John Jones v. Gemalto Inc. , 560 F. App'x 119 ( 2014 )

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 13-2012
_____________
JOHN JONES,
Appellant
v.
GEMALTO, INCORPORATED
____________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(No. 2:11-cv-06902)
District Judge: Honorable John R. Padova
____________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
December 13, 2013
Before: MCKEE, Chief Judge, FUENTES, and SLOVITER, Circuit Judges.
(Opinion Filed: March 20, 2014)
____________
OPINION OF THE COURT
____________
FUENTES, Circuit Judge.
John Jones appeals the District Court’s dismissal of his Title VII claims for failure
to train based on race and retaliatory discharge. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e). Jones did not
satisfy his burden of showing that his former employer, Gemalto, Incorporated, proffered
only pretextual reasons for its failure to train him. Additionally, Jones failed to raise a
genuine issue of material fact with respect to his retaliatory discharge claim. Therefore,
we affirm the District Court’s grant of summary judgment for Gemalto as to both of
Jones’s claims.
I.
Jones, who is African American, worked as a feeder operator in the Printing
Department of Gemalto’s Cardbodies Group. As a feeder, Jones assisted a press operator
on a printing press that printed credit cards and ID badges, among other cards. The
presses operated 24 hours a day in three 8-hour shifts.
Historically, Printing Department employees received undocumented “on the job”
training, rather than formal training, and Jones had sought training to become a press
operator. On September 30, 2010, however, Gemalto managers Joseph Wright and Joe
Kamin held a meeting for Printing Department employees to introduce a formalized
training system for printers. During the meeting, Jones complained of his inability to
obtain the training he desired in the past. Afterwards, Jones informed Wright that his
manager had instructed press operators to train him and that he believed he did not
receive this training because of his race. Jones reiterated these concerns to a human
resources director, to Ed Vega, the manager of the Printing Department, and to Andrew
Lopez, his direct supervisor.
On April 28, 2011, Jones had a violent altercation with Ed Vega. Jones has
acknowledged that he punched Vega on the head three or four times. Immediately after
the altercation, in the middle of his shift, Jones left Gemalto without authorization and
2
did not report to work the next two days. Jones did not speak with a supervisor, anyone in
Human Resources or the Security Department, or any other Gemalto employee before he
left the facility. Nor did he contact anyone employed by Gemalto after he left the
premises to discuss what happened or to notify the company that he would be absent the
following two days.
After the altercation, three senior Gemalto employees conducted an investigation
and determined that Jones initiated the fight with Vega. The investigation also
determined that Jones’s conduct violated several company policies, including: the
Attendance Policy, the Code of Conduct regarding leaving work without authorization,
and the Code of Conduct regarding acts of violence against employees in the workplace.
A violation of any of these policies is grounds for termination. Gemalto concluded that
Jones should be fired for leaving work without permission and for workplace violence,
and the company notified Jones of his termination on May 2, 2011.
Jones filed a two-count complaint against Gemalto in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging failure to train based on race and
retaliatory discharge in violation of Title VII. As to the retaliatory discharge claim, Jones
alleged that Gemalto terminated him in retaliation for his complaints of racial
discrimination. The District Court granted summary judgment to Gemalto on both of
Jones’s claims, and Jones appealed.1
1
Summary judgment should be granted “if the movant shows that there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). In making this determination, the court must interpret the facts in
the light most favorable to the non-movant. Watson v. Abington Twp., 478 F.3d 144, 147
3
II.
The District Court correctly recognized that the burden shifting framework set
forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), applied to Jones’s
Title VII claims. To survive summary judgment, a plaintiff must establish a prima facie
case of retaliation or discrimination. Once the plaintiff presents a prima facie case, the
burden shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the
adverse employment action. If the employer satisfies its burden, the plaintiff then must
set forth evidence that would permit a reasonable factfinder to determine that the
employer’s proffered reasons were not its true reasons, but rather a pretext for
discrimination. Jones v. Sch. Dist. of Philadelphia, 198 F.3d 403, 410 (3d Cir. 1999).
With respect to Jones’s failure to train claim, the District Court concluded that
Jones established a prima facie case of racial discrimination. Additionally, the District
Court concluded that Gemalto presented a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for not
providing Jones all of the training he wanted, namely that the company’s nearly constant
workflow meant there was not enough time for Jones to complete his training. The
burden thus shifted to Jones to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that
Gemalto’s proffered reason for not fully training him was pretextual. See Fuentes v.
Perskie, 32 F.3d 759, 762-63 (3d Cir. 1994).
(3d Cir. 2007).We have jurisdiction to review the final order of the District Court
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review over a grant of summary
judgment, Curley v. Klem, 298 F.3d 271, 276 (3d Cir. 2002), and review factual findings
for clear error, Prusky v. ReliaStar Life Ins. Co., 532 F.3d 252, 257-58 (3d Cir. 2008).
4
We agree with the District Court that Jones “made no attempt to satisfy his burden
at the third step. Rather, he has rested on his prima facie case.” App. 21 (citation
omitted). This doomed his claim. On appeal, Jones now argues pretext. However, Jones
waived his pretext arguments by failing to raise them below. See DIRECTV Inc. v. Seijas,
508 F.3d 123, 125 n.1 (3d Cir. 2007). Therefore, we affirm the District Court’s grant of
summary judgment as to the failure to train claim.
Gemalto is also entitled to summary judgment on the retaliatory discharge claim.
Assuming, without deciding, that Jones established a prima facie case of retaliation,
Gemalto articulated several legitimate, non-retaliatory grounds for terminating Jones. For
substantially the same reasons set forth in the District Court’s decision, we conclude that
Jones has failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact that Gemalto’s stated rationale
for firing him was pretextual. While Jones presents several additional pretext arguments
on appeal, he has waived these arguments by failing to raise them below. See id.
III.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the District Court’s grant of summary
judgment in Gemalto’s favor on both of Jones’s Title VII claims.
5