Mahramas v. Bristol Hotel Management Corp. , 82 F. App'x 284 ( 2003 )

Opinions of the United
2003 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
12-8-2003
Mahramas v. Bristol Hotel Mgmt
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 03-1029
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003
Recommended Citation
"Mahramas v. Bristol Hotel Mgmt" (2003). 2003 Decisions. Paper 70.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003/70
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2003 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
____________
No. 03-1029
____________
TAMMY S. MAHRAM AS, an individual
Appellant
v.
BRISTOL HOTEL MANAGEMENT CORP.,
a Corporation; d/b/a HOLIDAY INN SELECT
UNIVERSITY CENTER
____________________
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
(Dist. Court No. 01-cv-02281)
District Court Judge: Hon. Donetta W. Ambrose
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
October 23, 2003
Before: ALITO, FUENTES and BECKER, Circuit Judges
(Opinion Filed: December 8, 2003)
______________________
OPINION OF THE COURT
______________________
ALITO, Circuit Judge:
This is an appeal from a District Court order granting summary judgment for the
Bristol Hotel Management Corp. (“the Hotel”) in a case alleging employment
discrimination and retaliation, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42
U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”), and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, 43 Pa.
Stat. § 951 et seq. (“PHRA”).
After a thorough analysis of the summary judgment record, the District Court
concluded that Ms. Mahramas’ claim of discriminatory discharge failed because Ms.
Mahramas failed to establish a prima facie case. Specifically, the Court held that Ms.
Mahramas failed to establish she was terminated under circumstances giving rise to an
inference of discrimination. In addition, the Court concluded that she failed to establish
that the Hotel’s reasons for dismissing her were pretextual. Although Ms. Mahramas
contests these holdings on appeal, we agree with the District Court and therefore affirm
the order of the District Court regarding the claim of gender discrimination for essentially
the reasons given in the District Court’s Opinion and Order.
The District Court likewise rejected the plaintiff’s claim of retaliatory discharge,
because Ms. Mahramas failed to establish her prima facie case. Specifically, the Court
held that Ms. Mahramas failed to establish a causal link between the activities she
identified as protected and her termination. We agree with this analysis and therefore
affirm this aspect of the District Court’s order for essentially the reasons set out in the
-2-
District Court’s Opinion and Order.
We have considered all of the appellant’s arguments, but we conclude that the
order of the District Court should be affirmed.
TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT:
Kindly file the foregoing Opinion.
/s/ Samuel A. Alito, Jr.
Circuit Judge
-3-