Watkins v. Pennsylvania Dep't of Corr., No. 22-1426, 2023 WL 5925896 (3d Cir. Sept. 12, 2023)

A corrections officer sued his employer, the Department of Corrections (DOC), alleging a retaliatory hostile work environment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. There, the plaintiff claimed that the DOC had taken several actions against him and his wife, who had applied for a position at a DOC facility, in retaliation for giving deposition testimony in support of a co-worker in a separate Title VII suit against the DOC. He further alleged that this treatment persisted over a period of three years in response to EEOC and PHRC complaints he filed during that time.

However, the district court granted summary judgment for the DOC, finding that the plaintiff had failed to produce any evidence demonstrating that he suffered intentional discrimination because of his protected activity.

Thereafter, the plaintiff appealed, but the Third Circuit affirmed. The court found particularly instructive the fact that, for the most part, the plaintiff could not show that any of the individuals involved in the allegedly retaliatory conduct had knowledge of his deposition testimony or administrative complaints. In setting aside most of the allegedly retaliatory conduct on this basis, the court held that those few instances of conduct by individuals who had knowledge of the plaintiff’s protected conduct were too few and far between to amount to the kind of “severe or pervasive” conduct contemplated by Title VII.