The Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court's summary judgment ruling against Beverly Rivera, a former narcotics agent who sued the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General alleging workplace discrimination and hostile work environment.
Rivera, a Puerto Rican woman, began working as a narcotics agent with the Attorney General's Office on Aug. 12, 2019. According to court documents, Rivera's employment started positively but deteriorated as office personnel began expressing concerns about her job performance.
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleged violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act. Rivera claimed she suffered discriminatory treatment and was ultimately terminated based on her race and ethnicity.
According to the appeals court opinion, performance issues became apparent by November 2020, when a firearms instructor documented that Rivera "struggled with" certain aspects of her training and duties. The opinion, filed Jan. 9, 2026, provides limited details about the specific allegations or the timeline of events leading to Rivera's termination.
District Judge John F. Murphy granted the Attorney General's Office motion for summary judgment, finding insufficient evidence to support Rivera's discrimination claims. The district court determined that Rivera failed to establish the elements necessary for her hostile work environment and discriminatory termination claims under federal and state civil rights laws.
On appeal, Rivera challenged the district court's ruling, arguing that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding her discrimination claims. The case was submitted to the Third Circuit under Local Appellate Rule 34.1(a), which allows for disposition without oral argument when the appeal lacks substantial merit.
The three-judge panel consisting of Circuit Judges Shwartz, Matey, and Montgomery-Reeves unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision. Circuit Judge Montgomery-Reeves authored the opinion, which was designated as non-precedential, meaning it cannot be cited as binding authority in future cases.
The appeals court's brief opinion indicates agreement with the district court's analysis that Rivera's claims lacked sufficient factual support to survive summary judgment. Under federal employment discrimination law, plaintiffs must demonstrate that adverse employment actions were motivated by protected characteristics such as race or national origin.
To establish a hostile work environment claim, Rivera would have needed to show that she was subjected to unwelcome conduct based on her protected status that was severe or pervasive enough to alter the terms and conditions of her employment. For discriminatory termination claims, she would need evidence that her firing was motivated by her race or ethnicity rather than legitimate performance concerns.
The case highlights the challenges faced by employees alleging workplace discrimination, particularly when employers can point to documented performance issues. Courts typically require clear evidence that protected characteristics, rather than job performance, motivated adverse employment decisions.
Employment discrimination cases under Title VII and Section 1981 require plaintiffs to establish either direct evidence of bias or meet the burden-shifting framework established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, which requires showing that similarly situated employees outside the protected class were treated more favorably.
The Pennsylvania Human Relations Act provides similar protections against employment discrimination based on race and national origin. However, courts often apply federal precedent when interpreting state civil rights statutes with parallel provisions.
The Attorney General's Office successfully defended against Rivera's claims by demonstrating legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the employment actions taken. Performance documentation, including the firearms instructor's assessment, likely played a role in establishing that Rivera's termination was based on job-related concerns rather than discriminatory animus.
The Third Circuit's affirmance means Rivera has exhausted her appeals options for this case, though the non-precedential nature of the opinion limits its impact on future employment discrimination litigation. The ruling reinforces the importance of thorough documentation when employers face discrimination allegations.
For employees considering discrimination claims, the case underscores the need for evidence beyond subjective feelings of unfair treatment. Successful discrimination cases typically require documentation of biased comments, differential treatment of similarly situated employees, or other concrete evidence of discriminatory intent.
The case also demonstrates how performance issues can complicate discrimination claims, even when employees belong to protected classes. Employers who maintain consistent performance standards and document deficiencies are better positioned to defend against bias allegations.
Rivera's case was originally filed in 2023 and appealed as Case No. 24-3319 following the district court's adverse ruling. The appeals process concluded with the January 2026 opinion affirming the summary judgment dismissal of all claims against the Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office.