No. 19-1295

Rao S. Mandalapu v. Temple University Hospital, et al.

Lower Court: Third Circuit
Docketed: 2020-05-15
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response Waived
Tags: 42-usc-1981 civil-rights civil-rights-act employment-discrimination pretext reeves-v-sanderson retaliation summary-judgment title-vii
Latest Conference: 2020-06-11
Question Presented (from Petition)

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2-3) and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (42 U.S.C. § 1981) prevent discrimination and retaliation in the workplace. Twenty years ago, this Court clarified, in Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing, that a plaintiff can prevail by presenting a prima facie case along with pretext of the employer's articulated reason. Such a showing would prevent a defendant employer from obtaining summary judgment. Since, then appellate courts have interpreted this standard differently, sometimes requiring "animus" or additional evidence beyond that as articulated in Reeves.

The question presented is: At the summary judgment stage, is it necessary for a plaintiff to show discriminatory or retaliatory "animus" against a protected category in order to prevent dismissal?

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Is it necessary for a plaintiff to show discriminatory or retaliatory 'animus' against a protected category in order to prevent dismissal at the summary judgment stage?

Docket Entries

2020-06-15
Petition DENIED.
2020-05-26
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/11/2020.
2020-05-21
Waiver of right of respondents Temple University Hospital, et al. to respond filed.
2020-05-11
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due June 15, 2020)

Attorneys

Rao S, Mandalapu
Nitin SudSud Law P.C., Petitioner
Temple University Hospital, et al.
Jason Kyrle RobertsRubin, Fortunato & Harbison P.C., Respondent