Sandra Andreas v. COCA-COLA NORTH AMERICA On Appeal From the United States District Court For the…

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 06-5014
SANDRA ANDREAS
Appellant
v.
COCA-COLA NORTH AMERICA
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil Action No. 06-cv-00357)
Magistrate Judge: Hon. Jacob P. Hart
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
January 11, 2008
BEFORE: FISHER, JORDAN and STAPLETON,
Circuit Judges
(Opinion Filed: January 16, 2008)

-- 1 of 3 --

2
OPINION OF THE COURT
STAPLETON, Circuit Judge:
Appellant Susan Andreas, following termination of her employment with appellee
Coca-Cola North America (“Coca-Cola”), filed this suit in the Court of Common Pleas of
Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, alleging that Coca-Cola discharged her because of her age
(in violation of federal law) and in retaliation for her having filed a claim for workers’
compensation benefits (in violation of Pennsylvania law). Coca-Cola removed the case to
federal court. Thereafter, Andreas voluntarily dismissed her age discrimination claim,
and Coca-Cola moved for summary judgment on her retaliation claim. The District
Court, exercising its supplemental jurisdiction, granted summary judgment in favor of
Coca-Cola.
We affirm essentially for the reasons set forth in the thorough and careful opinion
of the Magistrate Judge. Viewing the summary record in the light most favorable to
Andreas, she has failed to tender a prima facie case of a causal connection between her
termination and her filing for workers’ compensation benefits. Nor has she tendered

-- 2 of 3 --

1I.e., that “it terminated Andreas in accordance with its normal personnel policies and
procedures, because she remained unable to perform the duties of her regular-duty
position after a 90-day modified work assignment, followed by thirteen weeks of short-
term disability leave, and because she was unable to locate a position with Coca-Cola
which she could perform, within the following 30 days.” JA at 17.
3
evidence from which a jury could find that Coca-Cola’s explanation for her termination1
was a pretext.
Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.

-- 3 of 3 --