Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 81 views

    Alicia Stranzl v. Delaware County, 3rd Cir. (2015)

    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 Delaware County in Alicia Stranzl's discrimination and retaliation lawsuit. The court found that Stranzl did not experience an adverse employment action, which is required to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, as the incidents she cited such as being assigned to a new office and having her paycheck processed incorrectly did not constitute a hostile work environment. The court also determined that Stranzl did not experience materially adverse actions related to her taking medical leave as required for a retaliation claim. Therefore, the appeals court upheld the dismissal of Stranzl's claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Pennsylvania Human Relations

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Alicia Stranzl v. Delaware County, 3rd Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    81 views4 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Delaware County in Alicia Stranzl's discrimination and retaliation lawsuit. The court found that Stranzl did not experience an adverse employment action, which is required to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, as the incidents she cited such as being assigned to a new office and having her paycheck processed incorrectly did not constitute a hostile work environment. The court also determined that Stranzl did not experience materially adverse actions related to her taking medical leave as required for a retaliation claim. Therefore, the appeals court upheld the dismissal of Stranzl's claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Pennsylvania Human Relations

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2015-04-10 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 14-3597

    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 Delaware County in Alicia Stranzl's discrimination and retaliation lawsuit. The court found that Stranzl did not experience an adverse employment action, which is required to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, as the incidents she cited such as being assigned to a new office and having her paycheck processed incorrectly did not constitute a hostile work environment. The court also determined that Stranzl did not experience materially adverse actions related to her taking medical leave as required for a retaliation claim. Therefore, the appeals court upheld the dismissal of Stranzl's claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Pennsylvania Human Relations

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    81 views4 pages

    Alicia Stranzl v. Delaware County, 3rd Cir. (2015)

    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 Delaware County in Alicia Stranzl's discrimination and retaliation lawsuit. The court found that Stranzl did not experience an adverse employment action, which is required to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, as the incidents she cited such as being assigned to a new office and having her paycheck processed incorrectly did not constitute a hostile work environment. The court also determined that Stranzl did not experience materially adverse actions related to her taking medical leave as required for a retaliation claim. Therefore, the appeals court upheld the dismissal of Stranzl's claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Pennsylvania Human Relations

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 4

    NOT PRECEDENTIAL

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    _______________
    No. 14-3597
    _______________
    ALICIA STRANZL,
    Appellant
    v.
    DELAWARE COUNTY

    _______________
    On Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    (Civ. No. 5-13-cv-01393)
    District Judge: Honorable Henry S. Perkin

    _______________
    Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
    March 20, 2015
    Before: MCKEE, Chief Judge, RENDELL, and FUENTES, Circuit Judges
    (Filed: April 10, 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.

    FUENTES, Circuit Judge:


    Alicia Stranzl appeals the District Courts order granting summary judgment to her
    employer, Delaware County (PA). Stranzl brings discrimination claims based on hostile
    work environment under the Americans With Disabilities Act and the parallel provisions of
    the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act. She also brings a retaliation claim under the Family
    and Medical Leave Act. We will affirm.
    Stranzl has been a caseworker for Delaware Countys Office of Childrens and
    Youth Services since 2007. In 2011, Stranzl entered a part-time graduate program in social
    work, paid for by Delaware County, that allowed her to credit her casework towards her
    graduate program. After Stranzl enrolled, Delaware County was notified that the graduate
    programs benefits involved double dipping in federal funds. In January 2012, Delaware
    County told Stranzl that, to continue in the tuition-free graduate program, she would have to
    take a two year, paid leave of absence from her position and pursue her graduate work fulltime. Under the new arrangement, Stranzl would perform fieldwork for course credit in the
    same offices she worked as a full-time caseworker.
    According to the record on appeal, on February 23, 2012, before changing her status
    in the graduate program, Stranzl began to cry at work and informed her supervisor that she
    had not eaten or slept in days because of her demanding schedule. The supervisor contacted
    Project Reacha local mental health crisis unitwhich came and spoke with Stranzl. The
    Project Reach team members and Stranzls supervisors told her to take a few days off
    work. When Stranzl saw a doctor a few days later, he advised that she take a leave of
    2

    absence on account of work-related stress and anxiety. Consistent with the Family and
    Medical Leave Act, she received leave from March 2012 until September 2012. By the
    time of her return in September 2012, she was no longer a regular employee, but now a fulltime student assigned to a Delaware County office for fieldwork. She was placed in a
    different office within the county for her fieldwork than the one she had worked in as a fulltime employee, and her request to transfer her previous case files was denied. She also
    alleges irregularities in her first paycheck following her return from leave.
    To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the Americans With
    Disabilities Act, a plaintiff must show (1) that she is disabled within the meaning of the
    Act, (2) that she is otherwise qualified for the job, with or without reasonable
    accommodations, and (3) that she was subjected to an adverse employment action as a
    result of discrimination. Sulima v. Tobyhanna Army Depot, 602 F.3d 177, 185 (3d Cir.
    2010).
    The District Court correctly concluded that Stranzl cannot show an adverse
    employment action. Stranzl contends that Delaware County created a hostile work
    environment by calling Project Reach, assigning her to a new office upon her return,
    denying transfer of her files, and failing to properly process her first paycheck. As we have
    explained, isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) are not sufficient to sustain a
    hostile work environment claim. Caver v. City of Trenton, 420 F.3d 243, 262 (3d Cir.
    2005). This is because, for harassment to constitute an adverse employment action, the
    conduct must be [sufficiently] extreme to amount to a change in the terms and conditions of
    3

    employment. Id. Stranzls allegations do not come close to meeting this standard.1 Her
    Americans With Disabilities Act and parallel Pennsylvania state law claims fail accordingly.
    See Kelly v. Drexel Univ., 94 F.3d 102, 105 (3d Cir. 1996) (Pennsylvania courts generally
    interpret the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act in accord with its federal counterparts).
    To recover for retaliation under the Family and Medical Leave Act, a plaintiff must
    demonstrate that (1) she took leave under the Act; (2) she suffered a materially adverse
    action; and (3) the adverse action was causally connected to her taking of protected leave.
    Conoshenti v. Pub. Serv. Elec. & Gas Co., 364 F.3d 135, 146 (3d Cir. 2004); see also
    Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 67 (2006) (in Title VII context,
    clarifying that employer's retaliatory act need not relate to employment to state a claim for
    retaliation). An alleged retaliatory action is materially adverse if it well might have
    dissuaded a reasonable worker from exercising a right under the Act. Moore v. City of
    Phila., 461 F.3d 331, 341 (3d Cir. 2006) (citing Burlington, 548 U.S. at 67-68).
    The District Court determined that no adversity can be found in Stranzls relocation
    and lack of access to her old files. We agree. The record shows these perceived slights
    were incident to Stranzls transition to full-time graduate student, and, as such, we do not
    see how they might have dissuaded a reasonable person in her position from taking leave.
    See id. Stranzls claim under the Family and Medical Leave Act consequently fails as well.

    Far from constituting a severe act of discrimination, Delaware County acted commendably
    when it contacted the mental health experts at Project Reach. The assertion that it gives rise
    to a discrimination claim is troubling. Cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(2).
    4

    You might also like