Filed: Dec. 23, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Opinions of the United 2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 12-23-2008 Amati v. US Steel Corp Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 07-4430 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008 Recommended Citation "Amati v. US Steel Corp" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 56. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/56 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of
Summary: Opinions of the United 2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 12-23-2008 Amati v. US Steel Corp Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 07-4430 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008 Recommended Citation "Amati v. US Steel Corp" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 56. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/56 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of t..
More
Opinions of the United
2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
12-23-2008
Amati v. US Steel Corp
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 07-4430
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
Recommended Citation
"Amati v. US Steel Corp" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 56.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/56
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 2008 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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 07-4430
_____________
SHARON AMATI; JANICE FINNEGAN,
Appellants
v.
UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, individually
trading and doing business as UNITED STATES STEEL,
trading and doing business as U.S. STEEL,
trading and doing business as USX,
trading and doing business as MON VALLEY WORKS,
trading and doing business as USS
__________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 04-cv-01442)
District Judge: Honorable Maurice B. Cohill, Jr.
__________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
on November 21, 2008
Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, RENDELL, Circuit Judge,
O’CONNOR, Retired Associate Justice, U.S. Supreme Court.
(Filed December 23, 2008)
__________________
* Honorable Sandra Day O’Connor, retired Associate Justice of the United States
Supreme Court, sitting by designation.
__________
OPINION OF THE COURT
__________
RENDELL, Circuit Judge.
Plaintiffs Sharon Amati (“Amati”) and Janice Finnegan (“Finnegan”) appeal from
the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of United States Steel
Corporation (“U.S. Steel”)on their claims of sexual harassment and retaliation in violation
of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and related claims. After careful review of
the District Court’s thorough opinion and the extensive record in this case, we will affirm.
We will not recount the underlying facts of this case, as we write only for the
parties, and they are all too familiar with what transpired leading up to the claims in this
case. Both plaintiffs allege that they were sexually harassed by Willy Chapman
(“Chapman”), who was a Process Leader, and thereafter a Production Coordinator, at the
Mon Valley Works of U.S. Steel. He was not the direct supervisor of either of the
plaintiffs.
Finnegan complained of numerous contacts and conversations between herself and
Chapman that occurred in October and early November of 2003 that made her
uncomfortable.1 Finnegan filed a charge of sex discrimination with the EEOC in January
1
These included remarks that he could “feel her presence,” that she was “glowing,”
references to his marital state, her “butt,” his martial arts prowess, and the sound of her
breathing while smoking.
2
2004, contending that she was sexually harassed by Chapman and that, by not placing her
on special assignment, U.S. Steel had retaliated against her for complaining about
Chapman.
Amati filed a charge of sex discrimination with the EEOC in December 2003,
citing conduct of Chapman dating back to January of that year, including one instance, in
or around June 2003, when Chapman exposed himself to her and asked her to perform
oral sex.2
Both Finnegan and Amati filed additional charges of retaliation in March 2004.
Finnegan urged that her superiors were making it hard for her to conduct her union
business by failing to return phone calls, pages and messages. She also objected to
2
The District Court described the specific conduct as follows:
Amati’s allegations of harassment include the conduct
mentioned above; beginning in January 2003, Chapman began
talking to her about his physical strength and demonstrating
martial arts holds; on May 5, Chapman asked her about her
previous sexual encounters and sexual fantasies; Chapman
told her she was “beautiful,” “sexy,” and “voluptuous” while
he was in her office, and stared at her breasts while she was
walking by; Chapman “smirked” at her during meetings;
Chapman made comments she believed were intimidating.
(AF77-81).
On June 2, Chapman entered her office and asked her if she
wanted to have an affair. He then asked her to perform oral
sex on him. He pulled his clair over and began rubbing the
inside of her thigh, grabbed her breast, and tried to kiss her.
Chapman then pulled out his penis and told her to perform
oral sex. (AF82) Amati later testified that the incident
happened in June, but she was unsure of the date. (AF83).
3
Chapman’s attendance at meetings at which she was present. In addition, Finnegan
complained of a series of slights directed only at her, including her not being given a
flashlight when others got them, her need to obtain her own work gloves, and her not
being told of certain changes before they occurred.
Amati’s retaliation claim was based upon a series of instances of an administrative
nature, such as the failure of U.S. Steel to provide her additional training, failure to give
her 30 days to transfer back to a previous job once she had moved to the roll shop,
questioning her about her whereabouts, and her having been “shorted” in her paycheck by
four days in December 2003.
Citing the relevant standards under our case law, the District Court concluded that
Finnegan failed to establish that the conduct of Chapman about which she complained
was severe or pervasive. Moreover, it concluded that U.S. Steel took prompt, immediate
action to investigate the matter after her initial complaint. The District Court found the
investigation conducted by U.S. Steel to be “thorough.” Finnegan contended that
U.S. Steel’s conduct was not sufficiently remedial because she continued to encounter
Chapman at grievance meetings. However, the District Court concluded that there was
no evidence that Chapman’s behavior at the meetings was inappropriate, and that she had
been advised that he would attend certain meetings if he was involved in the employment
action at issue. Accordingly, the District Court concluded that Finnegan had failed to
support a claim of hostile work environment.
4
With respect to Amati’s claims, the District Court determined that, considering the
totality of the circumstances, the instances of unwanted conduct directed at her did not
satisfy the threshold of “severe or pervasive conduct” needed for a sexual harassment
claim. We need not determine whether we would characterize the conduct as the District
Court did. We note, however, that the conduct allegedly directed at Amati was of a
character much more serious than that allegedly directed at Finnegan. Nevertheless, we
conclude that, under Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742,
118 S. Ct. 2257
(1998), Amati’s claim must fail. We agree with the District Court that there is no
evidence from which to find that Amati suffered a tangible job action, and, accordingly,
under Ellerth, U.S. Steel may avail itself of an affirmative defense to liability by showing
it exercised reasonable care to avoid the harassment and that the employee failed to take
advantage of safeguards.
Ellerth, 524 U.S. at 765.
The misconduct alleged by Amati began in January 2003, and most of the events
complained of appear to have occurred before July 2003 (or, at the latest, August), yet
Amati did not inform U.S. Steel of Chapman’s conduct until November 2003. Amati
failed to avail herself of U.S. Steel’s procedure for making a complaint. She was clearly
aware of the available procedures and had received training about them. Further, once
informed of Amati’s claims, U.S. Steel acted promptly, met with her, conducted an
investigation, followed leads as to accusations of similar conduct (which proved
groundless), interviewed Chapman, and advised him to have no further contact with
5
Amati. As the District Court noted, Amati has not pointed to any facts from which a
reasonable jury could conclude that the investigation was anything less than thorough.3
In light of the foregoing, we conclude, as did the District Court, that there were no
disputed issues of material fact that remained for trial and that summary judgment was
properly granted as a matter of law on the sexual harassment claims of both Finnegan and
Amati.
With respect to the retaliation claims, we agree with the District Court that neither
plaintiff urged an adverse employment action sufficiently significant to survive
U.S. Steel’s summary judgment motion. To succeed on a retaliation claim, a plaintiff
must show that “a reasonable employee would have found the challenged action
materially adverse.” Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 126 U.S. 2405,
2415 (2006). The Supreme Court there noted that “it is important to separate significant
from trivial harms.”
Id. Moreover, a retaliation claim can only succeed if a causal
connection exists between the protected activity and the materially adverse action. This
can include temporal proximity, or a showing that the employer had developed a pattern
of antagonism toward the employee after the protected conduct. Farrell v. Planters
Lifesavers Co.,
206 F.3d 271, 280-1 (3d Cir. 2000).
3
Amati did not tell U.S. Steel about certain instances, of which she was aware, of
similar conduct directed at others. (See Appx 798, 801, 803). Also, corroboration of the
most egregious conduct was equivocal at best. (See App. 912-13, where Ray Michel
testified he did not convey to the U.S. Steel investigator what had actually happened.)
6
We agree with the District Court that the conduct allegedly directed at Finnegan
and Amati was not materially adverse under Burlington Northern. Moreover, there was
no evidence adduced from which a jury could conclude that there was a causal connection
between the protected conduct of either plaintiff and the allegedly retaliatory conduct of
U.S. Steel. With respect to the administrative matters about which Amati complained,
U.S. Steel offered explanations that were not shown to be pretextual.
Accordingly, we will not disturb the District Court’s grant of summary judgment
on the plaintiffs’ retaliation claims.
In light of the foregoing, we will AFFIRM the District Court’s order in all
respects.4
____________
4
Although not discussed hereinabove, in light of the District Court’s rulings with
respect to the federal claims, its dismissal of the entire complaint, including
corresponding violations of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, and claims for
damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a) available for intentional employment discrimination,
was proper.
7
