Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 264 views

    Brett Shibley v. Genesis Healthcare, 3rd Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Genesis Health Care, Inc. on Brett Shibley's claims of age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Shibley, age 50, was terminated from his position as administrator of Genesis's Belvedere nursing home and was initially replaced by Steven Zablocki, age 33. The court found that Genesis presented evidence of numerous employee complaints about Shibley's treatment of subordinates as the legitimate, nondiscriminatory basis for his termination. While Shibley denied some of the alleged conduct, he failed to present evidence showing the complaints were not received or relied upon by Genesis. The court concluded Sh

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Brett Shibley v. Genesis Healthcare, 3rd Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    264 views6 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Genesis Health Care, Inc. on Brett Shibley's claims of age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Shibley, age 50, was terminated from his position as administrator of Genesis's Belvedere nursing home and was initially replaced by Steven Zablocki, age 33. The court found that Genesis presented evidence of numerous employee complaints about Shibley's treatment of subordinates as the legitimate, nondiscriminatory basis for his termination. While Shibley denied some of the alleged conduct, he failed to present evidence showing the complaints were not received or relied upon by Genesis. The court concluded Sh

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2011-09-21 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 10-3856

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Genesis Health Care, Inc. on Brett Shibley's claims of age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Shibley, age 50, was terminated from his position as administrator of Genesis's Belvedere nursing home and was initially replaced by Steven Zablocki, age 33. The court found that Genesis presented evidence of numerous employee complaints about Shibley's treatment of subordinates as the legitimate, nondiscriminatory basis for his termination. While Shibley denied some of the alleged conduct, he failed to present evidence showing the complaints were not received or relied upon by Genesis. The court concluded Sh

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    264 views6 pages

    Brett Shibley v. Genesis Healthcare, 3rd Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Genesis Health Care, Inc. on Brett Shibley's claims of age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Shibley, age 50, was terminated from his position as administrator of Genesis's Belvedere nursing home and was initially replaced by Steven Zablocki, age 33. The court found that Genesis presented evidence of numerous employee complaints about Shibley's treatment of subordinates as the legitimate, nondiscriminatory basis for his termination. While Shibley denied some of the alleged conduct, he failed to present evidence showing the complaints were not received or relied upon by Genesis. The court concluded Sh

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 6

    NOT PRECEDENTIAL

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    __________
    No. 10-3856
    __________
    BRETT SHIBLEY,
    Appellant,
    v.
    GENESIS HEALTH CARE, INC.

    On Appeal from the United States District Court


    for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    (D. C. No. 2:09-cv-03386)
    District Judge: Honorable Michael M. Baylson

    Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)


    on April 29, 2011
    Before: SLOVITER, GREENAWAY, JR. and ROTH, Circuit Judges
    (Opinion filed: September 21, 2011)

    OPINION

    ROTH, Circuit Judge:


    I. Introduction
    Brett Shibley appeals summary judgment in favor of Genesis Health Care, Inc.
    (Genesis) on his claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29

    U.S.C. 621, et seq. Genesis terminated Shibley from his position as administrator of
    Genesiss Belvedere nursing home and replaced him with a younger temporary manager.
    Shibley contends on appeal that the District Court improperly resolved disputed facts in
    granting summary judgment on his ADEA claims.
    II. Background1
    Belvedere is a nursing facility for the elderly and infirm, owned and operated by
    Genesis in Chester, Pennsylvania. In May 2007, Shibley was hired as Belvederes
    Nursing Home Administrator (NHA), which is essentially the head of the facility.
    Shibley reported to Paul McGuire, Genesiss Regional Vice President of Operations.
    Genesiss head of Human Relations at the time was Colin Bosler. On March 10, 2008,
    McGuire and Bosler informed Shibley (then age 50) that his employment was
    terminatedShibley claims he was not provided a reason for his termination but was
    simply told that an administrative change was necessary. Genesis selected Steven
    Zablocki, age 33, to serve as Belvederes interim NHA. Several months later, Genesis
    hired Terry Reardon, age 53, to serve as the permanent NHA.
    Shibley filed discrimination charges with the Pennsylvania Human Rights
    Commission and the EEOC and then filed a complaint in Pennsylvania Court of Common
    Pleas, alleging that Genesis had violated his rights under the ADEA and the Pennsylvania
    Human Rights Act. Genesis removed the case to federal court and, after discovery,
    sought summary judgment on Shibleys claims.
    1

    Because we write only for the parties, we briefly summarize the undisputed facts,
    drawing all inferences in favor of Shibley, the non-moving party. See Barefoot Architect,
    Inc. v. Bunge, 632 F.3d 822, 826 (3d Cir. 2011).
    2

    In support of its summary judgment motion, Genesis submitted a Statement of


    Undisputed Material Facts (SUMF) explaining that Shibley had been fired due to
    numerous employee complaints. The SUMF and its supporting documents show that
    from the outset, Genesis received complaints about Shibleys treatment of his
    subordinates. Genesiss concerns about these complaints were reflected in Shibleys
    2007 performance review, which rated him Effective in most areas, but rated him only
    Developmental in HR Management/Interpersonal Skills and Communications/Team
    Building.2 McGuire noted that Shibley is an emotional leader at times. He will need to
    challenge himself with maintaining a behavior that cannot be misread or misunderstood.
    Shibleys management style did not change and employee complaints continued.
    In March 2008, Belvederes Director of Nursing met with Genesiss Executive
    Vice President and Senior Vice President to express her concerns about Shibley,
    reporting that he played mind games with his staff, that he had made inappropriate
    sexual comments to several other employees, and that she suspected that he was having a
    sexual relationship with one of his subordinates. The Nursing Director found it difficult
    to work for Shibley and was considering another job. Less than a week later, Shibley was
    terminated.
    Shibley did not offer his own account of any of these incidents. In his deposition,
    he was asked about several of the incidents described above and either denied having
    made the comments attributed to him in the employee complaints or stated that he was
    2

    Developmental is defined on the performance review form as Performance


    does not consistently meet the requirements of the position.
    3

    not aware of the complaints. Shibley also failed to respond to Genesiss SUMF as
    required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The District Court ordered him to file a response.
    Shibleys response generally dismissed Genesiss allegations regarding the employee
    complaints and did not cite any record evidence supporting his position, stating only that
    Plaintiff disputes this fact, as it arises from a Declaration of an individual that was not
    deposed by either party.
    The District Court granted summary judgment on all of Shibleys claims. The
    court noted that it was not clear whether Shibley had presented a prima facie case in
    support of his ADEA claim because his younger replacement, Zablocki, was a temporary
    one for only four months, while Shibleys permanent replacement, Reardon (who is older
    than Shibley), was being hired. Assuming arguendo that Shibley had presented a prima
    facie case, the court found that the employee complaints presented by Genesis were a
    legitimate, non-discriminatory basis for terminating Shibley. Although Shibley denied in
    his deposition some of the conduct reported in these complaints, his testimony does not
    raise a triable issue of fact as to whether Genesis received the complaints and relied on
    them in terminating him. Shibley has failedboth before us and the District Courtto
    identify specific factual conflicts between Genesiss evidence and his deposition. The
    District Court was not required to do this for him.
    The District Court concluded that Shibley had failed to present evidence giving
    rise to a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Genesiss basis for terminating
    him was pretextual.

    III. Discussion
    We review de novo the District Courts grant of summary judgment. Barefoot
    Architect, Inc. v. Bunge, 632 F.3d 822, 826 (3d Cir. 2011). While [t]he evidence of the
    non-movant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor
    in determining whether a genuine factual question exists, summary judgment should not
    be denied unless there is sufficient evidence for a jury to reasonably find for the
    nonmovant. Id. (citations omitted). Claims under the ADEA are subject to the familiar
    burden-shifting framework articulated in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S.
    792 (1973). Smith v. City of Allentown, 589 F.3d 684, 691 (3d Cir. 2009).
    We agree with the District Court that, even assuming Shibley has presented a
    prima facie case of age discrimination, he has failed to present sufficient evidence of
    pretext to raise a triable issue of fact.3 The numerous and detailed employee complaints
    against Shibley for his mistreatment of his subordinates furnish a legitimate,
    nondiscriminatory basis for his termination. See Jackson v. Cal-Western Packaging
    Corp., 602 F.3d 374, 378 (5th Cir. 2010). The only evidence of pretext offered by
    Shibley is the quality of his work at Belvedere, the fact that he was praised by his
    superiors, and the two raises he received for improving the facilitys performance.
    However, Genesis terminated Shibley because of his harassment of his subordinates, not
    for poor performance. Shibleys proffered evidence of pretext does not undermine the
    legitimate basis articulated by Genesis for terminating him. See Ziegler v. Beverly
    Enterprises-Minn., Inc., 133 F.3d 671, 675 (8th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, the District
    3

    Shibley does not appeal summary judgment on his ADEA retaliation claim.
    5

    Court correctly concluded that there was no material factual dispute warranting trial on
    Shibleys ADEA claims.
    IV. Conclusion
    For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm summary judgment on Shibleys claims.

    You might also like