Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Angeloni v. Diocese of Scranton

March 17, 2005; as amended March 28, 2005

MARGARET M. ANGELONI
v.
THE DIOCESE OF SCRANTON; VILLA ST. JOSEPH; HAZZOURI MARGARET ANGELONI, APPELLANT



APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA D.C. Civil No. 02-cv-00276 District Judge: The Honorable A. Richard Caputo

Before: Barry, Fuentes, and Becker, Circuit Judges

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Barry, Circuit Judge

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) February 7, 2005

OPINION

On February 20, 2002, Margaret M. Angeloni brought a sexual harassment and retaliation claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2000e-17, against the Diocese of Scranton, Villa St. Joseph, and Reverend Alex Hazzouri (collectively "appellees"). The District Court granted appellees' motion for summary judgment on October 22, 2003 and dismissed the state law claims. A timely appeal followed. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. For the reasons that follow, we will affirm.

I. Factual Background

As we write only for the parties, we will confine our discussion to those facts relevant to the instant disposition. Angeloni worked as a dining room and kitchen server at Villa St. Joseph, a home for priests in Pennsylvania, from August of 1996 until January 19, 1998. She was fourteen and fifteen years old. Reverend Hazzouri allegedly began touching her inappropriately a few months after she began working at Villa St. Joseph. She estimated that the touching occurred at least ten times, and always the same way – when she was waiting on Reverand Hazzouri's table, his right hand would come into contact with her left thigh.

In May or June of 1997, Angeloni told her supervisor, Annette Balint, about the touchings, and then in July of 1997, Angeloni told her parents. Also in July, Angeloni's mother had a meeting with Ms. Balint; by that time, Ms. Balint had spoken with Bishop John M. Dougherty, the rector at Villa St. Joseph. Both Ms. Balint and Bishop Dougherty talked to Angeloni's co-workers and to Reverend Hazzouri, and all denied that any inappropriate touching took place. Based on these discussions, they suggested that Angeloni simply stop serving Reverend Hazzouri's table so that she could avoid any discomfort. *fn1 Bishop Dougherty also met with her parents that summer, and tried to reassure them that steps were being taken to make sure that Angeloni was not in any danger.

No further touching took place, but Angeloni stated that in December of 1997, Reverend Hazzouri approached her and told her he was worried about what she had said about him. Angeloni said she was intimidated, and told her parents.

On December 17, 1997, Angeloni's mother met again with Bishop Dougherty and expressed concerns for her daughter's safety. Bishop Dougherty replied that he did not think there was cause for concern, but added that if Mrs. Angeloni was worried, Angeloni could stop working there. He also suggested that they meet with Reverend Hazzouri. Mrs. Angeloni did not want to have such a meeting, and the family instead decided that Angeloni should no longer work at Villa St. Joseph. Angeloni's resignation was effective January 19, 1998. She filed suit more than four years later.

II. Standard of Review

We review the District Court's grant of summary judgment de novo. See Sempier v. Johnson & Higgins, 45 F.3d 724, 727 (3d Cir. 1995). Summary judgment is proper when "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). If the evidence would be insufficient to allow a reasonable jury to find for the non-moving party, summary judgment is warranted. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). In reviewing that evidence, we consider it and all reasonable ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.