Allentown, PA (January 12, 2010) – In a precedential decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has affirmed the decision of Judge Mitchell Goldberg of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, granting summary judgment in favor of the City of Allentown and Mayor Ed Pawlowski. This matter arises from a lawsuit brought by Allentown’s former Superintendent of Recreation, Thomas Smith, for age and political affiliation discrimination.
The lead attorney for the City of Allentown and Mayor Pawlowski was Steven E. Hoffman, a member and Vice-Chair of the Litigation Department of Tallman Hudders & Sorrentino, the Pennsylvania office of Norris McLaughlin & Marcus, P.A., at trial and on appeal. Hoffman was assisted throughout the trial and appellate proceedings by George C. Hlavac, a member and Chair of the Labor and Employment Department and by Edward J. Easterly, an associate with the firm. In Thomas A. Smith v. City of Allentown, the three-judge federal panel concluded that Smith, former Superintendent of the City of Allentown Recreation Bureau, failed to produce evidence that his allegedly inadequate job performance was a pretext for unlawful discrimination of any kind.
The three-judge federal appeals panel agreed with the Tallman Hudders & Sorrentino team that Smith was lawfully terminated for inadequate work performance, specifically his failure to create new recreation programs for the City’s diverse population. Circuit Judge Kent Jordan, writing for the three-judge panel, found that “[u]nder these circumstances, no reasonable jury could agree that [the City] terminated Smith on the basis of age discrimination.” With regard to Smith’s claim of political affiliation discrimination, Judge Jordan found that the only evidence Smith had of such discrimination was his own speculation.
The Third Circuit’s decision in Smith v. City of Allentown is an important development in an evolving area of employment law. In 2009, the United States Supreme Court in Gross v. FBL Financial Services expressed significant doubt about the continuing viability of the traditional McDonnell-Douglas burden shifting paradigm in age discrimination cases. Instead, the Supreme Court articulated a preference that the sole burden in an age discrimination case is for the plaintiff to prove that his age was the “but-for” cause of his termination. The Third Circuit has now joined two other federal circuits in holding that the McDonnell-Douglas burden shifting paradigm is an acceptable method of proving “but-for” causation. It is expected that the U.S. Supreme Court will revisit this issue in the near future.
The Labor and Employment Department of Tallman Hudders & Sorrentino covers the entire spectrum of employer/employee relations. With wide-reaching experience in virtually all aspects of labor and employment law, its attorneys represent clients in a variety of capacities—as advisors, negotiators, advocates, and litigators. They have extensive litigation experience with respect to employment discrimination and harassment claims involving Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, The Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act. In this regard, they regularly represent clients before courts and administrative agencies at the state and federal levels. They also have extensive experience defending wrongful termination claims and claims involving alleged violations of The Family and Medical Leave Act, The Equal Pay Act, The Fair Labor Standards Act, The Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Law, and The Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law.