The Court menced United for the District of Jer- held that “at best raises [Abramson] District Court New 17,1995. inquiry, scintilla of in the overall sey August on evidence by virtue of what the record reveals con- sum- The District Court delivered its cerning Shelly Wepner.” Id. the mind mary judgment ruling from on the bench addition, at In found that 83. the Court 10, 1999, disposing of the December issues that Abramson had failed to establish that lengthy opinion raised oral was terminating reasons for her were WPC’s interspersed dialogue with between the pretextual. Id. and counsel. The Court entered its Court 14, 1999, granting order on December The District Court dismissed the com- summary judgment religion favor on all of WPC ments made about Abramson’s as opinion, “stray claims. In its oral the District remarks.” Id. at 30. The Court briefly opined Court considered Abramson’s hos- that there was a lack of evidence claim, rejecting people negatively tile work environment it that acted toward it religious because found that Abramson did not Abramson because of her ab- present satisfy that at would sences. Id. 58-59. The Court ex- pri- pressed facie case. The Court focused its belief that was “hot- marily on Abramson’s failure to make out headed” and her bad treatment that religion. facie case: Id. first Abramson was unrelated .element 59-60, intentional discrimination on the basis of at view, religion. many its there were too Wep- The District Court then examined conduct, explanations Wepner’s other (“The ner’s statement to Abramson trouble making religious explanation animus you you that it doesn’t show Op. unreasonable. Dist. Ct. at 78-79. Orthodox.”) length, acknowledging are Furthermore, it stated the “same evi- “angry” it sounded and “confronta- dence works for discrimination both” However, tive” Id. at 52. after [sic]. claims, hostile work environment and indi- reading Wepner’s deposition, the Court it considering cated was Abramson’s ina- “gleaned position [Wep- from that a bility prove pretext analysis its of her has, aas Jew which is that she felt ner] hostile work environment claim. Id. at religious practices that her own were Overall, best, 77-78. it found that “at her, down-played low-keyed by [sic] [Abramson] raises scintilla of evidence.” dealing matter with the issue Id. at 83. possible Antisemitism....” Id. 53. The majority Wep- The' vast of the District Court District or not Court asked whether opinion remark, religious “standing addressed Abramson’s ner’s alone ... estab- bias,” discrimination claim. The District Court lishes a and found that unpersuaded by just way the evidence relied I find for “[t]here’s no someone claim, support Abramson to though Shelly Wepner’s hear remark and draw *10 it, per delay correcting that that se six-month any kind of an inference to “ad- discriminatory ani- ministrative and bumbling.” is evidence of bureaucratic remark at 58-55. towards Abramson....” Id. Id. The Court stated it was mus that Instead, only considering whole, it it determined that showed the as a and in record so, opinion respect doing difference of with it found that Abramson a “clear did not open acknowledgment disprove legitimate the nondiscriminatory to Abramson’s requests acknowledgment gave retaining of her Or- reason WPC for not thodoxy. ...” Id. at 55. Abramson. Id. at 88. Wep- rejecting
The District then addressed Court retaliation claim, ner’s Post—It as a “stand-alone document the District Court held Abramson Wepner’s “a give Shelly give enough us a vision of did not clear indication that respect raising religious mind-set with to Abramson.” she was [sic] discrimination as persuaded Id. The Court was that the note an issue.” Id. at 76. The Court consid- strongly Wep- only Speert’s alleged more that ered change “establishes even de- opinion evaluating ner moved from difference meanor when the adverse em- practice plaintiff regarding ployment prong retaliatory with of her action religion inquiry, that her mind to that broadened held “whatever respect a conclusion that ... Abramson was not did or didn’t do with to friendliness going speculation ... to meet the needs of the institu- call for rank part would on the However, jury, jury tion.” Id. at 56. if say the Court that was asked to found that Abramson had failed to to find that there show was retaliation.” Id. requisite Wepner’s nexus Post between The District Court did not consider It and decision not to retain her WPC’s Abramson’s ultimate termination as an ad- contextually employment because it was “not estab- verse action. where, lished when and how this Post-[I]t appeals, arguing Abramson that
played anything Wep- a role other than in dismissing District Court erred regarding plaintiff.” ner’s own dossier religious Title VII NJLAD discrimi- Although Id. the Court noted that it was nation, environment, hostile and re- work possible that somehow influenced argues taliation claims. She that she es- Speert, possibility it that a in- found was facie case for tablished each proof sufficient: “there has to of a First, argues her claims. she that she factor, i.e. factor of determinative discrimi- proof has recounted sufficient of all ele- possibility.” nation. Not the Id. at 57. required ments of the facie case similarly The District Court was uncon- for a hostile work environment claim. vinced that Abramson’s absence from Fri- to her discrimina- With day faculty job claim, meetings affected her tion Abramson stresses that she performance, rejected ample it super- also the ar- submitted evidence that her gument rescheduling faculty by discriminatory that visors were motivated meetings stemming was done in an effort harass animus from her insistence against practice Abramson or to discriminate' her. be allowéd to her Or- she ' Furthermore, argues the Court did not thodox Jewish beliefs. She believe also request presented that she credible evidence that Seminoffs Abramson terminating account for her reasons for her were absences related WPC’s religion. being charged pretextual. regard It to her retalia- ascribed With claim, day holiday a sick on a tion contends that Jewish when teach, clearly not made her she was scheduled to and the record reflects *11 276 most complain- light the facts favorable
supervisors aware that she was view discrimination, nonmoving and that her termi- and draw all infer- ing party of to the Farrell, com- nation was motivated those party’s ences in that favor.” 206 of plaints. consider each pieces We will individual F.3d at 278. While the claims the order raised to make may alone not suffice beginning with her hostile appellant, asserted, out the claims we must view work environment claim. picture. record as a whole Woodson v. (3d Co., 913, 109 921 Paper Scott
II. Cir.1997). As we in Andrews v. stated subject The District had matter Court 1469, City Philadelphia, 895 F.2d 1484 jurisdiction § and under 28 U.S.C. 1381 28 (3d Cir.1990), play “A cannot be under- 1343, jurisdic- supplemental § and U.S.C. on the of some of its scenes stood basis § tion under 28 U.S.C. 1367. We have only performance, and but on its entire jurisdiction pur- appellate appeal over this similarly, analysis a discrimination must § suant to 28 U.S.C. 1291. We exercise incidents, not on concentrate individual plenary review over District Court’s but on the overall scenario.” WPC, grant summary judgment apply the same standard that the Dis-
we A. Hostile Work Environment applied. trict should have Farrell Court Abramson’s first claim is that she Co., 271, v. Planters 206 F.3d Lifesavers subjected to a hostile work environ (3d Cir.2000). grant A 278 court should religion. ment on her To make out based summary judgment pleadings, “if de- a religiously a facie case for hostile positions, interrogatories, answers VII, work environment5 under Title a file, together admissions on the affi- davits, plaintiff must demonstrate five elements: any, genu- if no show there is “(1) employee[ suffered intentional ] ine material fact and that issue as ’ [religion]; party discrimination because of moving judgment is entitled to 56(c). pervasive regu as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. the discrimination was 6 (3) evidence, lar; evaluating detrimentally “a court must the discrimination Seidner, yet 5. We have to address a hostile work envi we use here. See v. 183 F.3d Hafford However, (6th Cir.1999) religion. (holding 514 ronment based on claim "did not a triable issue over Title has been under our case demonstrate VII construed subjected he was to a hostile support law to of a work envi work claims hostile whether (i.e., religion.”). categories environment based on respect ronment with to other sex, race, origin). national We no reason see Jersey We also note that New court has to treat Abramson's hostile work environment recognized also that hostile work environ- any differently, given claim Title VII's lan religion cognizable ment claims based are on 2000e-2(a)(l) guage. (pro § 42 U.S.C. See under the See v. Mon- NJLAD. Heitzman ' hibiting discriminating employers from County, N.J.Super. mouth A.2d "race, color, against individual an because of (App.Div.1999) (discussing plaintiff's sex, Therefore, religion, origin.”). or national subjected that he was work claim hostile apply the well-established framework for because he was Jewish and not- environment hostile work environment claims with ing Jersey upon that New courts have relied categories analysis protected to other to our construing federal court decisions Title VII of a hostile work claim made environment work claims' when re- hostile environment religion. account of We also note that there NJLAD). viewing such claims under reported is at least decision one from court note, appeals for a We as we did in Bouton v. BMW N. that has held that claim Am., Inc., (3d Cir.1994), religion hostile environment based on 106 n. work exists, applied Spain Gallegos, 26 F.3d 449 n. 14 the same facie case *12 (4) Op. Though the discrimina- Ct. it referred to all of plaintiff; the affected a reason- detrimentally test, affect prongs tion would the first four of the the Court [religion] the same that person of holding able seemed to its almost exclu- base (5) respon- of and the existence position; sively on Abramson’s failure to meet the liability.” Kunin v. Sears superior deat prong, viewing first that prong involving as (3d Co., 289, 293 Roebuck & 175 perception of a person the “reasonable Cir.1999) Andrews, (citing 895 F.2d at protected requiring the status” and a dis- 1482). criminatory disagree “animus.” We approach. this NJLAD, plaintiff the
Under
religiously hostile work
a claim for a
states
proper inquiry
stage
The
at this
was
“comp
by showing that
the
environment
whether a reasonable factfinder could view
(1)
conduct
would not have oc
lained-of
showing
the
as
that
Abramson’s
[religion];
employee’s
curred
for the
but
treatment was attributable to her
(2)
enough
pervasive
and it was
severe or
Further,
practice.
by asking
faith and
a(3)
[Orthodox Jew]
to make
reasonable
person
whether a
“neces-
reasonable
would
(4)
employ
the conditions of
believe that
sarily
question
construe” the conduct in
working.envi
altered and the
ment were
motivated,
being improperly
the District
Hurley
hostile or
ronment was
abusive.”
appears to have viewed the evidence
Court
95,
City
Dep’t,
Police
174 F.3d
v. Atlantic
light
party
in the
to the
most favorable
(3d Cir.1999),
denied,
114
cert.
528 U.S. making,
party opposing,
not the
the sum-
1074, 120
786,
the conduct
did not meet
re-
“discriminatory ani-
quirements
of the
facie case. Dist.
duct be “linked” to a
(3d Cir.1994),
regular,”
fulfilling
that the Andrews formulation of
thus
both the Andrews
Therefore,
Supreme
prong
this
differs from the
Court’s.
adopt
the Harris tests.
we
Inc.,
17, 21,
Sys.,
Harris v.
510 U.S.
In
approach taken in Bouton. We note that the
Forklift
(1993),
mus,”
natory
we have held that
Op.
stating
Dist. Ct.
sufficiently
not
“all
“reveal[ ]
the record did
even the use of “code words” such as
Shelley Wep-
mind
you”
[what
the]
and “one of them” could be suffi-
ner,”
seeming-
id. at
the District Court
jury
from which a
could find
cient evidence
to introduce direct
ly required Abramson
Aman,
an intent
discriminate. See
Wepner’s intentional discrimi-
evidence of
(“The
are
F.3d at 1083
words themselves
*13
against
her based on her
nation
in-
only
they
relevant for what
reveal-the
However, Supreme
prece-
beliefs.
Court
speaker.”);
Rowley,
see also
tent of the
plain-
a
support
dent does not
the need for
(finding
workplace.
same-sex harassment
quires
showing
that the offender’s behav-
plaintiff may also ... offer direct com-
was,
required by
ior
Title
both
VII
parative
alleged
evidence about how the
LAD,
protected category.
based on a
harasser treated members
both sexes
439,
Spain Gallegos,
See
26 F.3d
447-48
workplace.
in a mixed-sex
(3d Cir.1994) (noting
though
facts be-
80-81,
523 U.S.
nates will almost never announce a dis-
is,
plaintiff presents
if
criminatory
provide employees
animus or
tention
sufficient
give
or
of discrimi-
evidence to
rise to an inference of
courts with direct evidence
first,
briefly note the evidence that the
offering proof that her
discrimination
should
with discrimina- District Court
have considered
permeated
is
“workplace
intimidation, ridicule,
ruling
that when
on Abramson’s hostile work
and insult
tory
(1)
to alter
claim:9
Seminoffs “un-
sufficiently
pervasive
environment
is
severe
employment precedented” monitoring
.
victim’s
the conditions
(2)
absences;
working
charg-
environ-
conferences and
WPC
create an abusive
Inc.,
day
with a sick
on a
ment,”
Sys.,
ing
Abramson
Jewish
Harris v. Forklift
holiday
not
prima
case is met.
facie
pervasive.
al
harassment was
The events
remaining elements of
Turning to the
years
leged
period
occurred over a
of two
envi-
facie case for hostile work
to have infected
and could
found
.be
ronment,
find that the evidence Abram-
we
experience;
Abramson’s work
even other
satisfy her
sufficient to
presented
faculty
son
it
members mentioned
to.
prongs as well. We
filing
on the other
suit.
prior
burden
to Abramson’s
390-91, 513,
many
that the
incidents recount-
540-41. No one event alone
conclude
rest,
Abramson, coupled with the
from the
but all of the
ed
declara-
out
stands
professors,
aggregate
are rele-
could
found to
to cre
tions of other WPC
events
be
person
to a
prongs
as to
two ate an environment hostile
probative
vant and
Durham
religion.
for Abramson’s
See
through
four of the
facie case
Life
(3d
Evans,
166 F.3d
Though
Ins. Co. v.
hostile work environment claims.8
Cir.1999) (“[I]t
law that courts
prong individually,
is settled
we will address each
However,
they
disagree
we note
parties,
as
are to be considered.
8. We note that the
declarations,
admissibility
of the
for the
District Court's treatment
is a matter
that their
quite vague
the record
in this
found
Court to decide. See
States
District
United
clearly
regard.
did not
The District Court
Infinity Group
Exchange
Comm'n v.
Sec.
opinion,
did
them in its oral
but
allude to
Co.,
(3d Cir.2000) (review-
during
argu-
general
oral
make a
statement
testimony
ing
lay opinion
the exclusion of
motion,
summary judgment
of-
ment on the
discretion);
abuse of
Unit-
under Rule 701 for
fering
view
“some
the affidavits
(3d
Eufrasio,
ed States v.
truly inadmissible.” Tr. of Oral
... would be
Cir.1991) (stating that admission under Rule
might
Arg.
then stated that "we
It
of discretion
403 is reviewed under an abuse
limine battle about
...
[an][in]
have
standard).
dealing
it
we are
with whether or not
when
Because we have
admissible.” Id. at 101.
are
exhaustive. There
addi-
9. This list is not
contesting
to a motion
their
not been referred
examples
tional
in the record.
admissibility
ruling
inad-
or an order
them
missible,
purposes that
we assume for our
beyond “simple teasing,
go
not consider each incident of
said to
offhand
should
Rather,
comments,
a court
harassment
in isolation.
isolated inci-
[non-serious]
dents,”
must
the sum total of abuse over
Supreme
evaluate
Court has cau-
which
omitted).
time.”) (internal citation
Taken
“not
to discriminato-
tioned would
amount
whole,
alleged
all
indicate
as a
the events
ry changes in
terms
and conditions
that the harassment
rose to the level of
employment.” Id. at
281 case, religious two theories of discriminat we assert reverse ments of treatment,” “disparate alleged summary judg- ion:12 grant District Court’s here, E.g., and “failure to accommodate.” environ- hostile work on Abramson’s ment Richmond, Chalmers v. Tulon Co. 101 ment claim.11 (4th Cir.1996); 1012, 1017 Mann v. Religious Claim Discrimination B. (8th Cir.1993). Frank, 1365, 1368-70 7 F.3d was ter claims that she dealing the cases in our court Because were supervisors her minated because discrimination have routine religious discriminatory animus stem motivated ly of the “failure to accommodate” been al that she be from her insistence ming variety, facie case here we utilize days. religious holy to observe lowed employed that differs from the one our various, allegedly alleges WPC’s See, She religious discrimination cases. other for terminat non-discriminatory reasons Dentistry v. Med. & e.g., Shelton Univ. of pre false and employment (3d Cir.2000). were ing N.J., textual. “disparate prove To a claim under the employees explicitly protects
Title VII
theory,
prima facie case
treatment”
actions on the
employment
employee
from adverse
evidentiary
burdens of an
“(a)
an unlaw-
religion:
It shall be
basis of
mirror
alleging
discrimination
employer—
for an
employment practice
employee alleging
ful
race or sex
those of an
(1)
discharge
Chalmers,
or refuse to hire or to
to fail
101 F.3d at
discrimination.
individual,
to discriminate
Accordingly,
apply
or otherwise
the familiar
respect to his
any individual with
McDonnell
against
burden-shifting framework of
terms, conditions,
Green,
privi-
or"
compensation,
Corp.
803-
Douglas
U.S.
(1973).
indi-
employment, because of such
L.Ed.2d
leges of
93 S.Ct.
”
religion....
...
U.S.C. The
must demonstrate that
vidual’s
*16
(2)
2000e-2(a).
class,
protected
our sister
of a
was
recognized
§
As
is a member
rejected
position she
circuits,
recognized
and
for the
though
explicitly
qualified
never
(3)
pro-
may
sought, and
nonmembers
jurisprudence, employees
in our own
categories
protected
as race
by con-
in the same list of
that the Court erred
11. We also note
claims,
sex,
legal
stating
flating
"religion" in 42
two of Abramson's
the definition of
and
applied to both
the exact same
2000e(j)
§
the
to ac-
U.S.C.
creates
"failure
religious discrimination claim
Abramson's
theory by including
aspects
"all
commodate”
claim:
work environment
and her hostile
practice,
well
religious observance and
as
...
the reason ad-
I do not find that
"[I]f
belief,
employer demonstrates
as
unless an
pretextual plaintiff has a
vanced were [sic]
reasonably
is unable to
accommodate
that he
establishing hostile work envi-
difficult time
religious
or
employee's ...
observance
an
for
...
the
evidence works
ronment
same
hardship
the
practice without undue
con-
Op.
two claims
Dist. Ct.
at 77. The
both.”
prima
employer’s business.” The
duct of the
entirely
prima
different
facie cases and
have
case,
part
of the same
facie
considered
may
evidence for one
courts
consider
often
Douglas
as the
framework known
McDonnell
here,
example,
and not the other. For
claim
"(1)
test,
he or she
consists of three elements:
that it had a
even if WPC could demonstrate
conflicts
a bona fide
belief that
has
nondiscriminatory
legitimate,
reason to termi-
(2)
requirement;
or
employment
he
with an
Abramson,
have a hostile
nate
she would still
belief; (3)
employer
the
of this
she informed
wprk
claim if she could establish
environment
disciplined
for failure to com-
he or she
test,
prongs
none of
the five
of the Andrews
conflicting employment require-
ply with the
precluded
a failure to establish
which are
America, Inc.,
Volkswagen
ment.” Protos
disparate treatment.
Cir.1986).
(3d
types of
for the two different
12. The reason
although
religion
VII lists
claims is
Title
favorably.
professors
more
ish
were retained. The burden
tected class were treated
Med., Inc.,
Goosby
Johnson
proffer
legiti-
v. Johnson &
then
a
shifted WPC
(3d Cir.2000)
(citing
228 F.3d
318-319
mate,
non-discriminatory
reason
Block,
Wolf,
Ezold v.
Schorr & Solis-Co
Goosby,
termination.
(3d Cir.1992)).
hen,
Af
many
F.3d at 319.
offered
WPC
reasons
plaintiff
ter the
establishes a
facie
fact,
pre-
In
reasons
for its decision.
the
case,
employer
proffer
legiti
the
must
ever-changing.
sented were
mate, non-discriminatory reason for the
reviewing
wrote that after
Seminoff
employment
adverse
decision. Once the
file,
Abramson’s retention
she did not rec
so,
employer
does
the
must dem
ommend Professor Abramson for retention
proffered
onstrate that
the
reason was
“regarding
quality
due to concern
the
319;
pretextual. Goosby, 228 F.3d at
see
research,
accomplishment
[teaching,
Plumbing
also Reeves v. Sanderson
service],
activity
scholarly
partic
and
Prods., Inc.,
530 U.S.
120 S.Ct.
ular
for the
App.
concern
area of service.”
(2000).
2097,
Here,
and re
assumed,
the District Court
fused to work with administrators to cre
parties
dispute
the
not
appeal,
did
on
that
Apple computer
ate
an
lab.
requirements
Abramson
all three
When
met
of
(1)
pressed, Speert
the
asserted that
the main
religion
pro-
facie case:
is a
tected
reason he did not retain
category under Title VII and
Abramson was
(2)
Jew,
presented
that
Abramson is an Orthodox
the folder
had been
to
(3)
qualified
position;
inability
for the
him contained
her
to
she was
evidence of
leadership
guidance. App.
terminated while other non-Orthodox Jew-
take
at
VII,
analy-
13. Under the
the
we
that because
VII
NJLAD
Title
note
Abramson's Title
Therefore,
essentially
summary judgment,
sis is
the same.
we will
claim survives
so,
doing
limit our discussion to Title VII. In
NJLAD claim does as well.
seriously enough
said that
so that a factfinder
inquiry,
further
he
Upon
1098.
may rationally
the remaining
failure
disbelieve
was based
Abramson’s
this
reasons,
securing
proffered
if
procedures
in
even
no evidence
proper
follow
undermining
remaining
involved
those
rationales
and her failure
be
grants,
particular
process.
is available.
the
accreditation
NCATE
burden at
at 1099-110. Because WPC’s
Id., n. 7.
then noted that
it
not
We
is
produc
stage merely
a burden of
this
enough
plaintiff
to show that
the
tion,
with the District Court
agree
employer’s
wrong
decision was
or mistak
stage.
See
met its burden
this
WPC
en,
the issue is
the em
whether
.because
Ezold,
(referring to defen
286 record contains a memo sent on October cess and thus discrimination to allowed 1993, 21, Speert Clearly, from Seminoff to with infect the ultimate decision.” subject for infor- “Request line that read: played and Seminoff a role in the n ultimate decision to terminate Abramson,” mation —Professor Gertrude Abramson, supporting thus the conclusion that and their involvement thus makes their sought input had on the decision to retain probative conduct toward her relevant and App. at 378. Under our case Abramson.16 discriminatory animus. law, exhibiting if it is sufficient those dis- us, Considering the record before partici- criminatory animus influenced ample support find evidence to pated in the decision to terminate. See religious discrimination claim. Inc., 1204, Lightolier 50
Abrams v. F.3d Cir.1995) (3d (stating 1214 in ADEA case C. Retaliation Claim plaintiffs supervisor participated that if in final Abramson’s third and claim is him, though decision to terminate even for retaliation. To advance a facie president company formally terminated case of retaliation under Title VII and the him, supervisor’s age-related (1) NJLAD, must show that: animus determining in if would be relevant employee engaged protected in a em discriminatory play); motive at see also (2) ployee activity;17 employer took an Venture, McKinney Hosp. Russell v. 235 employment adverse action after or con (5th Cir.2000) (“If 219, F.3d 226 the em- temporaneous employee’s with the protect ployee can demonstrate that others had (3) activity; ed a causal link exists leverage influence or the official over deci- employee’s protected activity between the impute ... it is proper sionmaker their See, employer’s and the adverse action. discriminatory attitudes to the formal deci- Farrell, 278; e.g., 206 F.3d at see also sionmaker.”); Santiago-Ramos v. Centen- Co., 126 494, v. Am. Krouse Sterilizer F.3d 46, Corp., nial P.R. Wireless 55 (3d Cir.1997) 500 (describing the third re (1st Cir.2000) (stating “discriminatory connection”); quirement as a “causal Craig by comments ... ... made those in a Cablevision, Inc., v. Suburban 140 N.J. position to influence the decisionmaker” (1995). 660 A.2d We con pretext); can be evidence of Griffin ample clude that there is all evidence of Ctr., Washington Convention F.3d record, disagree three elements (D.C.Cir.1998) (“[E]vidence 1308, 1312 of a with the District Court’s determination subordinate’s bias is relevant where the Abramson did not make out a ultimate decision maker 'is not insulated facie case. influence.”). from the subordinate’s As we University, noted Roebuck v. Drexel 1) engaged (3d Cir.1988), plainly “it is activity. protected permissible jury for a to conclude that an level, at any evaluation if based discrim- On Oct. Abramson wrote ination, influenced the decisionmaking pro- Speert, stating: letter memo, explained In this language Seminoff certain 17. The actual used the New Jer- file, courts, aspects including sey of Abramson's retention prong, to the first why employee Seminoff believed the committee vote that an must show that he or she split, Wepner’s and a engaged protected activity recitation of what known memo, Cablevision, employer. Craig concerns were. At the end v. Suburban Inc., allegation Seminoff addresses "the of reli- 140 N.J. 660 A.2d added). gious (emphasis bias.”
287 a clear [was not] 1992 letter my “[October]18 Jew all as an Orthodox lived I have raising was reli- policy enough indication that she The non-discrimination life.... College precludes as an issue. She was gious discrimination Paterson William religious observ- it, either was not flat out [adverting] to defend to but she need goals. Never- of career pursuit at 75-76. Op. ances Dist. Ct. saying it.” necessary for me theless, ... it has been Though think the October that See, example, for my lifestyle. justify to sufficiently to have alerted was clear letter to Dean Semi- memo attached sent being she was that felt Speert Abramson for an request response her noff rely we need not against,19 discriminated my explanation “conferences/ab- find that alone in order to on that letter pro-forma a I submitted when sences” prong.20 This fulfilled the first Abramson August an conference. request travel only Cagnina did admit that because not Abram- 932. On October App. September understood Speert after Semi- wrote to again once son an “informal” to her to be letter recommendation gave negative noff 770,. discrimination, App. at complaint of her future em- regarding the Committee acknowledged that the October Speert also This WPC.App. ployment com- 12,1993 from to him letter Abramson “Dean Seminoffs that complained letter as an Ortho- toward her plaining of “bias” an Orthodox against [Abramson] bias clearly complaint quite Jew dox judg- professional overwhelms Jew . discrimination, 515. com- making her In addition to Id. ment.” the letters Abram- precedent, our Under Speert, Abram- plaints known President Speert fall Cagnina wrote to son Affirmative complained to also WPC’s son requirements of the squarely within Officer, Sep- Cagnina. On Robie Action have claim. We prong of a retaliation first filed a written Abramson tember ADEA context that noted in the previously discrimination with religious complaint of letter of com subjected require not a formal being “I am “we do stating: Cagnina, treatment, as the discriminatory employer harrass- or the EEOC bias, plaint to an I [sic], requisite outright hatred because only acceptable indicia ment App. at 311. as an Orthodox Jew.” Barber v. CSX conduct’....” live ‘protected (3d Servs., 701-02 68 F.3d Distrib. determined District Court The Cir.1995) States v. United (citing Sumner first ele- out the failed to make Abramson (2d Serv., Cir. Postal not articulate ment, that she “did holding 1990) forms of acceptable (explaining that clearly in a formal manner analo- activity Title VII’s under protected complaint ...” and that discrimination religion. App. at due to her "April unfair treatment actually Court stated The District 18. Yet, letter, says he did not given letter also that no such 504. but 1992” record, during that same reli- complaint exists in the letter to be consider the However, to the previously referred it had discussion App. at 507. gious discrimination. letter, we District assume the October 1992 deposition acknowledge in her Seminoff did say misspoke simply and intended to Court felt she that she was aware that October. during the was the victim of discrimination year. App. at 604. academic 1991-92 deposition re- Speert’s his statements in First, he are garding letter inconsistent. this opin District Court from the is unclear 20. It receiving called after that he *22 protests discriminatory employment mal retain Abramson and Abramson’s ultimate practices, including making termination, complaints analysis changes signifi- the management, writing cantly. critical letters to cus- tomers, protesting against discrimination Based on our case law and the evidence by industry society general, and ex- adduced, Abramson has made a sufficient pressing support of co-workers who have showing of the causal required connection here, charges”)). filed formal Similarly, prong the third of the facie case WPC, complaints the whether oral or Farrell, In retaliation. we recognized
written, informal, formal or are sufficient that our case law has focused on two main satisfy prong the first the facie factors in finding necessary the causal link case, provided complaints the expressed for retaliation: timing and evidence of on- opposition protected to a ac- going antagonism. 281; 206 F.3d at see tivity Thus, under Title VII. we hold that Co., Paper also Woodson v. Scott the record contains showing a sufficient (3d Cir.1997) 920-21 (“[T]emporal engaged that Abramson in protected activ- proximity ... is sufficient to establish the ity. causal link.... plaintiff [A] can es- [also] tablish a link between protected his or her
2) Abramson suffered adverse behavior subsequent if discharge employment action. employer engaged pattern in a antago- With to the second ele intervening Here, nism the period.”). it ie., employment action, adverse argued could be proximity in time ment — District only Court focused on Abramson’s between Speert Abramson’s last letter to Speert claim that treated her differently on October being and her in- after she complaints, voiced her rather formed would not recommend her considering than the more obvious adverse for retention on October is not employment action of her termination. conclusive discharge because her occurred hold that We Abramson’s termination in accordance with her annual review for clearly fulfills prong the second However, of the retention. timing factor is prima facie case for a retaliation In claim. convincing by made more Cagnina’s admis- addition, Seminoffs recommendation not sion that she called Seminoff meeting after to retain Abramson qualify would also as with in September 1993 and employment an adverse action sufficient to told her “apprised Abramson had meet this element. that she [her] believed she had been dis- against.”
criminated App. at 770. Semi- 3) A causal link exists between noff very wrote a negative recommenda- protected activity against tion Abramson soon after
the adverse action.
phone call from Cagnina.
Given that
event,
the District
Court
rely
we need not
timing
on
Speert’s
viewed
change in demeanor as the
alone because
presented
Abramson has
ad-
only
action,
adverse
it dismissed the issue
ditional
prove
evidence to
the causal nexus.
hand,
First,
causation out of
stating that
it
she has
ongoing
demonstrated
an-
“would call
speculation
for rank
tagonism
department
from her
head and
part
jury”
dean,
to ask it to find retalia
as we noted in our discussion of
tion.
Op.
Dist. Ct.
Further,
76. But because the
the facts above.
she introduced
III. Conclusion
re-
of' circumstantial
types
other
for ter-
reasons
proffered
garding WPC’s
Farrell,
As we stated
previously
her,
have
which we
minating
inferences
recognize that different
We
probative of
potentially
pre
recognized
from the evidence
might be drawn
Farrell,
summary
F.3d at
in the record. On
sented
connection.
causal
however,
viewing the
judgment,-
when
(“[A]
rely
a broad
may
upon
case,
prima facie
our
sufficiency of the
a causal
array
[illustrate
of evidence
Instead,
to act as
finder.
role is not
fact
instance,
link].”).
have noted
For
*23
consider the evidence taken
wé must
employer
that her
may show
to the non-mov-
light most favorable
the
terminating
for
inconsistent reasons
gave
plain
[the
and determine whether
ant
Waddell,
(stating
F.2d at 73
799
her. See
causation re
can show the
tiff]
“appropriately”
court could
that district
...
quired.
into
explanations
inconsistent
have taken
Here,
ample
there is
F.3d at 286.
206
necessary to
causation
finding
account
reasonable
from which a
evidence
jury
case). Revealing dis-
satisfy prima facie
establishing all
could draw inferences
can
reasons
proffered
in the
crepancies
Accordingly,
of Abramson’s claims.
three
link.
of the causal
also constitute evidence
District
the
will REVERSE
we
Court’s
(listing
Farrell,
F.3d at 285-86
See
in fa-
summary judgment
granting
order
reasons,
validity of
attacks on
plaintiffs
hos-
claims of
of
on Abramson’s
vor WPC
Here,
in our discus-
as we found
given).
environment, religious discrimi-
work
tile
claim, Abramson
the discrimination
sion of
retaliation,
for
REMAND
nation
on the
casting doubt
in both
has succeeded
proceedings.
further
for her
termi-
proferred
reasons WPC
ALITO,
concurring.
Judge,
Circuit
that
those
nation,
demonstrating
and in
expla
to add a brief
separately
I write
inconsistent.
vague and
reasons were
understanding of the basis
my
nation
evidence,
the
coupled with
of this
light
rec
summary judgment
that the
holding
in the rec-
antagonism” reflected
“ongoing
plaintiffs
permit
the
is sufficient to
ord
change in
ord,
Speerf s
demean-
including
trial.
go
claim to
harassment
religious
complained of discrimi-
or
Abramson
after
under Title VII
is actionable
Harassment
nation,21
contains
find that
record
Against Discrim
Jersey
the New
Law
a causal connection.
ample proof of
pervasive
only if it is so severe
ination
Therefore,
presented suffi-
has
Abramson
conditions
it alters the terms or
prongs
all three
to meet
cient evidence
Faragher v.
employment. See
plaintiffs
claim so as to with-
retaliation
Raton,
facie
U.S.
City Boca
(1998);
will re-
summary judgment,
2275, 141
Taylor
and we
L.Ed.2d
stand
S.Ct.
490, 706
ruling on this
152 N.J.
A.2d
Metzger,
the District Court’s
verse
(1998).
comments and
Offensive
688-89
claim.22
say,
opinion
not be
our
should
allega-
Needless
not find this
Court did
21. The District
any
crediting Speert’s
expressing
ex-
view as
interpreted
persuasive, instead
tion
he did not interact
planation
subjected
reason
was in fact
whether
prac-
was his
because it
with Abramson was
We
or retaliation.
religious discrimination
anyone
having
contact with
avoid
tice to
properly
questions cannot
only that these
hold
App. at 115. In
being
for tenure.
considered
summary judgment and must
be decided
so,
failed to consider
doing
District Court
to the trier
fact.
submitted
favorable to
light
in the
most
evidence
Abramson.
actions that do not rise to this level
sages
are
left on
a Jewish
holiday
insufficient.
Id.
an exacting
This is
stan-
demanding an
response—
‘immediate’
dard, and
Paterson College argues
William
directly
are aimed
at an employee’s reli-
this case does not
gious observance. Criticism of an em-
it.
College
meet
The
relies on Heitzman
ployee’s effort to reconcile his or her
County,
v. Monmouth
321 N.J.Super.
schedule with the observance of Jewish
(App.Div.1999),
When deliberately resched- important
ules meetings Friday af-
ternoons, the message to an Orthodox employee
Jewish is clear as a bell. Such
rescheduling employee tells the
continued observance of his or her faith
will be incompatible viewed as with ade-
quate job performance. Repeated re-
quests that work be done on Saturdays holidays Jewish telephone mes- —or 1. Brief for Affairs, Amicus Curiae National Jewish Commission on Law and Public notes why of Abramson's it did not consider ion "about the refer- and asked her this letter letter. complaints the October besides religion,” challenge on basis of ences alleging he she was imply which realized gous opposition clause include formal two instances of adverse action we exam- charges of discrimination “as well as infor- ine are Seminoffs recommendation not to