Renel Sample v. OPM

── Renel Sample v. OPM ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Date: April 30, 2026 Category: General U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 25-1166 RENEL C. SAMPLE, Appellant v. UNITED STATES OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT _____________________________ Appeal from U.S. District Court, E.D. Pa. Magistrate Judge Lynne A. Sitarski, No. 2:21-cv-01239 Before: KRAUSE, MASCOTT, and FISHER , Circuit Judges Submitted Mar. 12, 2026; Decided Apr. 30, 2026 _____________________________ NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION* KRAUSE, Circuit Judge. Renel Sample, a human resources specialist with more than two decades of service, filed discrimination and retaliation claims against his former employer, the United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM), under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., based on his non-selection for several positions within the agency. Because the District Court did not err in concluding that Sample failed to rebut OPM’s legitimate, non-discriminatory and non-retaliatory reasons for its decisions, we will affirm the Court’s summary judgment in OPM’s favor. * This is not an opinion of the full Court and, under 3d Cir. IOP 5.7, is not binding precedent.  I. DISCUSSION1 A. Discrimination Claim Sample, who began his employment in 2002 as a human resources specialist in OPM’s Philadelphia branch, “is Black [and was] age 54 . . . at the time” the conduct underlying this civil action occurred. Opening Br. 3. His discrimination claim stems from his non-selection for a 120-day temporary detail to serve as a branch manager in the Staff Acquisition Group (SAG) of OPM’s Kansas City branch, a position ultimately given to a locally based, less-than-forty-year-old, white male OPM employee.2 Sample’s discrimination claim is governed by the “familiar McDonnell Douglas burden shifting” framework. Sarullo v. U.S. Postal Serv., 352 F.3d 789, 797 (3d Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (citing McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973)). OPM does not dispute that Sample has made out a prima facie case. Thus, the crux of the parties’ dispute is whether OPM has met its burden to “articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason” for not selecting Sample for the Kansas City temporary detail, McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802, and, assuming the agency has done so, whether Sample has pointed to some evidence in the record establishing that OPM’s proffered reasons were 1 The District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Sargent v. Sch. Dist. of Phila., 165 F.4th 727, 738 n.5 (3d Cir. 2026). 2 Throughout the District Court proceedings, Sample’s discrimination and retaliation claims were premised on his non-selection for four promotional opportunities within OPM over the course of several months: (i) a temporary detail position in Kansas City; (ii) a temporary branch manager position in Philadelphia; (iii) a permanent branch manager position in Philadelphia; and (iv) a temporary detail position in San Antonio. On appeal, however, Sample’s arguments as to his discrimination claim focus solely on the District Court’s grant of summary judgment with respect to the Kansas City temporary detail. 2 “merely a pretext for discrimination” and not the “real motivation” for its decision, Sarullo, 352 F.3d at 797. We agree with the District Court that, at step two of McDonnell Douglas, OPM ha