Naugle v. Susquehanna University et al
Filing
48
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 38 Motion for Summary Judgment is granted; Clerk directed to enter judgment in favor of Susquehanna University, Katherine Furlong and Cindy Whitmoyer on Counts II and IV of Steven Naughle's Second Amended Complaint and to close this case. Signed by Honorable Matthew W. Brann on 4/23/19 (case closed) (lg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
No. 4:17-CV-00237
STEVEN NAUGLE,
(Judge Brann)
Plaintiff.
v.
SUSQUEHANNA UNIVERSITY,
JAY LEMMONS,
KATHERINE FURLONG,
JENNIFER BUCHER, and
CINDY WHITMOYER,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER
APRIL 23, 2019
Susquehanna University, Katherine Furlong, and Cindy Whitmoyer moved for
summary judgment on the claims remaining in Steven Naugle’s Second Amended
Complaint. That motion will be granted.
Background
On May 26, 2016, Mr. Naugle was fired from his job as an Interlibrary Loan
Assistant in the Bough-Weis Library at Susquehanna University. On February 8, 2017,
Mr. Naugle initiated the above-captioned action, alleging that his termination was the
result of his gender (male) and age (over 40), in violation of federal and state law.1 The
gender discrimination claims have already been dismissed.2
1
ECF No. 1.
2
ECF No. 27. That Order also dismissed Mr. Naugle’s age discrimination claim against
Defendants Jay Lemmons and Jennifer Bucher.
Discussion
Federal and state law3 prohibits employers from terminating an employee
because of the employee’s age. Mr. Naugle’s claims are analyzed under the familiar
McDonnell Douglas three-part burden-shifting framework.4
Defendants concede that Mr. Naugle has established a prima facie case of age
discrimination—i.e., that Mr. Naugle has satisfied McDonnell Douglas’s first step. And
Defendants have satisfied the second step by introducing evidence that “will allow the
factfinder to determine that the decision [to terminate Mr. Naugle] was made for
nondiscriminatory reasons.”5 Specifically, Defendants have pointed to Mr. Naugle’s
handling of a particular interlibrary loan incident.6
Mr. Naugle, however, has failed to satisfy the third McDonnell Douglas step—
i.e., has failed to show that this proffered reason for his termination was pretextual.
Other than a failed hearsay objection,7 his argument rests essentially on an assertion
that the instructions given by his supervisors during the interlibrary loan incident were
3
Mr. Naugle’s bring claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and under the
Pennsylvania Human Relations Act. They are analyzed identically. Willis v. UPMC
Children’s Hosp. of Pittsburgh, 808 F.3d 638, 643 (3d Cir. 2015).
4
Jones v. Sch. Dist. of Philadelphia, 198 F.3d 403, 410 (3d Cir. 1999) (referring to McDonnell
Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973)).
5
Willis, 808 F.3d at 644.
6
See Defendant’s Statement of Facts ¶¶ 40-77 and accompanying exhibits.
7
Mr. Naugle objects to some of the third-party emails relied on by Defendants as hearsay.
However, none of these emails are being offered “to prove the truth of the matter[s] asserted”
in them. Federal Rule of Evidence 801(c)(2). Instead, they are being offered to show what
Defendants believed to be the truth. See United States v. Edwards, 792 F.3d 355, 357 n.2 (3d
Cir. 2015) (admitting third-party statements to show their effect on the listener).
- 2 -
contrary to his written job description.8 However, Mr. Naugle fails to specify exactly
which portions of this job description were contravened and fails to explain why a
generalized job description should trump explicit orders from his direct supervisors. In
short, he has failed to “demonstrate such weaknesses, implausibilities, inconsistencies,
incoherencies, or contradictions” in the proffered reasons such “that a reasonable
factfinder could rationally find them unworthy of credence.”9 His age discrimination
claims, therefore, must fail.
Disposition
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for summary judgment, ECF No.
38, is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of
Susquehanna University, Katherine Furlong, and Cindy Whitmoyer on Counts II and
IV of Steven Naugle’s Second Amended Complaint, ECF No. 15, and to close this case.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Matthew W. Brann
Matthew W. Brann
United States District Judge
8
See Deposition of Steven Naugle (ECF No. 41-4), Ex. 2.
9
Jones, 198 F.3d at 413.
- 3 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?