PHILADELPHIA – A panel of judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has affirmed a summary judgment ruling which dismissed an age and disability-related discrimination lawsuit filed by a Wilkes-Barre hospital gift shop worker, who claimed she wasn’t hired for open positions advertised at the facility.
Third Circuit judges Theodore A. McKee, Joseph A. Greenaway Jr. and L. Felipe Restrepo upheld the dismissal on July 26 in favor of Geisinger System Services, Geisinger and Wyoming Valley Medical Center, and against plaintiff Cecelia Tierney.
After a car accident in 2000, Tierney suffered from traumatic brain injury that, per testimony from an examining neuropsychologist, impaired, among other things, her mathematical abilities, memory efficiency, visual perception, language and executive functions. Though she began receiving Social Security disability benefits, Tierney also worked in a reduced capacity for her prior employer until that business closed in 2008.
From 2008 to 2012, Tierney engaged in unpaid volunteer work. In 2012, she secured a position with Goodwill Industries through the Mature Workers Program, a support training program of the Pennsylvania Bureau of Aging. Tierney worked at Goodwill until December 2013, when she began serving as a volunteer in the gift shop at Geisinger’s Wilkes-Barre facility. Although considered a volunteer in Geisinger’s view, the Mature Workers Program paid Tierney for her work.
In 2016, Geisinger advertised for paid, part-time retail associate positions in two of its gift shops – South Wilkes-Barre and Wyoming Valley. Despite having no recollection of doing so, Tierney apparently applied for these positions.
But she was neither interviewed nor hired for any of the three openings.
After obtaining a right to sue letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commissions, Tierney filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.
After discovery was completed, Geisinger moved for summary judgment, which the District Court granted. This led Tierney to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Greenaway explained the case would be examined under the burden-shifting framework associated with McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green.
Under this framework, Tierney must first establish a prima facie case by proving that she was a member of a protected class based on her age or disability, was qualified for the position in question and suffered an adverse employment action due to being part of that protected class.
The burden then shifts to Geisinger to provide a legitimate, non-discriminatory business reason for its decision to not hire her.
Once Geisinger establishes a legitimate, non-discriminatory business reason, the burden shifts back to Tierney to show that the reason given was pre-textual. To show pretext, Tierney “must demonstrate such weaknesses, implausibilities, inconsistencies, incoherencies, or contradictions in the employer’s proffered legitimate reasons for its action that a reasonable fact-finder could rationally find them unworthy of credence.”
“Construing the facts in the light most favorable to Tierney, the District Court concluded that Tierney established a prima facie case. Geisinger responded by providing evidence of Tierney’s inability to perform the essential functions of the position, establishing a legitimate, non-discriminatory business reason for not hiring her,” Greenaway said.
“In response, Tierney has offered no evidence that Geisinger’s proffered reason was pre-textual. The only evidence she offered consists of isolated statements, taken out of context, none of which undermine Geisinger’s proffered legitimate reason for failing to hire her.”
For example, Tierney argued that her gift shop supervisor, Linda Jendrzejewski, testified that she would have hired Tierney for the paid position. But according to Greenaway, that argument “fails to acknowledge Jendrzejewski’s complete statement.”
“While Jendrzejewski stated that she would have hired Tierney if the paid job was the same as the volunteer position, she continued to explain that the positions were not the same. Among other criteria, Jendrzejewski stated that she needed someone in the paid position who could help her with the new computerized inventory system, which Tierney could not do,” Greenaway said.
Greenaway and his colleagues concluded that Tierney had not demonstrated instances of discrimination from Geisinger to support her not being hired for the open positions.
“The remaining facts identified by Tierney in her effort to demonstrate summary judgment should not have been granted similarly misstate the testimony or simply lack support in the record,” Greenaway said.
“Nothing that Tierney identifies as an alleged disputed fact demonstrates any ‘weaknesses, implausibilities, inconsistencies, incoherencies, or contradictions,’ in Geisinger’s explanation for not hiring her. Based on the record, we conclude that no reasonable fact-finder could find in Tierney’s favor.”
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit case 20-3327
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania case 3:17-cv-01048
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com