In Schmelzer v. Slippery Rock University, Alan Schmelzer appealed an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County that entered summary judgment in favor of Slippery Rock University. Alan Schmelzer brought a retaliation claim under Section 955(d) of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.
Alan Schmelzer worked for Slippery Rock University in its maintenance department from October 1990 until his retirement in January 2020. At the time of his retirement, his immediate supervisor was Grounds Manager Edward Grossman, who reported to Director of Campus Services Dallas Cott.
On July 23, 2019, approximately six months before retiring, Alan Schmelzer gave deposition testimony in a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by his co-worker, Dennis Johnston, against Slippery Rock University. During that deposition, Alan Schmelzer testified on behalf of Dennis Johnston. In his testimony, he stated that Dallas Cott had hired unqualified individuals to work at the University. Alan Schmelzer believed that Dallas Cott was aware of his participation in the deposition because he had requested permission to take leave from work in order to testify.
After retiring, Alan Schmelzer regularly returned to campus to visit former co-workers at the maintenance shop and to have lunch with them.
On May 3, 2020, approximately four months after retiring, Alan Schmelzer was fishing at a public lake with his girlfriend, Deborah Rodenbaugh, and another former University employee, Earl Collins. According to Alan Schmelzer, Dallas Cott approached him at the lake and confronted him about his testimony in the Johnston case.
Alan Schmelzer alleged that Dallas Cott verbally confronted him for approximately ten minutes and accused him of lying during the deposition. Alan Schmelzer stated that the interaction occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic when social distancing rules were in place. He testified that Dallas Cott stood close to him during the exchange and that he feared contracting COVID-19 as a result.
Alan Schmelzer further alleged that after the lake incident, Dallas Cott told Edward Grossman that he intended to look out for Alan Schmelzer on campus and would take steps to remove him if he saw him there. Alan Schmelzer did not hear this statement directly from Dallas Cott. Instead, he learned of it from a union steward, Thomas Sanderson, who relayed that Edward Grossman had shared this information.
Alan Schmelzer contacted University police after the incident. He spoke with the Chief of Police, who advised him that the University was open to the public and that Dallas Cott could not prevent him from coming onto campus.
Alan Schmelzer later testified that he never had any further interaction with Dallas Cott after the lake incident. He also testified that he continued to visit the maintenance shop and attended basketball games on campus in the fall of 2020. He stated that no one ever attempted to remove him from campus and that he did not feel deterred from visiting the University.
On February 1, 2022, Alan Schmelzer filed a single-count complaint under Section 955(d) of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act. He alleged that Dallas Cott’s conduct constituted retaliation for his deposition testimony in the Johnston lawsuit.
Alan Schmelzer asserted that as a result of the confrontation, he experienced humiliation and embarrassment in front of Deborah Rodenbaugh, Earl Collins, and other individuals at the lake. He testified that he felt he was being portrayed as a liar. He also stated that he suffered loss of self-esteem and adverse health effects. During his deposition, he acknowledged that he did not seek counseling or therapy following the incident.
After discovery concluded, Slippery Rock University filed a motion for summary judgment on April 26, 2024.
On September 26, 2024, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Slippery Rock University. The trial court analyzed the elements required to establish a prima facie case of retaliation under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.
The trial court determined that Alan Schmelzer satisfied the first element because he engaged in protected activity by testifying in the Johnston case. The court then examined whether he had demonstrated that he was subjected to an adverse employment action.
The trial court concluded that no adverse employment action occurred. It noted that Alan Schmelzer admitted that Dallas Cott never took action to remove him from campus and never directed anyone else to do so. The record showed that Alan Schmelzer continued to visit the maintenance shop and attend campus events after the lake incident. No restriction was placed on his access to University property, and his status as a retired employee remained unchanged.
The trial court also addressed his claims of humiliation, embarrassment, and fear of contracting COVID-19. It determined that these allegations did not establish a materially adverse action affecting employment terms or privileges. Because Alan Schmelzer did not establish the second element of a retaliation claim, the trial court did not address causation.
Alan Schmelzer appealed the summary judgment order to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. On appeal, he challenged the determination that he was not subjected to an adverse employment action.
The Commonwealth Court reviewed the grant of summary judgment under a de novo standard and considered the record in the light most favorable to Alan Schmelzer as the non-moving party.
The court explained that to establish a retaliation claim under Section 955(d), a complainant must show: engagement in protected activity, employer awareness, a subsequent adverse action, and a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action.
The Commonwealth Court discussed the definition of adverse employment action under both Pennsylvania precedent and federal cases interpreting Title VII. It noted that an adverse action must be serious and tangible enough to alter compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, or must constitute materially adverse harm.
The court emphasized that the confrontation occurred after Alan Schmelzer had retired. Because he was no longer employed by Slippery Rock University, the record did not show that the interaction negatively affected a present or future employment relationship. The court further noted that he continued to access campus and attend events without interference.
Regarding the allegation that Dallas Cott called him a liar in public, the court determined that this did not demonstrate a negative impact on employment. The court also observed that Alan Schmelzer did not seek counseling and did not contract COVID-19 as a result of the encounter.
The Commonwealth Court concluded that the alleged conduct did not constitute a materially adverse action under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act. It rejected the argument that the trial court failed to consider relevant precedent and found no error in the application of the governing legal standards.
On January 21, 2026, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the September 26, 2024 order of the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County granting summary judgment in favor of Slippery Rock University.
If you have experienced workplace issues related to military service, reemployment rights, or retaliation for exercising your service-related protections, Whitcomb, Selinsky PC handles matters involving the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act and related employment protections. Contact us to learn how our team can assist with your claim.