Retaliation in Employment in Pennsylvania

What Is Retaliation in Employment?

Background

“The Pennsylvania Human Relations Act forbids an employer from discriminat[ing] in any manner against any individual because such individual has opposed any practice forbidden by this act, or because such individual has made a charge, testified or assisted, in any manner, in any investigation, proceeding or hearing under this act.” (See Renna v. PPL Elec. Utils., Inc. (2019) 207 A.3d 355, 371.)

“The comparable section of Title VII forbids an employer from discriminating against an employee because he has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this subchapter, or because he has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation . . . under this subchapter." (See Bailey v. Storlazzi (1999) 729 A.2d 1206, 1214 n.9.)

“When participation in a protected activity and the occurrence of an adverse employment action occur within close proximity in time, retaliation is inferred.” (See Robert Wholey Co. v. Human Rel. Com'n (1992) 146 Pa. Commw. 702, 709.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

“In a public employee's claim of retaliation by a public employer for engaging in a protected activity, the plaintiff must show that the activity in question was protected and that the protected activity was a substantial factor in the alleged retaliatory action.” (See Koehler v. City of Greensburg (1994) 164 Pa. Commw. 53, 56; Czurlanis v. Albanese (1983) 721 F.2d 98, 103.)

“Once the plaintiff makes that showing, the defendant may defeat the plaintiff's claim by demonstrating that the same action would have taken place even in the absence of the protected conduct." (See id.)

Prima Facie Case

“In order to prove a claim of retaliatory discharge, a plaintiff is required to satisfy a shifting burden test.” (See City of Phila. v. Pa. Human Relations Comm'n, No. 1175 C.D. 2009, at *14 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. Aug. 5, 2011).)

“A prima facie case of retaliation is established when the plaintiff demonstrates that:

he was engaged in a protected activity;
the employer was aware of the activity;
the plaintiff suffered an adverse employment decision after participation in the activity; and
there was a causal connection between the participation in the activity and the adverse employment action.”

(See Cook v. Big Beaver Falls Sch. Dist., No. 1803 C.D. 2012, at *10 n.13 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. June 7, 2013); Spanish Council of York, Inc. v. Pa. Human Rels. Comm'n (2005) 879 A.2d 391, 399.)

“To establish the requisite causal connection a plaintiff usually must prove either (1) an unusually suggestive temporal proximity between the protected activity and the allegedly retaliatory action, or (2) a pattern of antagonism coupled with timing to establish a causal link. In the absence of that proof the plaintiff must show that from the evidence gleaned from the record as a whole the trier of the fact should infer causation.” (See Renna v. PPL Elec. Utils., Inc. (2019) 207 A.3d 355, 373.)

“Once the plaintiff meets his prima facie burden, the employer must demonstrate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its action.” (See id; Circle Bolt & Nut Co. v. Pa. Human Rels. Comm'n (2005) 954 A.2d 1265, 1278.)

“The burden [then] shifts back to the complainant to prove that such proffered reasons were merely pretextual.” (See FROG, SWITCH MFG. v. HUMAN RELATIONS (2005) 885 A.2d 655, 660 n.4.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“The scope of this Court's review of a grant or denial of summary judgment is limited to determining whether the trial court committed an error of law or an abuse of discretion.” (See Kaplan v. Se. Pa. Transp. Auth. (1997) 688 A.2d 736, 738 n. 2; Quinones v. Commonwealth (2012) 45 A.3d 467, 469 n.1.)

“Summary judgment is appropriate only when, after examining the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (See Guy M. Cooper, Inc. v. E. Penn Sch. Dist. (2006) 903 A.2d 608, 613; Quinones v. Commonwealth (2012) 45 A.3d 467, 469 n.1.)

“The appellate standard of review is de novo when a reviewing court considers questions of law.” (See Weaver v. Lancaster Newspapers, Inc. (2007) 592 Pa. 458, 926 A.2d 899; Quinones v. Commonwealth (2012) 45 A.3d 467, 469 n.1.)

“In reviewing questions of law, the scope of review is plenary, as the reviewing court may examine the entire contents of the record.” (See id.)

The Court’s Decisions

It is well settled that “a plaintiff in a retaliation case need not prove the merits of the underlying discrimination complaint, but he must have acted in good faith with an objectively reasonable belief that the activity he opposed constituted unlawful discrimination under the PHRA.” (See Renna v. PPL Elec. Utils., Inc. (2019) 207 A.3d 355, 371-72.)

It is also well settled that “an adverse employment action is an action taken by an employer that is serious and tangible enough to alter an employee's compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment. In other words, a plaintiff cannot prevail on a retaliation claim unless there is evidence that the challenged action has negatively impacted a present or future employment relationship.” (See Robinson v. City of Pittsburgh (1997) 120 F.3d 1286, 1300 ; Uber v. Slippery Rock University of PA (2005) 887 A.2d 362, 368.)

Documents for Retaliation in Employment in Pennsylvania

Sort By

Complaint and Notice to Defend with Certificate of Compliance filed. (copy…

39 pages

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas For Prothonotary Use Only i Civil Cover Sheet Docket No im ¢ EW | Cc Es County MAYL-C…