## Facts

- Lillian Kachmar worked as senior in-house counsel for SunGard Data Systems, Inc., reporting to General Counsel Lawrence Gross; Donna Pedrick was Vice President of Human Resources.
- Kachmar received positive early evaluations, merit increases, and bonuses tied to exceeding billable-hour goals.
- In 1992, disputes arose involving compensation for a newly hired female attorney and Kachmar’s advocacy on Equal Employment Opportunity matters and opposition to perceived discriminatory practices.
- Kachmar alleged that after engaging in EEO-related advocacy, management reacted negatively, including statements that she was not on the “management track” because of her conduct.
- SunGard terminated Kachmar; she alleged the termination was retaliatory and sex-based.
- After her termination, Kachmar alleged that SunGard-related personnel interfered with prospective employment by telling a potential employer she planned to sue SunGard.

## Issues

1. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged a prima facie Title VII retaliatory discharge claim, including causation, despite limited temporal proximity between protected activity and discharge.
2. Whether attorney-client privilege and confidentiality obligations of a former in-house counsel required dismissal of a Title VII retaliation claim at the pleading stage.
3. Whether summary judgment on the Title VII sex discrimination claim was proper or whether material fact disputes required further proceedings.
4. Whether supervisors Gross and Pedrick could be held individually liable under Title VII.
5. Whether the complaint stated a state-law claim for tortious interference with prospective contractual relations.

## Decision

- Reversed the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of the Title VII retaliation claim and remanded for further proceedings.
- Held that lack of close temporal proximity was not dispositive of causation where other allegations (including a pattern of antagonism) could support an inference of retaliatory motive.
- Rejected a categorical bar on Title VII suits by former in-house counsel based on privilege/confidentiality concerns; such concerns could be managed through case-specific procedures.
- Reversed summary judgment for SunGard on the Title VII sex discrimination claim because the record left genuine disputes of material fact, and additional discovery was warranted.
- Affirmed dismissal of Gross and Pedrick as individual Title VII defendants.
- Affirmed dismissal of the state-law tortious interference claim for failure to state a claim.

## Legal Principles

- Title VII retaliation prima facie case requires: (1) protected activity, (2) adverse action, and (3) a causal link between the two.
- Causation is the element; temporal proximity is only one possible evidentiary route and is neither required nor alone determinative.
- A “pattern of antagonism” and other circumstantial facts following protected activity can support an inference of causation when timing is not close.
- Former in-house counsel are not categorically barred from bringing Title VII claims; privilege and confidentiality issues should generally be handled through protective orders, in camera review, and tailored discovery limits rather than threshold dismissal.
- Individual employees, including supervisors, are not liable as “employers” under Title VII in this context.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit reinstated Kachmar’s Title VII retaliation and sex discrimination claims, holding that causation may be shown through contextual evidence beyond timing and that privilege concerns arising from in-house counsel status do not justify a blanket pleading-stage bar, while also rejecting individual Title VII liability and affirming dismissal of the tortious interference claim.


Kachmar v. SunGard Data Sys., Inc., 109 F.3d 173 (3d Cir. 1997)