Longstreet v. Holy Spirit Hospital

Opinions of the United
2003 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
5-23-2003
Longstreet v. Holy Spirit Hospital
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket 02-4351
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003
Recommended Citation
"Longstreet v. Holy Spirit Hospital" (2003). 2003 Decisions. Paper 531.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003/531
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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 02-4351
MARGARET LONGSTREET,
Appellant
v.
HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. No. 01-cv-00309)
District Judge: Hon. John E. Jones, III
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
May 22, 2003
Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, SLOVITER and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges
(Filed: May 23, 2003)
OPINION OF THE COURT
SLOVITER, Circuit Judge.
Plaintiff Margaret Longstreet, who brought a Title VII action against her
employer, Holy Spirit Hospital (“HSH”), appeals from the District Court’s order granting
the Hospital’s motion for summary judgment. We agree with the District Court that
Longstreet has not raised a genuine issue of material fact and we will affirm.
I.
Facts and Procedural History
Longstreet’s Title VII claim of sexual discrimination against HSH stems from its
failure to promote her to the position of Psychiatric Nurse Manager when the position
became vacant. Longstreet had worked at HSH as a psychiatric nurse on the In Patient
Unit of the Hospital’s Behavioral Health Services Unit for fifteen months. The employee
vacating the position of psychiatric nurse manager, David Kester, prepared a posting for
the position which stated:
Nurse Manager - Full time day shift in Mental Health Center;
2-3 years psychiatric nursing and management experience
required; BSN preferred; will be responsible to plan,
supervise and evaluate the interdisciplinary 24-hour operation
of Inpatient Psychiatric Unit and Crisis Intervention Service.
During Kester’s tenure he had assumed responsibility for HSH’s Crisis
Intervention Service, and this integration between the Crisis Intervention Service and the
In Patient Unit was to continue. The posting further described the responsibility of the
position to be “planning, administering and evaluating the interdisciplinary 24-hour
2
operation of the Inpatient Psychiatric Unit and Crisis Intervention Service.” App at 90.
Along with this posting, Longstreet saw another posting in the In Patient Unit which
stated:
Current PA RN licensure required. Minimum two years.
Increasingly responsible supervisory experience preferred.
BSN preferred. Experience with budget process and policy
development/maintenance desirable.
Three candidates applied for the position of Psychiatric Nurse Manager: Greg
Abel, Longstreet’s supervisor, who had three and one-half years of nursing experience as
an RN; Longstreet, who had over thirteen years experience as an RN but only 18 months
at HSH at the time the decision was made; and Rhett Bennie, who had less than two years
experience as an RN. Bennie did, however, have other supervisory and management
experience in both the In Patient Unit and Crisis Intervention Service, was a Psychiatric
Nurse Case Manager at the time of his application, has a Bachelor of Arts in Psychology,
and had been an employee of HSH for over sixteen years. Each applicant had an RN
license, which was the only licensure requirement set forth.
The three candidates underwent a first interview with two interviewers, one of
whom was to make the final decision but left Longstreet’s interview early. Next was a
“panel” interview with five panelists. During this interview one of the panelists, Dr.
Petkash, asked Longstreet about the recent birth of her child and what her childcare needs
would be. Longstreet was immediately instructed by another panelist not to answer this
question as it was inappropriate.
3
The panel unanimously recommended Bennie for the position of Psychiatric Nurse
Manager. On deposition, the panelists testified as to their positive impression of Bennie’s
knowledge of the Crisis Intervention Service and the In Patient Unit, his dealings with
employees of both units, and his reputation as a long-time employee of HSH. The
panelists expressed concern about Longstreet’s lack of experience with the Crisis
Intervention Service.
Bennie was the only candidate given a follow-up interview, an interview that is
supposed to be given to only the highest candidate but which, Longstreet notes, took
place the day of her panel interview.
After learning that Bennie was chosen for the position of Psychiatric Nurse
Manager, Longstreet filed a grievance with the Department of Human Resources. Kathy
Campbell, the employment relations manager, handled that grievance. She testified that
she believed that one of the members of the panel asked inappropriate questions of
Longstreet during her interview, but that she had after her investigation concluded that
Longstreet had not failed to get the job because she was a female.
Longstreet contends that even after filing a grievance with Human Resources Dr.
Petkash continued to inappropriately question her about where her children were and who
was watching them, and that these questions were posed in a harassing manner. She also
contends that coworkers berated her, calling her a “troublemaker” and “fucking idiot” for
having filed a grievance, and that a staff psychiatrist told her she needed a “penis” to be
4
selected for the Psychiatric Nurse Manager position.
After discovery, HSH filed a motion for summary judgment. The District Court
held that Longstreet failed to show that her employer’s reason for hiring another
candidate was pretextual and granted HSH’s motion. Longstreet filed a timely appeal.
II.
Discussion
Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact
and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fakete v. Aetna, Inc.,
308 F.3d 335, 337 (3d Cir. 2002). Appellate review over the grant of summary judgment
is plenary. City of Erie v. Guaranty Nat’l Ins. Co., 109 F.3d 156, 159 (3d Cir. 1997). All
inferences should be drawn in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Big
Apple BMW , Inc. v. BMW of North America, Inc. 974 F.2d 1358, 1363 (3d Cir. 1992).
The District Court found, and neither party contests, that Longstreet established a
prima facie case of discrimination. In a Title VII case, after establishing a prima facie
case, the burden of production shifts to the defendant “to articulate some legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason for the employee’s rejection.” McDonnell Douglas Corp. v.
Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973). At this stage the defendant need not persuade the court
that it was “actually motivated by the proffered reasons,” but need only raise “a genuine
issue of fact as to whether it discriminated against the plaintiff.” Texas Dep’t of Cmty.
Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1981). The plaintiff must then show that
5
“[defendant’s] stated reason for [plaintiff’s] rejection was in fact pretext.” McDonnell,
411 U.S. at 804. This may be accomplished “either directly by persuading the court that a
discriminatory reason more likely motivated the employer or indirectly by showing that
the employer’s proffered explanation is unworthy of credence.” Burdine, 450 U.S. at
256. The District Court correctly applied this burden shifting framework and noted that it
is at the final juncture where the parties’ dispute lies.
On appeal, we must determine whether Longstreet presented enough evidence to
cast sufficient doubt upon HSH’s proffered explanation as to why Longstreet was not
promoted to the position, or support a finding that discrimination was more likely than not
a motivating or determining cause of the adverse employment action.
Longstreet asserts that HSH’s proffered explanation of Bennie being the most
qualified candidate for the position of Psychiatric Nurse Manager is not credible. She
points to the various postings and advertisements that were introduced into evidence and
contends that while certain credentials and qualifications were preferred, at a minimum
two years of experience as an RN nurse was required. Longstreet focuses on the posting
which states as follows:
Qualifications: Current PA RN licensure required. Minimum
two years. Increasingly responsible supervisory experience
preferred. BSN preferred. Experience with budget process
and policy development/maintenance desirable.
App. at 148.
The other posting reads:
6
Qualifications: Current PA RN licensure required. Minimum
two years increasingly responsible supervisory experience
preferred. BSN preferred. Experience with budget process
and policy development/maintenance desirable.
App. at 164.
Longstreet argues that what she terms the “original” posting was manipulated to
address the fact that Bennie, as a favored candidate, did not have the requisite two-year
minimum experience as an RN nurse. However, Longstreet provides no support for her
position that the posting requiring the two-year minimum RN experience was the original
and that the other posting was a manipulation. A plaintiff cannot rely upon “unsupported
assertions, speculation, or conclusory allegations to avoid a motion for summary
judgment.” Solomon v. Society of Automotive Engineers, 2002 WL 1754409, at *1 (3d
Cir. July 30, 2002).
Inasmuch as the principal difference between the two postings is grammatical, the
level of experience they required remains ambiguous. In the face of such ambiguity a
level of deference should be given to the judgment of those doing the hiring. See
DeWeese v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 120 F. Supp.2d 735, 738 (S.D. Ind. 2000) (holding
that when advertisement of position requirements is ambiguous employer’s explanation of
what experience position required is accepted unless direct contradictory evidence exists).
Furthermore, the actual qualifications of a position is not a matter that the courts
should determine. Schaffner v. Glencoe Park District, 256 F.3d 616, 621 (7th Cir. 2001).
Although Longstreet has over thirteen years of experience as an RN nurse and Bennie has
7
less than two, the panel based its decision to appoint Bennie on a totality of factors. For
example, Bennie had a sixteen-year work history at HSH and Longstreet had been there
for only eighteen months. It is undisputed that the Hospital’s preference was for the
Psychiatric Nurse Manager to have Crisis Intervention skills, skills that Longstreet
admitted that she almost completely lacked. Longstreet does not contest that Bennie was
the more experienced in many of the relevant fields.
In light of Bennie’s higher qualifications with respect to a number of relevant
factors, Longstreet failed to produce evidence sufficient to compel a finding of pretext.
Longstreet had to show “not merely that the employer’s proffered reason was wrong, but
that it was so plainly wrong that it cannot have been the employer’s real reason.” Keller
v. Orix Credit Alliance, Inc., 130 F.3d 1101, 1109 (3d Cir. 1997).
Longstreet also brought a claim for retaliation, asserting that she suffered adverse
action in her employment after she protested not being selected. A discriminatory
retaliation claim under Title VII requires that: (1) the employee demonstrate that she
engaged in activity protected by Title VII; (2) the employer took adverse action against
the employee; and (3) there was a causal connection between the employee’s participation
in the protected activity and the adverse employment action. Nelson v. Upsala College,
51 F.3d 383, 386 (3d Cir. 1995).
Even assuming that all Longstreet’s allegations of harassment are true, she is
unable to meet the second requirement. The District Court ruled that the conduct she
8
complains about was not “serious and tangible enough” to rise to the level of an adverse
employment action. App. at 16. See Robinson v. City of Pittsburgh, 120 F.3d 1286, 1301
(3d Cir. 1997) (holding that “unsubstantiated oral reprimands” and “unnecessary
derogatory comments” do not rise to level of adverse employment action). We agree with
the District Court that the conduct alleged did not have an impact on her current
employment relationship, and is unlikely to have affected her future employment
opportunities.
III.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.
TO THE CLERK:
Please file the foregoing opinion.
/s/ Dolores K. Sloviter
Circuit Judge