Klopfenstein v. National Sales & Supply, LLC

Opinions of the United
2009 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
4-28-2009
Tamara Klopfenstein v. Natl Sales & Sup
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 08-2950
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009
Recommended Citation
"Tamara Klopfenstein v. Natl Sales & Sup" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 1466.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/1466
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 2009 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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 08-2950
TAMARA KLOPFENSTEIN,
Appellant
v.
NATIONAL SALES AND SUPPLY, LLC
t/d/b/a NATIONAL SALES AND SUPPLY
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
District Court No. 2-07-cv-04004
District Judge: The Honorable Berle M. Schiller
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
April 13, 2009
Before: McKEE, SMITH, Circuit Judges,
and STEARNS, District Judge *
(Filed: April 28, 2009)
OPINION
SMITH, Circuit Judge.
*
The Honorable Richard G. Stearns, District Judge for the United States District
Court for Massachusetts, sitting by designation.
1
Tamara Klopfenstein filed a complaint in September of 2007 against her former
employer, National Sales and Supply, LLC., alleging claims under Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 for gender discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation. After
discovery closed, Klopfenstein filed a motion for partial summary judgment on her
retaliation claim. National Sales filed a motion for summary judgment as to all of her
employment discrimination claims. The District Court, in a well reasoned opinion,
concluded that Klopfenstein had failed to establish a prima facie case for each of her
claims. For that reason, the District Court denied Klopfenstein’s motion and granted
summary judgment on all of her claims in favor of National Sales. This timely appeal
followed.1
Klopfenstein argues that the District Court erred in granting summary judgment as
to each of her claims. After de novo review of the record, we are not persuaded. For
substantially the reasons set forth by the District Court, we will affirm the judgment of
the District Court.
1
The District Court had jurisdiction over Klopfenstein’s federal claims pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1331. We have final order jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise
plenary review over a grant of summary judgment. Farrell v. Planters Lifesavers Co.,
206 F.3d 271, 278 (3d Cir. 2000).
2