Iyer v. Everson

2 Citing cases

  1. Trent v. Test Am., Inc.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-1290 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 30, 2013)

    See Aman v. Cort Furniture Rental Corp., 85 F.3d 1074, 1085 (3d Cir. 1996) (citations omitted). Further, to prove the requisite causal connection, plaintiff must be able to show that TestAmerica had knowledge of her protected conduct when it decided to discontinue its relationship with her. See Iyer v. Everson, 382 F. Supp. 2d 749, 758 (E.D. Pa. 2005) aff'd, 238 F. App'x 834 (3d Cir. 2007) (finding the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation where the plaintiff did not present any evidence to show that the defendant was actually aware of his EEO complaints). TestAmerica contends that plaintiff cannot establish the requisite causal link because it did not receive a copy or other notice of plaintiff's EEOC charge until August 19, 2009, well after it ended its relationship with her. Dkt. No. 56 at ΒΆ 84. Plaintiff has not set forth any evidence to rebut TestAmerica's contention that it did not have notice of her EEOC filing at the time of her termination.

  2. Gaddy v. Philadelphia Housing Authority

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-CV-04570 (E.D. Pa. Jul. 28, 2008)   Cited 3 times

    The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit noted "[a]lthough he need not establish" non-Native Americans were rehired after criminal charges, "he must establish some causal nexus between his membership in a protected class and the decision not to rehire him." Id.; accord Iyer v. Everson, 382 F. Supp. 2d 749, 757 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 18, 2005) (Brody, J.) (plaintiff did not present evidence employer treated him less favorably and did not establish a causal nexus between his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin and the employment action). Gaddy claims she was treated differently than Caucasian and Hispanic males, citing Smith as an example.