U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Clerk's Office

... Letitia A. Baldez
(“Baldez”), Chester P. Yuan (“Yuan”) (collectively the
“individual Defendants”) and AstraZeneca, L.P. (“AstraZeneca”):
(1) discrimination based on sex, race, religion and ethnic origin
pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title
VII”), as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e ...


... to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title
VII”), as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (1994) against
AstraZeneca; (2) disability discrimination pursuant to Title I of
the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1211112117 against AstraZeneca; (3) retaliation for filing a ...


... filing a complaint
with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”),
pursuant to Title VII and the ADA against AstraZeneca; (4)
parallel discrimination and retaliation claims under the
Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (“PHRA”), 43 Pa. Con. Stat. Ann.
§§ 951-963 (West 1991) against AstraZeneca; (5) ...


... and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at
trial." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986).
DISCUSSION
A. Religious Discrimination
The enforcement provision of Title VII requires that an
injured party must file a charge with the EEOC within 180 days or
an appropriate state ...


... assert continuing violations theory in
administrative filing and complaint was “fatal”). It is
undisputed that Sherif has not asserted religious discrimination
in his PHRC charge, either by checking off the religious
discrimination box or by alleging facts in his charge that would
support a religious ...


... was “fatal”). It is
undisputed that Sherif has not asserted religious discrimination
in his PHRC charge, either by checking off the religious
discrimination box or by alleging facts in his charge that would
support a religious discrimination claim. Accordingly,
AstraZeneca’s Motion for Summary Judgment ...


...
in his PHRC charge, either by checking off the religious
discrimination box or by alleging facts in his charge that would
support a religious discrimination claim. Accordingly,
AstraZeneca’s Motion for Summary Judgment must be granted as to
the claim of religious discrimination.
B. ADA Claim
Sherif ...


...
support a religious discrimination claim. Accordingly,
AstraZeneca’s Motion for Summary Judgment must be granted as to
the claim of religious discrimination.
B. ADA Claim
Sherif has failed to identify any evidence in the record
that AstraZeneca perceived him as disabled or that his job was
affected in ...


... disability or perceived
disability. Accordingly, AstraZeneca’s Motion for Summary
Judgment is granted as to the ADA claim.
C. The Employment Discrimination Burden Shifting Scheme
Sherif alleges sex, race and national origin discrimination
in violation of Title VII and the PHRA.
1
The McDonnell ...


...
Judgment is granted as to the ADA claim.
C. The Employment Discrimination Burden Shifting Scheme
Sherif alleges sex, race and national origin discrimination
in violation of Title VII and the PHRA.
1
The McDonnell Douglas
scheme of shifting burdens of production and persuasion controls
the analysis ...


... v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). 8
Under the general burden-shifting scheme in an individual
disparate treatment claim where no direct evidence of
discrimination exists, the plaintiff must begin by proving his
prima facie case of discrimination by a preponderance of the
evidence. Texas Dep’t of Cmty. ...


...
disparate treatment claim where no direct evidence of
discrimination exists, the plaintiff must begin by proving his
prima facie case of discrimination by a preponderance of the
evidence. Texas Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248,
252-53 (1981). The elements of the prima facie case ...


... for its actions and then show that the
plaintiff can raise no genuine issue of material fact as to
whether the proffered reason is a pretext for discrimination.
Id. Stated conversely, if the plaintiff shows that such genuine10
issues of fact do exist, summary judgment is inappropriate.
D. Sherif’s ...


... (2) is qualified
for his position; and (3) suffered an adverse employment action
under circumstances that would give rise to an inference of
discrimination. Jones v. School Dist. of Philadelphia, 198 F.3d
403, 410-12 (3d Cir. 1999); Sheridan v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours &
Co., 100 F.3d 1061, 1066 n.5 (3d ...


... of Sherif’s claim for disparate treatment depends on
whether the circumstances of those adverse employment actions
give rise to an inference of discrimination. Sherif has
presented anecdotal evidence of discriminatory comments in the
workplace and evidence of similarly situated workers of different
...


... a plaintiff must establish, at a minimum, a
genuine issue of material fact regarding each of these elements.
Sherif’s filing an internal discrimination complaint and a claim
with the PHRC clearly constitute statutorily protected
activities, and the decisions to suspend, demote and terminate
Sherif ...


... inciting or compelling a
discriminatory act. 42 Pa. Con. Stat. Ann. § 955(e). The
supervisor’s liability can be predicated upon direct acts of
discrimination or the failure to prevent discrimination by
others. Davis v. Levy, Angstreich, Finney, Baldante, Rubenstein
& Coren, P.C., 20 F. Supp. 2d 885, 887 ...


... act. 42 Pa. Con. Stat. Ann. § 955(e). The
supervisor’s liability can be predicated upon direct acts of
discrimination or the failure to prevent discrimination by
others. Davis v. Levy, Angstreich, Finney, Baldante, Rubenstein
& Coren, P.C., 20 F. Supp. 2d 885, 887 (E.D. Pa. 1998). Here,
Sherif has ...


... evidence that Stoner and Baldez
were in supervisory positions and actively participated in his
termination. Further, there is evidence of direct discrimination
by Baldez. Yuan was a supervisor who was made aware of and did
not prevent Sherif’s discriminatory demotion and termination.
Accordingly, Sherif ...


... Motion for
Summary Judgment, the following issues remain for trial in this
matter: (1) Sherif’s claims for racial, sexual and national
origin discrimination pursuant to Title VII and the PHRA; (2)
Sherif’s claims for retaliation pursuant to Title VII and the
PHRA; and (3) Sherif’s claim for aiding and ...


... part.
Judgment is ENTERED in favor of Defendant AstraZeneca, L.P., and
against Plaintiff, Hassan H. Sherif on Plaintiff’s claims of
religious discrimination, disability discrimination, defamation,
libel, slander and invasion of privacy by holding Sherif in a
false light.
2. The Motion for Summary ...


... in favor of Defendant AstraZeneca, L.P., and
against Plaintiff, Hassan H. Sherif on Plaintiff’s claims of
religious discrimination, disability discrimination, defamation,
libel, slander and invasion of privacy by holding Sherif in a
false light.
2. The Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED in part as ...