Chickilly v. Panther Valley School District

Filing 35

ORDER The Report & Recommendation ("R&R"), (Doc. 32), is ADOPTED for the reasons discussed therein. Plaintiffs Objections, (Doc. 33), are OVERRULED. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, (Doc. 18), is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case. Signed by Honorable Robert D. Mariani on 11/30/16 (jfg)

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LAUREN CHICKILLY,

Plaintiff,

v.

3:14·CV·2173
(JUDGE MARIANI)

PANTHER VALLEY SCHOOL
DISTRICT,

Defendants.
ORDER
AND NOW, THIS

?o7z, DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2016, upon de novo review of

Magistrate Judge Carlson's Report & Recommendation, (Doc. 32), Plaintiffs Objections
thereto, (Doc. 33), and Defendant's Response, (Doc. 34), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The Report & Recommendation ("R&R"), (Doc. 32), is ADOPTED for the reasons
discussed therein.
2. Plaintiffs Objections, (Doc. 33), are OVERRULED. Plaintiff raises eight objections
to the R&R:
a. In objections 1,4, and 7 Plaintiff challenges the Magistrate's conclusion that
Plaintiff's comparators performed substantially different work than Plaintiff.1 As
the R&R pointed out, the "issue is whether the jobs to be compared have a
'common core' of tasks, i.e., whether a signi'flcant portion of the two jobs is

In addition, Plaintiff again presents arguments that her job title was "District Grounds Maintenance
Person" and her comparators were full time maintenance employees. Plaintiff, however, fails to point out
any why the law cited in the R&R that job titles and descriptions are not determinative is not applicable.
Thus, her objections on this basis are overruled.
1

I
I

t

I
I

t

I

I

I
I

I

J

I

I

I
i-

f

identical. The inquiry then turns to whether the differing or additional tasks
make the work substantially different." Brobst v. Columbus Services Intern.,
761 F.2d 148, 156 (3d Cir. 1985). The R&R more than adequately illustrated
the differences between Plaintiffs job and the comparators' jobs. (Doc. 32 at

!

f

I

I
I

!

17-19). Further, Plaintiff admitted in her deposition that the job responsibilities

[

and duties of her comparators were different than her own job responsibilities

I
t

and duties. (Doc. 18-2 at 53). Plaintiff's attempt to broadly categorize both her
job and her comparators' jobs as "maintenance jobs" is unpersuasive when
Plaintiff has not shown how a significant portion of her actual job duties are
identical to her comparators' job duties.
b. In objections 2, 3,2 5, 6, and 8 Plaintiff, in one way or another, challenges the

I

~

I

i
I

t
!

r

Magistrate's conclusion that there was no evidence to support Plaintiffs

i

f

retaliation claim. Plaintiff's objections, however, have failed to point to any
evidence that disputes the fact that Plaintiff was aware, at the time she filed the
grievance, that the decision to furlough her had already been made. 3 (Doc. 18-

t

!

I

I
!

t

3at 91). The School District classified Plaintiff as a custodian, (Doc. 18-10),

2 In Objection 3, Plaintiff attempts to overcome the fact that a witness testified that "there was a
stipulation and agreement ... that the Grounds Maintenance positon would become a full-time custodian
position," by arguing that, except for the witness's statement, there is no evidence to support this and the
witness's credibility is questionable. (Doc. 33 at 11). This objection is meritless because "an opponent
may not prevail merely by discrediting the credibility of the movant's evidence; it must produce some
affirmative evidence." Big Apple BMW, Inc. v. BMWofN. Am., Inc., 974 F.2d 1358. 1363 (3d Cir. 1992).
3 Plaintiff does, however. attempt to re-characterize Plaintiff's deposition testimony by arguing,
without citation to the record, that Plaintiff did not believe she would be furloughed, (Doc. 33 at 10), and that
she had only heard rumors that she would be furloughed, (ld. at 13).

2

I
I
I

I
i

I

l

I
I
I

J

and made the decision to subcontract custodial services on June 12,2014,
(Doc. 18-13). Plaintiff filed her grievance on July 14, 2014. (Doc. 18-12). As
the decision to furlough Plaintiff occurred before Plaintiff engaged in a protected
activity, Plaintiff has not, without more, established a prima facie case for
retaliation. The fact that the Plaintiff did not receive her furlough letter until after
the filing of the grievance is irrelevant.
3. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, (Doc. 18), is GRANTED.
4. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

j

Robert
ariani
United States District Judge

I
!
l
!

I

I

r

r

I
!

I

!
3

I

l

l