Dr. Bushra's claim of associational discrimination under the PHRA is analyzed under the same framework. Zielonka v. Temple Univ., 2001 WL 1231746, at *8 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 12, 2001). Because an associational discrimination claim is, at bottom, an allegation of discrimination “because of” one's relationship with another person, Kengerski, 6 F.4th at 538, there must be “at least a modicum of evidence of a causal link between the adverse action complained of and . . . the relationship or association in question.”
A claim for associational discrimination under the PHRA may also be treated similarly by the state courts as Title VII jurisprudence. Zielonka v. Temple University, 2001 U.S. Dist. Lexis 16732 (E.D. Pa. 2001). Title VII's anti-discrimination provision makes it unlawful for an employer:
It is true that federal courts have recognized claims for associational discrimination under Title VII. Zielonka v. Temple Univ. , No. 99–5693, 2001 WL 1231746, *5 (E.D.Pa. Oct. 12, 2001). However, those same courts have limited associational discrimination claims under Title VII to causes of action which "involved more substantial relationships."
In response, Legendary Art points to several cases in this District have concluded that the preponderance of the evidence standard applies to garden variety oral contracts. See Robert Billet Promotions, 1998 WL 721081, at *13;Zielonka v. Temple Univ., 2001 WL 1231746, at *9 (E.D.Pa. Oct. 12, 2001); Quandry Solutions Inc. v. Verifone Inc., 2009 WL 997041, at *6 (E.D.Pa. Apr. 13, 2009). These cases reason that Pennsylvania courts apply the higher “clear and precise” standard to certain discrete types of oral contracts, like contracts to make a will, or oral modifications to a written contract, but apply the preponderance of the evidence standard to run-of-the-mill oral contracts.
Plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating the existence and terms of the contract. While some case law in this district finds that "[t]he existence and terms of an oral contract must be established by clear and precise evidence," Browne, 663 F. Supp. at 1197, internal quotation marks omitted, the court in Zielonka v. Temple University, No. 99-5693, 2001 WL 1231746, at *9 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 12, 2001), found that "an employment related oral contract may be established by a preponderance of the evidence." Since I find that the evidence presented by Ms. Golkow is sufficient to meet either standard, I find it unnecessary to determine whether a case involving an oral agreement with an independent contractor requires proof of its terms by clear and precise evidence or a mere preponderance of the evidence.
The alleged relationship between Herbert and Parra does not rise to a level sufficient to invoke a claim of associational discrimination based on race. See Zielonka v. Temple University, 2001 WL 1231746 (E.D.Pa. Oct. 12, 2001) (association with African American professor with whom plaintiff voted in an academic election for department chair): Plaintiff did not have the type of relationship with Dr. Roget that alone may reasonably support an assumption that plaintiff's race motivated the action he complains of. The cases in which courts have recognized a cause of action under Title VII have typically involved more substantial relationships.
The parties agree that Pennsylvania law governs this action, but there is some dispute within the Eastern District regarding the burden of proof required under Pennsylvania law to establish an oral contract. Compare Martin v. Safeguard Scientiflcs, Inc., 17 F. Supp.2d 357, 368 (E.D. Pa. 1998) (requiring "clear and precise evidence"), with Zielonka v. Temple Univ., 2001 WL 1231746 at *9 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 12, 2001) (finding "clear and precise evidence" standard unsupported by state law and applying preponderance of evidence standard). There is no need to resolve this dispute, however, because Buzzmarketing's claim for breach of oral contract fails as a matter of law, as discussed below.
Although Defendant claims that Plaintiff has the burden of establishing an oral contract by "clear and precise" evidence, to the contrary, an oral contract may be established by a preponderance of evidence. See Mucci v. Home Depot, No. 00-4946, 2001 WL 1609851, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 18, 2001); Zielonka v. Temple University, No. 99-5693, 2001 WL 1231746, at *9 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 12, 2001); Robert Billet Promotions, Inc. v. IMI Cornelius, Inc., No. 95-1376, 1998 WL 721081, at *13 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 14, 1998) (rejecting contention that oral contract must be proved by clear and convincing evidence); Pinizzoto v. Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade Douglas, 697 F. Supp. 886, 888 (E.D. Pa. 1988). Moreover, for a contract to be enforceable, the "nature and extent of the obligation must be certain; the parties themselves must agree upon the material and necessary details of the bargain."