Labor & Employment Law

Employee?s termination affirmed based on her failure to show that the reasons given by her employer for dismissal were pretextual Hughes v City of Bet

Employee?s termination affirmed based on her failure to show that the reasons given by her employer for dismissal were pretextual

Hughes v City of Bethlehem, USCA, 3^rd Circuit, Docket #07-2349, Decided October 2, 2008

After Catherine Hughes was terminated from her employment with the City of Bethlehem, she sued, alleging employment discrimination based on her gender in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; employment discrimination based on her having a disability, i.e., type II diabetes, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act; unlawful retaliation for seeking an accommodation under the ADA, as well as for having reported harassment under Title VII; a violation of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, 43 P.S. § 951, et seq.; a deprivation of procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and a violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. § 2601.

The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the City on all causes of action.

According to the decision, Hughes, went to Las Vegas, Nevada, for vacation that had been planned one month in advance of her absence. However, she was scheduled to work on two days of her trip. She called in sick on these two days. As the result of an anonymous note sent to the Mayor, the City became aware that Hughes was improperly using sick leave.

When confronted upon her return from vacation, Hughes said that ?she had not been in Las Vegas but had been sick in bed at her boyfriend?s house? and produced a note, allegedly from her doctor, confirming her illness.

Suspended without pay pending an investigation by the City, ultimately Bethlehem concluded that she did in fact lie to the City about her whereabouts and was terminated for dishonesty.

Although Hughes filed a grievance in accordance with her collective bargaining agreement her union refused to prosecute the grievance because Hughes admitted lying both to the City and to her union. The decision notes that ?the collective bargaining agreement specifically provided that dishonesty is ?just cause? for termination.?

The Circuit Court affirmed the District Court?s granting Bethlehem?s motion for summary judgment on all of Hughes?s claims and dismissed the action.

Essentially the court held that ?because Hughes has not presented evidence showing that the City?s proffered legitimate, non-discriminatory explanation for her termination was merely pretext, her claim must fail.?

The full text of the decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/072349np.pdf

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on October 07, 2008 (boomark / email).