Aurelia Lapaz v. Barnabas Health System

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
____________
No. 15-1773
_____________
AURELIA LAPAZ,
Appellant
v.
BARNABAS HEALTH SYSTEM; MARY FURO; MARYELLEN WIGGINS;
HELEN HARTNEY; AMY DORAN; PAMELA MICHELLI; JOHN DOES 1-10;
JANE DOES 1-10; ABC CORPORATIONS A THROUGH Z;
NEWARK BETH ISRAEL MEDICAL CENTER
_____________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
(D.C. Civil No. 2-13-cv-04584)
District Judge: Honorable Stanley R. Chesler
____________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
November 13, 2015
____________
Before: CHAGARES, RENDELL and BARRY, Circuit Judges
(Opinion Filed: December 16, 2015)
____________
OPINION*
____________
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
BARRY, Circuit Judge
Aurelia LaPaz appeals the District Court’s order granting summary judgment in
favor of her employer, Newark Beth Israel Medical Center (“NBIMC”), and related
defendants, on her employment discrimination, retaliation, defamation, slander, and libel
claims. We will affirm.
I.
LaPaz was a registered nurse at NBIMC. As part of her job, LaPaz was required
to sign an “inventory of controlled substances” log to certify that she had conducted a
required “narcotics count” each day at the beginning of her shift, at 7:00 a.m., and again
at the end of her shift, at 7:00 p.m. On the afternoon of February 27, 2013, an employee
noticed that LaPaz had already signed the log to signify that she had completed the 7:00
p.m. count, although it was not yet 7:00 p.m. When confronted with the log, LaPaz
admitted orally and in writing that she had signed the log early because she did not want
to forget to sign it later on. Citing its policy that falsification of documents is a
terminable offense, NBIMC requested and received LaPaz’s resignation. LaPaz, an
Asian woman of Filipino descent, was over 40 years old when she was asked to resign.
In July 2013, LaPaz filed this action against Barnabas Health System, NBIMC,
and various individual defendants, claiming race, national origin, age discrimination, and
unlawful retaliation. LaPaz alleged that other nurses who were Caucasian and African-
American had, at times, failed to sign the log at the end of their shift, but were not forced
to resign, and that she was replaced by a younger nurse. She also alleged that she was
2
asked to resign in retaliation for her support of another employee who had recently been
terminated for sleeping on the job. In addition, she alleged that by accusing her of
falsification, the defendants were liable for defamation, slander, and libel.1
On January 28, 2015, the District Court granted defendants’ motion for summary
judgment. The Court stated that even assuming for purposes of analysis that LaPaz had
stated a prima facie claim of discrimination, she presented no evidence “whatsoever” to
suggest that she was asked to resign for a discriminatory reason. (App. 398.) The Court
pointed out that LaPaz had failed to identify other employees who she alleged had been
treated differently and that, in any case, failure to sign the log was different than
falsifying the log. The Court rejected LaPaz’s argument that the log lacked significance
and observed that it was undisputed that falsifying a document was a terminable offense
at NBIMC. The Court also held that LaPaz’s retaliation claim failed because she had not
engaged in a “protected activity,” and that her defamation, libel, and slander claims failed
because the fact that LaPaz had falsified the log was true. This appeal followed.
II.
The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C §§ 1331 and 1367, and
we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review over a
district court’s order granting summary judgment, applying the same standard as the
1
LaPaz also brought claims for interference with economic advantage and future job
prospects, violations of the U.S. and New Jersey Constitutions and the New Jersey Civil
Rights Act, and violations of internal NBIMC policies. Because LaPaz raises no
argument on appeal with respect to these claims, we need not address them. See Kost v.
Kozakiewicz, 1 F.3d 176, 182 (3d Cir. 1993).
3
district court. Mandel v. M&Q Packaging Corp., 706 F.3d 157, 164 (3d Cir. 2013).
Summary judgment is appropriate where “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). We view the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving
party, drawing all inferences in that party’s favor. Mandel, 706 F.3d at 164.
III.
We analyze LaPaz’s claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the
Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination
(“NJLAD”), under the familiar burden-shifting framework of McDonnell Douglas Corp.
v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). Monaco v. Am. Gen. Assurance Co., 359 F.3d 296, 300
(3d Cir. 2004); Jones v. Sch. Dist. of Phila., 198 F.3d 403, 410 (3d Cir. 1999); Battaglia
v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 70 A.3d 602, 619 (N.J. 2013). Under this framework, to
establish a prima facie case of discrimination, the employee must show that “(1) [she] is a
member of a protected class; (2) [she] was qualified for the position [she] sought to attain
or retain; (3) [she] suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) the action occurred
under circumstances that could give rise to an inference of intentional discrimination.”
Makky v. Chertoff, 541 F.3d 205, 214 (3d Cir. 2008).
We review LaPaz’s retaliation claim under the same framework. Battaglia, 70
A.3d at 619. The NJLAD makes it illegal “[f]or any person to take reprisals against any
person because that person has opposed any practices or acts forbidden under this act[.]”
N.J. Stat. Ann. 10:5–12(d). To set forth a prima facie case of retaliation, the employee
4
must demonstrate that she engaged in a protected activity that was known to the
employer, that she was subjected to an adverse employment decision, and that there is a
causal link between the activity and the adverse action. Battaglia, 70 A.3d at 619.
Under the McDonnell Douglas analysis, if the plaintiff establishes a prima facie
case, the burden then shifts to the employer “to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory
reason for the adverse employment action.” Makky, 541 F.3d at 214. When the
employer articulates a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its action, the plaintiff, to
survive summary judgment on claims of discrimination, “must point to some evidence,
direct or circumstantial, from which a factfinder could reasonably either (1) disbelieve
the employer's articulated legitimate reasons; or (2) believe that an invidious
discriminatory reason was more likely than not a motivating or determinative cause of the
employer's action.” Fuentes v. Perskie, 32 F.3d 759, 764 (3d Cir. 1994). In the case of
retaliation, “the plaintiff must come forward with evidence of a discriminatory motive of
the employer, and demonstrate that the legitimate reason was merely a pretext for the
underlying discriminatory motive.” Romano v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.,
665 A.2d 1139, 1142 (N.J. App. Div. 1995).
Here, the District Court correctly applied the McDonnell Douglas analysis and
properly rejected LaPaz’s discrimination and retaliation claims. With respect to
retaliation, LaPaz failed to establish a prima facie case because she did not demonstrate
that she had engaged in “protected activity” for purposes of the NJLAD. The NJLAD
protects employees from retaliation for having opposed unlawful discrimination. See
5
N.J. Stat. Ann. 10:5–12(d). LaPaz’s actions in support of her co-worker, who was fired
for sleeping on the job, did not constitute protected activity. See Quinlan v. Curtiss-
Wright Corp., 8 A.3d 209, 221 (N.J. 2010) (holding that the LAD’s retaliation provision
protects a person “who has sought to protect his or her own rights not to be discriminated
against or who has acted to support such conduct” (quoting Craig v. Suburban
Cablevision, Inc., 644 A.2d 112, 115 (N.J. App. Div. 1994))).
Even if LaPaz could establish a prima facie case of retaliation, and even assuming,
as did the District Court, that she stated a prima facie case of discrimination based on
race, national origin, or age, the Court correctly concluded that she failed to present any
evidence that NBIMC’s legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for requesting her
resignation was unworthy of credence or a pretext for retaliation or discrimination. See
Fuentes, 32 F.3d at 765 (“[T]he non-moving plaintiff must demonstrate such weaknesses,
implausibilities, inconsistencies, incoherencies, or contradictions in the employer's
proffered legitimate reasons for its action that a reasonable factfinder could rationally
find them ‘unworthy of credence.’”). Although LaPaz alleged that other nurses were not
terminated for failing to sign the log at the end of their shifts, such allegations do not
support her discrimination claims because there is no evidence in the record to establish
whether these nurses were similarly situated to LaPaz, and because failing to sign the log
at all is categorically different from “pre-signing” the log. See Radue v. Kimberly-Clark
Corp., 219 F.3d 612, 617-18 (7th Cir. 2000) (observing that when a plaintiff claims to
have been disciplined more harshly than other employees for a “prohibited reason,” she
6
must demonstrate that she is “similarly situated with respect to performance,
qualifications, and conduct”).
LaPaz’s primary argument is that her conduct could not have been the true reason
for her employer’s action because the log was meaningless, in light of the employer’s
electronic method of counting narcotics. But even if LaPaz is correct that the log was
meaningless and signed only out of habit, however, there is simply no evidence in the
record from which a factfinder could conclude that her failure to sign the log was not the
real reason for her employer’s adverse action. See Jones, 198 F.3d at 413 (holding that to
survive summary judgment, the plaintiff must demonstrate “that the employer’s
articulated reason was not merely wrong, but that it was so plainly wrong that it cannot
have been the employer’s real reason.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). LaPaz “must
do more than show that [her employer] was ‘wrong or mistaken’” in seeking her
resignation. See Tomasso v. Boeing Co., 445 F.3d 702, 706 (3d Cir. 2006). The issue is
“whether discriminatory animus motivated the employer, not whether the employer is
wise, shrewd, prudent, or competent.” Fuentes, 32 F.3d at 765. Because LaPaz has
presented no evidence from which a reasonable fact finder could conclude that her
employer was motivated by discriminatory or retaliatory animus, and no evidence that
her employer’s proffered reason for its adverse action is unworthy of credence, the Court
correctly granted summary judgment on her discrimination and retaliation claims. 2
We likewise conclude that summary judgment was proper on LaPaz’s claims for
2
In light of the foregoing, we need not address whether the District Court erred in
determining that LaPaz failed to administratively exhaust her age discrimination claim.
7
defamation, slander, and libel, because the statements at issue—statements that LaPaz
had “falsified” the log—were true. See G.D. v. Kenny, 15 A.3d 300, 316 (N.J. 2011)
(“[T]ruth is a defense to a defamation action . . . .”); Dairy Stores, Inc. v. Sentinel Pub.
Co., Inc., 516 A.2d 220, 224 (N.J. 1986) (“A defamation action . . . encompasses libel
and slander . . . .”).
IV.
We will affirm the order of the District Court.
8