Free Compendium of Unreported Decisions - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv—OO414-SLR Document 44-2 Filed 05/O2/2005 Page1 0f4

Case 1 :04-cv—OO414-SLR Document 44-2 Filed 05/O2/2005 Page 2 of 4
\#%@·~$t§aiw;
29 Fcii.Appx. 94 Pago l
29 Fcd.Appx. 94, 2002 WL 181357 (3rd Ciz.(?a.))
(Cite as: 29 F`ed.Appx. 94, 2902 WL 181357 (3rd Cir.(Pa.)})
Q llmlth @$266
l98H§<266 Most Cited Casas
Briefs and Other Rcinteci Documents {Formerly 204k4 Hospitals)
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) plaintiff, alleging
This cusc was not sclcctcd for publication in thc that she was fired from hor job at hospiéul in
Fcdcral Rcportcr. retaliation for filing wage complaint, failed to show
that hospital’s prollcrcd uou-discriminatory reason,
NOT PRECEDENTIAL ic., that sho had violated hospltal's patient
couliticmiality policy, wu: prctcrttuzxl. Fair Labor
Please: uso FEND to look at thc: applicable circuit Stzmdards Act of E938, § l5(o)(3), 29 U.S.C.A. §
count rule Enoforc citing this opiuiosl. Third Circuit 2l5(a)(3).
Local Appellate Rule 283(ia) and lutcruzil *94 On Appeal from tho United States District
Operating Procedure 5.3. {HND CTA3 Rule 28.0 Court, for the Western District of Pennsylvania,
and CTA3 IOP APP l 5.3.} (EDC. Civil No. 99-cv-01376), District Judge: Hon.
Gustavo Diamond, Chief Judge.
United States Co¤rtofAppoals, Before SLOVITER, AMBRO, Circuit Judges, and
Third Circuit. POLLAK, District Judge.
Karon CONONIE, Appclizmt,
v. MPMOR ANDl lM (3PlN}£')N OF THF COURT
ALLEGHENY GENERAL HOSPITAL.
No. {]§~2(}24. SLOVITER, Circuit Judge.
Submitted Undc1·Tl1i:·<;l Circuit LAR 35-,l(¤} Fab. 4, **1 Karan Cononic commenced this action in the
2002. United States District Court for thc Western District
Feb. 5, 2002. of Pennsylvania against Allcghcny General Hospital
("A§lcghouy") pursuant to Section l5(a)(3) of thc
Former employee brought action against hospital, Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. §
allcging sho was terminated in retaliation for 2l5(a)(3) (2001), alleging that she was fired from
reporting Fair Labor Standards Act GLSA) hor employment in retaliation for tiling zz complaint
violation. Tho United States District Court, for thc with thc Wage and Hour Division of the United
Western District of Pennsylvania, Gustave States Dcpcrtmcut of Labor ("DOL"). The District
Biamond, Chief Judge, granted summary judgment Court granted summary judgment to Allegheny and
for hospital, and appeal was taken. The Court of Cononio appeals.
Appeals. Slovitor, Circuit Judge. hold that employee
failed to show that lioSpital'$ ptoffcicd l.
uoudisorimiuatory reason for termination wos Conouic was cmploycd as at paiicut-carc tccliuiciau
protcxtuol, by Allegheny for over uiuc yours prior to hc:
terminafiori on August 25, l997. In April 1997,
Afiinucd. Cononic called thc DOL to complain that one of hc:
supervisors *95 was altering timccards to rcducc the
West Hcaduotcs amount of overtime worked. This complaint
cvcntually lcd to am investigation and aa finc lcvicd
© 20*05 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. US. Govt. Works.

Case 1 :04-cv—OO414-SLR Document 44-2 Filed 05/O2/2005 Page 3 of 4
29 ¥ed.Appx. 94 Page 2
29 Fed.Appx. 94, 2002 WL 181357 (3rd Cir.(Pa.))
(Cite as: Z9 Feo.Appx, 94, 2.002. WL {81357 (ord Cir.(Pa.)))
against Allegheny. prima facie case, a catssal connection between ber
protected activity and discharge, was "unlikely" to
On June 30, 1997, Cindy Geary, the manager ofthe lead a reasonable juror to infer a causal link.
Patient Care Technician Department, was nrst Nevertheless, the District Court gave Cononie the
notified of the impending DOL investigation. That benefit of ali possible inferences and concluded that
same day, though not necessarily in this order, the link was at least "conceivable" and sufficient to
Geary notified Cononie that she was being raise a genuine issue ofmatcriai fact as to ber prima
investigated by the hospital for aliegedly violating facie case. App.at 12.
Aileghenys confidentiality policy in April 1997 and
that this investigation had began in May 1997. **2 The District Court then noted that the
These alleged violations eventually led to Cononie’s defendant had proffered evidence of a legitimate,
termination in August 1997, though Cononie argues nondiscriminatory reason for its termination of
that the true reason for ber termination was Cononie, her violation of the hospitals patient
retaliation for her complaint to the DOL. confidentiality policy, a violation Cononie admits
knowing could lead to termination. Thus the
The District Court found that Cononie had made a dispute lies witti the final step of the anaiysis,
prima facie case of rctaliatioii, albeit a weak one, wlietlicr Conunit: has presciitcd enougii cvitlcnct: to
but that she had failed to raise a genuine issnc of make a genuine issue of material fact as to whether
material fact that the legitimate reason for the the reasons given by Allegheny were a pretext for
discharge offered by Allegheny was pretextttal. unlawful termination.
Becatise we write solely for the parties, we need not
set forth a detailed recitation of the background for To defeat summary judgment when the defendant
this appeal and wiil iirnit our discussion to has offered a legitimate reason for its action, the
resolution ofthe issues presented. "plaintiff must point to some evidence, direct or
circumstantial, from which a factfinder could
ll. reasonably either (1) disbclicve the employers
We exercise plenary review over a district courts articuiated legitimate reasons; or (2) believe that an
grant of summary judgment. See Pirttmn (Tn. invirlions discriminatory reason was more likely
Ultrmnrzr America Lid. v, Allianz [ns. Co., 124 F.3d than not a motivating or determinative cause of the
503, 515 (3d Cir.l997). We must review the employers action." Fuentes v. Persltie, 32 F.3d
record as a whole and “give credence to the 759, 764 (3d Cir.1994) (citations omitted).
evidence favoring the nonmovont as well as that
evidence supporting the moving party that is *96 In this case, Cononie argues that the District
uneontradicted and nnimpeached, at least to the Court erred in holding that her evidence that the
extent that that evidence comes from disinterested defendants offered reason was not the true reason
wltiiesses." Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., for Cononie's termination was insufficient to make a
Inc. 530 U.S. 133, 151, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 factual issue. Allegheny presented evidence that
L.l;Ed.2d 105 (2000) (citations and quotations Geary learned of Corionie's alleged confidentiality
omitted). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 violation in May 1997 when an empioyec
USL. ·§ 1291. complained to another supervisor. Geary testified
that she began to investigate the computer records
The appropriate framework for analyzing claims of to determine if they had in fact been accessed but
unlavvttil retaliation under the FLSA is the familiar was unable to verify the complaint. It was not until
burden-shifting framework articulated in June 29, 1997 that Geary learned that three
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, employees had reported observing Cononie
93 S.Ct. 3817, 36 is.Ed.2d 668 (1973). The District accessing confidential computer flies. These facts
Court examinecl the evidence and {mind the are ser forth in Geary's deposition testimony, and
evidence in support of the third prong of Cononie's corroborated at least in part by the deposition
© 2005 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.

Case 1 :04-cv—OO414-SLR Document 44-2 Filed 05/O2/2005 Page 4 of 4
29 Fed.Appx. 94 ?age 3
29 Fed.Appx. 94, 2002 WL 181357 (3rd Cir,(Pa.))
(Cite as: 29 Fed.Ap;1x. 94, 2902 WL 18{357 (3rd Cir.(Pe.)})
testimony of Larry Thomas, Rebekah Seiieid, Rudy the prima facie evidence sufficient to reverse the
Lang, and Jeff Cummins. District Conrt's decision.
In order to withstand summary judgment, Cononie III.
needed to present the court with some evidence that For the reasons set forth. we will aftimi the District
"must demonstrate such weaknesses, Court's grant ofsumrnary judgment.
imptausieilitles, inconsistencies, inehohereeeies, or
contradictions in the employees proffered legitimate 29 Fed.Appx. 94, 2002 WL lS§357 {3rd Cir.(Pa.))
reasons for its action that a reasonable foctfincler
could rationally find them ‘nnworthy of credence} Briefs and Other Related Documents (Back to
and hence infer 'that the employer did not act for top)
[the asserted} nonwliscriminatory reasons} " Fuentes
, 3.2 F.3d at 765 (citations and emphasis untitled). · 2GOE WL 34397*256 (Appellate Brief) Appellenfs
Cononie has failed to meet this standard, She has Reply Brief (Oct. SG, 200i)Original lmaxge of this
offered no evidence to demonstrate that the Document {PDF)
investigation into her violations did not begin prior
to Geary‘s notice of the DOL mvestigatzon. The · EUG! WL 54397255 (Appellate Brief) Addendum
fact that Cononie was approved for a wage increase to Brief of Appetiee (Got. 23, 2001)Original image
on June 23, 1997 does not refute Alleghenyk ofthis Doeument{PDF)
proffered reasons since Geary did not have any
corroborated evidence of Cononie‘s violations until - 2001 WL 34397257 (Appellate Brief) Brief of
June 29,1997. Appellee (Oct. 16, 20{)l)Original lrnage of this
Document {PDF)
Cononie also notes some inconsistency in the
testimony of Thomas and the testimony of Scheid, · 2001 WL 34397258 (Appellate Brief) Appellanvs
of Lang and of Cummins regarding the manner in Brief (Sep. I7, 2UGl)Original Image of this
which the latter three relayed their knowledge of Document (PDF)
Cononide alleged confidentiality violations.
However, the testimony of the three is consistent · 01··2G24 (Docket)
with Geery‘s testimony, the ultimate determiner of (Apr. 27, 20OE)
Cononie‘s employment status, and is not so
inconsistent with Thomas' testimony than it END OF DOCUMENT
demonstrates any serious weakness in Allegheny's
proffered reasons. Cononie has presented no
evidence to Cast doubt on Gez=.ry's or Thomas'
testimony.
**3 The fact that Allegheny could not show any
instances in which it had disciplined other
employees for violating the confidentiality policy
does not tead to a reasonable inference in favor of
Cononie that the treatment of her case was
motivated by retaliatory interestn in light of other
potential reasons for the lack of additional
disciplinary actions. As Cononie notes, the District
Court was not preeéuded from considering evidence
from her prima facie cnec in determining whether
the proffered reason was pretext, but we do not find
© 2005 Thomson/West No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.

Case 1:04-cv-00414-SLR

Document 44-2

Filed 05/02/2005

Page 1 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00414-SLR

Document 44-2

Filed 05/02/2005

Page 2 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00414-SLR

Document 44-2

Filed 05/02/2005

Page 3 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00414-SLR

Document 44-2

Filed 05/02/2005

Page 4 of 4