Heike Obergantschnig v. Saw Creek Estates Community As ( 2014 )

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 13-4341
_____________
HEIKE OBERGANTSCHNIG,
Appellant
v.
SAW CREEK ESTATES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC.;
JAMES ANDREWS; PEGGY SCHAU; ARTIE FURMAN
________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
District Court No. 2-12-cv-05911
District Judge: The Honorable J. Curtis Joyner
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
July 10, 2014
Before: SMITH, VANASKIE, and SLOVITER, Circuit Judges
(Filed: July 31, 2014)
_____________________
OPINION
_____________________
SMITH, Circuit Judge.
Heike Obergantschnig worked as a dispatch officer for the public safety
department of Saw Creek Estates Community Association (Saw Creek) from
January of 2008 to January of 2011. After Saw Creek terminated
Obergantschnig’s employment, she filed a complaint in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. She alleged claims of sexual
harassment and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
as amended. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2.
After discovery closed, Saw Creek filed a motion for summary judgment on
both claims. The District Court granted Saw Creek’s motion. This timely appeal
followed.1 We will affirm.
We have carefully reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record before
us. We agree with the District Court that Obergantschnig failed to establish that
the sexual harassment was sufficiently pervasive. See Mandel v. M & Q Pkg.
Corp., 706 F.3d 157, 167 (3d Cir. 2013) (listing as an element of a hostile work
environment claim that “the discrimination was severe or pervasive”). In addition,
we conclude that summary judgment was properly granted on the retaliation claim.
The District Court appropriately determined that Obergantschnig’s complaints did
not constitute protected activity. See Wilkerson v. New Media Tech. Charter Sch.
Inc., 522 F.3d 315, 320 (3d Cir. 2008) (noting elements of prima facie case of
retaliation under Title VII includes that plaintiff “engaged in a protected activity”).
1
The District Court exercised jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. We have final
order jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review over a
district court’s order granting summary judgment. Mandel v. M & Q Pkg. Corp.,
706 F.3d 157, 164 (3d Cir. 2013).
2