## Facts

- Julia Ann Glanzman worked as an on-site apartment manager for Metropolitan Management Corporation and received an apartment as part of her compensation.
- Metropolitan documented multiple incidents of alleged misconduct by Glanzman, including over $900 in collect-call charges to a company line, directing employees to work on her personal rental properties during company time, and charging a dishwasher for her personal use to the company by falsely claiming it was for a tenant.
- After a supervisor discovered the dishwasher misrepresentation, Metropolitan terminated Glanzman; she was 63 years old.
- Glanzman claimed age bias based on remarks attributed to management, including inquiries about her age and retirement plans and an alleged statement that she would be replaced by a younger woman.
- After termination and her pursuit of benefits, Metropolitan required Glanzman to vacate the employer-provided apartment and contested her unemployment compensation.
- Joseph W. Fries, another Metropolitan employee, was listed as a potential witness in Glanzman’s EEOC matter and claimed Metropolitan fired him in retaliation.
- Metropolitan asserted it fired Fries for misuse of company resources and his refusal to provide a written apology; Fries testified he was terminated for refusing to write the apology.

## Issues

1. Whether Glanzman presented direct evidence of age discrimination sufficient to trigger a mixed-motive framework under Price Waterhouse.
2. If so, whether Metropolitan proved it would have terminated Glanzman even absent consideration of age.
3. Whether Metropolitan’s post-termination actions toward Glanzman (loss of employer-provided housing and contesting unemployment benefits) constituted actionable retaliation.
4. Whether Fries produced sufficient evidence of a causal link between protected activity (being listed as an EEOC witness) and his termination to support an ADEA retaliation claim.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Metropolitan in both appeals.
- The court held Glanzman produced direct evidence potentially supporting mixed-motive analysis, but Metropolitan proved it would have fired her anyway based on documented misconduct, especially the dishwasher incident.
- The court held Glanzman failed to show actionable retaliation because the challenged post-termination conduct was not shown to be an adverse action caused by protected activity.
- The court held Fries failed to establish causation for retaliation where his own testimony attributed the termination to refusal to apologize for misuse of company resources.

## Legal Principles

- In ADEA/PHRA mixed-motive cases, direct evidence of discriminatory animus can shift the burden to the employer to prove it would have made the same decision absent the impermissible factor.
- An employer avoids liability under mixed-motive analysis by showing, as a matter of law on an adequate record, that legitimate reasons would have produced the same adverse employment decision.
- Retaliation requires proof of (1) protected activity, (2) an adverse employment action, and (3) a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action.
- Speculation or weak temporal inference is insufficient to establish causation, particularly where record evidence (including the plaintiff’s admissions) supports a non-retaliatory reason for discharge.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit upheld summary judgment for the employer, holding that even though the employee offered evidence of age-related remarks sufficient to trigger mixed-motive analysis, the employer established it would have terminated her for serious misconduct regardless of age, and both retaliation claims failed for lack of a cognizable adverse action or proof of causation.


Glanzman v. Metro. Mgmt. Corp., 391 F.3d 506 (3d Cir. 2004)