RESCISSION OF JOB OFFER IS NOT IN RETALIATION FOR PRIOR EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY ACTIVITY
Plaintiff failed to support her claim that defendant rescinded a job offer in retaliation for her prior Equal Employment Opportunity activity where there was no evidence that any of defendant’s representatives knew of such activity when they decided to rescind her offer. The court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
Plaintiff, Priscilla Giuseffi, was employed as a disaster reservist for the Federal Emergency Management Agency region V in Chicago. She was terminated from this position on Oct. 6, 2010, for failing to accept deployments. About one year later, plaintiff interviewed for and was offered a position with FEMA Region III in Philadelphia. Apparently, the FEMA Philadelphia staff was not aware that FEMA Chicago had terminated plaintiff. After plaintiff accepted the Philadelphia position but before she started work, Philadelphia FEMA officials learned that she had been fired from her former position in Chicago. As a result, the Philadelphia FEMA officials rescinded plaintiff’s job offer. Plaintiff then filed this lawsuit, alleging that FEMA retaliated against her for filing an Equal Employment Opportunity action over her termination from her FEMA job in Chicago. Here, the court addressed FEMA’s motion for summary judgment. Title VII prohibits an employer from, inter alia, retaliating against an employee for complaining about, or reporting, discrimination or retaliation. Absent direct evidence of retaliation, Title VII retaliation claims are analyzed according to the burden-shifting framework of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, the court explained. Plaintiff engaged in protected activity when she filed an EEO complaint after being terminated from her FEMA position in Chicago. Moreover, she suffered an adverse employment action when FEMA Philadelphia rescinded her job offer. However, plaintiff was also required to introduce enough evidence to raise an inference that her protected activity was the likely reason for the adverse employment action. She failed to meet this burden, the court concluded. There was no evidence showing that the individuals responsible for rescinding the job offer had knowledge of plaintiff’s prior EEO activity at the time they made the decision. “To the contrary, the record evidence establishes that the decision to rescind Giuseffi’s offer was made before anyone involved in that decision learned of her EEO activity.” The two individuals involved in plaintiff’s job offer by FEMA Philadelphia gave sworn statements that they were not aware of plaintiff’s EEO activity at the time they made the decision to rescind the offer was made. Since plaintiff could not point to any evidence from which a reasonable juror could find that FEMA Philadelphia officials were aware of her prior EEO activity, she failed to raise an inference that her protected activity was the likely reason for the adverse employment action. Moreover, FEMA articulated a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for its decision, i.e., the discover of her prior termination, the court noted in its opinion granting the defendant employer summary relief.
Reference:
Digest of Recent Opinions, Pennsylvania Law Weekly, 42 PSW 39 (January 8, 2019), Giuseffi v. Nielson, PICS Case No. 18-1592 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 18, 2018).
Kindly visit our Employment Law and Business & Commercial Litigation websites or contact one of our Employment Law Attorneys, Philadelphia or Business & Commercial Litigation Attorneys, Philadelphia at 215-977-8200 for more information on this topic.