Bradley Davis v. Wawa Inc

── Bradley Davis v. Wawa Inc ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Date: May 12, 2026 Category: General NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ______________ No. 25-2550 ______________ BRADLEY DAVIS, Appellant v. WAWA ______________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (No. 2:24-cv-01533) District Judge: Joshua D. Wolson ______________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) May 11, 2026 ______________ Before: SHWARTZ, MASCOTT, and McKEE, Circuit Judges. (Filed: May 12, 2026) ______________ OPINION * ____________ SHWARTZ, Circuit Judge. * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7, does not constitute binding precedent.  Bradley Davis appeals the District Court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of his former employer, Wawa, Inc. For the following reasons, we will affirm. I A Davis worked at Wawa as a customer service associate. On September 10, 2022, Davis failed to report to work, and he thereafter received attendance coaching. Davis asserts that on September 13, he was stocking shelves when a supervisor rubbed his chest, touched the small of his back, rubbed his “lower buttocks,” and “had his hand almost in the inside of [Davis’s] pants.” App. 73-75. Davis completed his shift, and Davis and the supervisor never interacted again. On September 17, Davis saw he was scheduled to work at the same time as the supervisor and, because he was not comfortable working with him, called the store to complain about the touching incident. The next day, Davis filed a complaint in person with the store’s managers. The managers spoke with Davis and interviewed the supervisor, who said that he had only touched Davis’s shoulder to move past him. Davis failed to show up to work on September 22 and 24. He claims that he called the store on September 22, spoke with “a manager,” and was “approved . . . not to come in.” App. 83-85. He also stated that he called the store three times on September 24, but 2 no one answered or called him back. Because he failed to appear for work and did not inform his supervisors, Wawa terminated him. 1 Davis complained to Wawa on September 29 about the incident with the supervisor and his termination. A Wawa senior associate relations specialist (“HR”) called him on September 30 and October 4, but Davis did not answer. HR emailed Davis on October 5 but received no immediate response. Almost a month later, Davis provided HR with records of three phone calls to the Wawa store from the morning of September 24, but the records did not indicate who placed the calls or whether they were answered. HR thus determined Davis failed to provide a verifiable explanation for his apparent unexcused absences within the time allowed by Wawa’s conflict resolution process. B Davis sued Wawa, alleging a hostile work environment based on his underlying claim of sexual harassment and retaliation due to his termination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2(a), 2000e-3(a