Source: cases/42usc2000e-2/f-supp-2d-832-539-glenn-v-raymour.case
Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f-supp-2d/volume_832/0539_01/index.html
For purposes of the summary judgment motion, Glenn has satisfied the first three steps of his prima facie case — he is a member of a protected class, is qualified for his Customer Delivery Inspector position, and was discharged from that position by Raymours.
For purposes of the summary judgment motion, Glenn has satisfied the first three steps of his prima facie case — he is a member of a protected class, is qualified for his Customer Delivery Inspector position, and was discharged from that position by Raymours.
In establishing the third element of his prima facie case, Glenn need only show that he was discharged from a position for which he was qualified.
In this case, the fact that Glenn was discharged is undisputed.
In sum, Raymours’ treatment of Faust cannot raise an inference of unlawful discrimination regarding Glenn’s termination because there are differentiating and mitigating circumstances that significantly distinguish both their conduct and Raymours’ treatment of them.
Therefore, the record is without sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Adams or Copperthwaite are “similarly situated” to Glenn for purposes of establishing the fourth element of his prima facie case.
Raymours’ articulated reason is legitimate and non-discriminatory, and Glenn does not dispute this point.
Regardless, courts in the Third Circuit have found similar challenges to the adequacy of an investigation insufficient to establish pretext.
The record, therefore, lacks sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Raymours’ legitimate, non-diseriminatory reason for terminating Glenn was pretext for racial discrimination.
Therefore, I deem Glenn to have abandoned these claims by failing to address them in his response to Raymours’ motion for summary judgment.
Therefore, I deem Glenn to have abandoned these claims by failing to address them in his response to Raymours’ motion for summary judgment.
casedsl 1
case /f-supp-2d/832/0539-01
name Glenn v. Raymour
cite 832 F. Supp. 2d 539 (2011)
court United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
date 2011-12-22
url catalog/cases/f-supp-2d/volume_832/0539_01/index.html
source ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_832.jsonl sha1=7d9c5541d1db34f9208bb6e559d0380307d4618a chars=43264
law 42usc2000e-2 (a)(1)
role applied
posture civil; race disparate-treatment discharge claim (with abandoned hostile-environment and retaliation claims; parallel 1981 and PHRA claims); employer's motion for summary judgment granted
result claimant-lost
element employer : satisfied [conceded]
variant private-employer/private-retailer
fact @685..879 [supports] | On July 24, 2007, Raymour and Flanigan, a furniture company, hired Glenn, an African-American male, as a Facility Technician in its Frazer, Pennsylvania service center (“Frazer Service Center”).
element protected-class : satisfied [conceded]
variant race/african-american
fact @685..879 [supports] | On July 24, 2007, Raymour and Flanigan, a furniture company, hired Glenn, an African-American male, as a Facility Technician in its Frazer, Pennsylvania service center (“Frazer Service Center”).
held @20738..20997 | For purposes of the summary judgment motion, Glenn has satisfied the first three steps of his prima facie case — he is a member of a protected class, is qualified for his Customer Delivery Inspector position, and was discharged from that position by Raymours.
element qualified : satisfied [conceded]
variant qualified/recently-promoted
fact @3940..4069 [supports] | Mirth subsequently recommended Glenn for a CDI position, and Hazeldine promoted Glenn to the position effective January 21, 2008.
held @20738..20997 | For purposes of the summary judgment motion, Glenn has satisfied the first three steps of his prima facie case — he is a member of a protected class, is qualified for his Customer Delivery Inspector position, and was discharged from that position by Raymours.
element adverse-action : satisfied [conceded]
variant discharge/same-day-termination-after-coworker-altercation
fact @7899..7987 [supports] | Mirth returned to Glenn and told him to punch out for the day because he was terminated.
rule @40819..40965 | In establishing the third element of his prima facie case, Glenn need only show that he was discharged from a position for which he was qualified.
held @41117..41180 | In this case, the fact that Glenn was discharged is undisputed.
element because-of : not-satisfied [no-evidence]
theory comparator Faust (white coworker in the same altercation, given written warning)
variant comparator/not-similarly-situated-other-party-to-same-altercation-less-serious-conduct
fact @23483..23621 [cuts-against] | In the March 20 altercation, Glenn admitted that he repeatedly told Faust to “step outside.” Faust did not make a similar threat to Glenn.
fact @23874..23951 [cuts-against] | Furthermore, Faust retreated from the altercation to report it to management.
fact @8799..8977 [supports] | According to Glenn, while he and Faust were pushing the trash box back and forth from their respective work areas, Faust said to him, “Boy, don’t put your box back on this line.”
fact @24357..24493 [cuts-against] | Yet at no point during that discussion did Glenn alert Mirth to Faust allegedly calling him a “boy” or goading him to “go ahead, do it.”
rule @21739..21858 [quoted] | To be “similarly situated,” the plaintiff must show that “the other employee’s acts were of ‘comparable seriousness.’ ”
held @26202..26467 | In sum, Raymours’ treatment of Faust cannot raise an inference of unlawful discrimination regarding Glenn’s termination because there are differentiating and mitigating circumstances that significantly distinguish both their conduct and Raymours’ treatment of them.
gloss Same supervisor, same incident, but a threat to fight is treated as more serious than name-calling, even assuming the white coworker used a racial epithet ("boy"); the comparator also reported to management while plaintiff did not.
element because-of : not-satisfied [no-evidence]
theory comparators Adams and Copperthwaite (white employees, alleged fight, no discipline)
variant comparator/not-similarly-situated-different-decision-maker-and-unconfirmed-misconduct
fact @12178..12405 [supports] | He did not see any punches thrown, but observed from a distance some individuals “separating the two of them,” with Adams trying to “pursue” Copperthwaite and saying “if you ever do that again, I’ll snap your F’ing [sic] neck.”
fact @26916..27070 [cuts-against] | Regarding the same supervisor argument, Adams and Copperthwaite were employed in the Delivery Department, while Glenn worked in the Operations Department.
fact @28600..28767 [cuts-against] | Critically, the underlying misconduct in Glenn’s case was reported to Glenn’s direct supervisors, confirmed by more than one witness, and admitted to by Glenn himself.
fact @29810..30008 [cuts-against] | Dye’s allegations notwithstanding, Adams’ alleged misconduct was not witnessed by Adams’ direct supervisors, was not reported to those supervisors, and was not admitted to by Adams or Copperthwaite.
held @30009..30211 | Therefore, the record is without sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Adams or Copperthwaite are “similarly situated” to Glenn for purposes of establishing the fourth element of his prima facie case.
element employer-reason : satisfied [conceded]
scope alternative
variant misconduct/threat-to-fight-coworker
fact @5244..5401 [supports] | From Hazeldine’s office, Hazeldine, Mirth, and Corson observed Glenn following Faust, flailing his arms, and yelling the words “pussy” and “faggot” at Faust.
fact @6526..6639 [supports] | Mirth then asked if Glenn had told Faust to “step outside,” as Faust had alleged, and Glenn admitted that he had.
fact @31510..31716 [supports] | Rob Mirth documented the reason for Glenn’s termination — “creating a hostile work environment and making threats to another associate” — in a “Disciplinary Counseling Form” on the same day as the incident.
held @31760..31865 | Raymours’ articulated reason is legitimate and non-discriminatory, and Glenn does not dispute this point.
element pretext : not-satisfied [no-evidence]
scope alternative
variant inadequate-investigation/more-witnesses-should-have-been-interviewed
fact @34264..34503 [supports] | To establish that Raymours’ reason for terminating Glenn was pretext, Glenn points to Raymours’ purported failure to conduct meaningful investigations in the Glenn-Faust incident, Adams-Copperthwaite incident, and Cynthia Stinson incident.
fact @35352..35494 [cuts-against] | Raymours supervisor, Rob Mirth, went out and discussed the situation with Glenn, and gave him an opportunity to provide his side of the story.
fact @35778..35944 [cuts-against absent] | Glenn is not making any such allegation here, but merely arguing that Raymours should have formally interviewed more witnesses and timely obtained witness statements.
fact @42290..42527 [cuts-against] | It should also be noted, as Raymours emphasizes, that the same person (Hazeldine) who terminated Glenn, hired him just eight months before, and that during that time, Hazeldine also provided Glenn with a favorable transfer and promotion.
rule @36224..36364 | Regardless, courts in the Third Circuit have found similar challenges to the adequacy of an investigation insufficient to establish pretext.
held @37229..37406 | The record, therefore, lacks sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Raymours’ legitimate, non-diseriminatory reason for terminating Glenn was pretext for racial discrimination.
gloss Second ground, arguendo a prima facie case. A thin or one-sided investigation, without bias or coercion, does not show pretext; same-actor (hirer = firer within 8 months) noted as cutting against discrimination.
element hostile-environment : not-satisfied [waived]
scope procedural
variant abandoned/claim-not-defended-at-summary-judgment
fact @18266..18437 [cuts-against absent] | In response, Glenn fails to even mention his “harassment,” hostile work environment, or retaliation claims in his brief, much less establish his prima facie case for them.
held @18438..18577 | Therefore, I deem Glenn to have abandoned these claims by failing to address them in his response to Raymours’ motion for summary judgment.
element retaliation : not-satisfied [waived]
scope procedural
variant abandoned/claim-not-defended-at-summary-judgment
fact @39903..40153 [cuts-against absent] | Although Raymours fails to specifically discuss Glenn’s retaliation claim, the record lacks any evidence whatsoever that could raise a genuine issue as to whether Glenn engaged in a protected activity prior to or contemporaneous with his termination.
held @18438..18577 | Therefore, I deem Glenn to have abandoned these claims by failing to address them in his response to Raymours’ motion for summary judgment.
gloss The court also remarks that the record holds no evidence of protected activity, but the disposition is abandonment.
element motivating-factor : not-reached
misfit Comparator analysis is per-comparator (similarly situated? same decision-maker? comparable seriousness?), and the court decides each comparator separately; `theory` names the comparator for want of a better type (a comparator is neither a party, a count nor a legal theory). A structured comparator sub-record (comparator, trait, conduct, discipline, decision-maker, why distinguished) would capture the real reusable pattern.
misfit `scope alternative` marks employer-reason and pretext as the second ground, but nothing links them to the primary ground (because-of failing at the prima facie stage) or says that both grounds dispose of the same claim.
misfit Title VII, 1981 and PHRA claims are decided together under one standard; the file records only the Title VII instance.