The Third Circuit holds that plaintiff's admitted violation of his employer's zero tolerance policy regarding workplace threats mandates dismissal of his discrimination claims.

The Third Circuit upheld summary judgment in favor of an employer who terminated the plaintiff's employment for violating its zero tolerance policy. Specifically, the plaintiff had previously filed three claims of discrimination against the employer for various employment issues, and each of the three claims were dismissed by an administrative law judge. Subsequently, the plaintiff's working hours were changed, and he approached his union steward to lodge a grievance on his behalf. The union steward informed the plaintiff that a grievance was not warranted. The plaintiff later approached the steward and, again, reiterated his request to file a grievance on his behalf. The union steward sought the assistance of an operations supervisor, who spoke with the plaintiff and informed him that his behavior was unacceptable. As a result of this discussion, the plaintiff became upset and sought treatment from the employer's occupational health office. While being treated, the plaintiff informed one of the nurses that he wanted to "punch" or "kill" the union steward. The plaintiff was sent home for the day, and an investigation was initiated into the plaintiff's statements regarding the union steward. While the plaintiff admitted to making the statements in question, he denied any actual intent to harm the union steward. However, as a result of the plaintiff's admitted statements, the employer found that the plaintiff violated its zero tolerance policy and terminated his employment. Following his termination, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against his former employer, alleging age discrimination, disability discrimination and retaliation for filing prior discrimination claims. In rejecting the plaintiff's claims and upholding summary judgment in favor of the employer, the court held that the employer plainly had a legitimate reason for terminating the plaintiff's employment and, notably, the plaintiff admitted he made the threatening statements and that he understood the importance of the zero tolerance policy. Moreover, the court reasoned that the plaintiff provided no evidence that would either cast doubt on the veracity of the employer's reason for his termination or suggest that the reason was not in fact the motivating cause for his termination.

Case Law Alert - 2rd Qtr 2011