United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
D. Mariani United States District Judge
before the Court is a Report and Recommendation
("R&R") (Doc. 54) by Magistrate Judge Martin
Carlson, wherein the Magistrate Judge recommends that the
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 43) be
granted with respect to all of the Plaintiffs claims under
the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"),
29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq., and the Pennsylvania
Human Relations Act ("PHRA"), 43 Pa. C.S. §
951, et seq, Plaintiff filed Objections (Doc. 57) to
the R&R pursuant to M.D. Pa. Local Rule 72.3 to which
Defendant responded (Doc. 58). For the reasons that follow,
upon de novo review of the R&R, the Court will adopt
the pending R&R.
Plaintiff brought suit under the ADEA and PHRA alleging that
he was discriminated against because of his age when he was
told on June 11, 2014 by representatives of the Defendant
that he was "not needed any more" and that he would
be replaced. (Second Amended Complaint, Doc. 27). The
Plaintiff further alleged that he was subjected to a hostile
work environment and that on December 28, 2015, he was
terminated because of unlawful age discrimination and in
retaliation for his having brought the instant lawsuit.
(Id., ¶¶ 26, 27, 34, 35).
alleged that he was employed by Laminations, Inc., for 35
years, working as a scrap saw operator (Id. at
¶¶ 17, 19).
Simona filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Second Amended
Complaint on March 24, 2016 (Doc. 28), and, subsequently,
Simona filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on August 26, 2016
Motions were referred to United States Magistrate Judge
Carlson for a Report and Recommendation in accordance with 28
U.S.C. § 636. The Magistrate Judge issued his Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 54) on November 3, 2016. In the R&R, the
Magistrate Judge addressed Plaintiffs claims of disparate
treatment under the ADEA, Plaintiffs claim that he was
subjected to a hostile work environment because of his age
and the Plaintiffs claim that he was retaliated against
because of his efforts to invoke his rights under the ADEA by
filing a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC and by
instituting the present action.
Court finds that the Magistrate Judge correctly applied the
standard for determining whether summary judgment should be
granted with respect to Plaintiffs claims. Further, the Court
adopts the Magistrate Judge's analysis with respect to
Plaintiffs claim of a hostile work environment based on his
age as well as the Magistrate Judge's recommendation as
to Plaintiffs claim of retaliation.
respect to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation that
summary judgment be granted on the Plaintiffs claim of
disparate treatment, while the Court adopts the Magistrate
Judge's recommendation and supporting analysis, it is
nonetheless the Court's view that additional comment is
necessary in light of the Plaintiffs 35 years of employment
with Laminations, Inc. and the state of the record that was
presented to the Magistrate Judge and now to this Court for
consideration under the applicable law.
William Wesley received the June 3, 2014 letter from
Laminations, Inc. President, Michael Lynch, (Doc. 43-8),
notifying him that SIMONA AMERICA, INC. had acquired
Laminations, Inc. and was combining Laminations, Inc.'s
facility in Archbald, PA, with another facility in Hazleton,
PA, which was to be closed, and that his position had been
eliminated as part of this restructuring, he was 57 years
June 3, 2014 Notice informed the Plaintiff that "his
last day of employment with Laminations, Inc. will be
specified at a later date." (id.). Yet, as the
Magistrate Judge's R&R notes, "Wesley continued
working at Simona until May of 2015, when he passed out at
work and suffered a head injury which left him unable to work
for a period of months. (Doc. 43-6.)" (Doc. 54, at 6).
The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on June 9, 2015 and
it was not until December 28, 2015 when Defendant Simona
notified the Plaintiff that it was terminating his position.
the passage of time between the June 3, 2014 notice that
Plaintiffs job would be eliminated and his actual termination
on December 28, 2015, it is this Court's view that the
Defendant took an adverse employment action against the
Plaintiff on June 3, 2014. Further, there is no evidence that
Plaintiff was not qualified for the position he held, i.e.,
scrap saw operator. These facts present three of the four
elements necessary for a finding of a prima facie
case of age discrimination. See Anderson v. Consolidated
Rail Corp., 297 F.3d 242, 249 (3d Cir. 2002).
the fourth element of a prima facie case of age
discrimination, the Court in C ...