Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Rao S. Mandalapu v. Temple University Hospital, et al.
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, No. 18-2720 · judgment December 3, 2019
Before the decision, about 1.5× the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for a Third Circuit decision below, a circuit split argued in the petition, and a dissent in the court below (flagged in the petition).
Question presented
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2-3) and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (42 U.S.C. § 1981) prevent discrimination and retaliation in the workplace. Twenty years ago, this Court clarified, in Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing, that a plaintiff can prevail by presenting a prima facie case along with pretext of the employer’s articulated reason. Such a showing would prevent a defendant employer from obtaining summary judgment. Since, then appellate courts have interpreted this standard differently, sometimes requiring “animus” or additional evidence beyond that as articulated in Reeves. The question presented is: At the summary judgment stage, is it necessary for a plaintiff to show discriminatory or retaliatory “animus” against a protected category in order to prevent dismissal?
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Nitin Sud
Sud Law P.C.
For respondent
Jason Kyrle Roberts
Rubin, Fortunato & Harbison P.C.
Case
Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference
Proceedings
- Jun 15 2020Petition DENIED.
- May 26 2020DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/11/2020.
- May 21 2020Waiver of right of respondents Temple University Hospital, et al. to respond filed.
- May 11 2020Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due June 15, 2020)