Mitchell v. Miller (884 F. Supp. 2d 334, 2012)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT

GIBSON, District Judge.

I. SYNOPSIS

This matter comes before the Court on a motion for summary judgment filed by the Defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. ECF No. 31. For the reasons that follow, that motion will be granted in part and denied in part.

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Danielle M. Mitchell (“Mitchell”) enlisted in the 120th cadet class of the Pennsylvania State Police (“PSP”) on October 17, 2005. ECF No. 32-4 at 2. She suffered a stress fracture in her right hip shortly thereafter. ECF Nos. 33 & .40 at ¶ 6. Dr. Darby Hand, a physician employed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s Bureau of Personnel, examined Mitchell on October 20, 2005. ECF No. 40-4 at 3. In a letter dated October 21, 2005, Dr. Hand stated that there was “no reasonable way” that Mitchell could train to be a police officer with a fractured hip. Id. It was recommended that Mitchell return home and seek treatment from an orthopedic surgeon. Id. She conditionally resigned from the PSP that same day. Id. at 12. The terms of Mitchell’s resignation provided that she could be reinstated after receiving medical clearance to engage in the physical activities required of a PSP cadet. ECF No. 32-3 at 26-27.

Mitchell enlisted in the PSP’s 124th cadet class on January 22, 2007. ECF No. 32-4 at 2. On February 1, 2007, she began to experience severe pain in her right groin and hamstring. Id. at 9. It was determined that she had torn a muscle located near her right groin. ECF No. 32-9 at 6. Mitchell conditionally resigned from the PSP on February 12, 2007, with the understanding that she could be reinstated after being cleared for duty. ECF No. 32-3 at 28-29.

The PSP’s 125th cadet class began its training on June 11, 2007. ECF Nos. 33 & 40 at ¶ 1. The class was comprised of sixty cadets, one of whom was Mitchell. Id. at ¶¶ 1-2. The anticipated graduation date for members of the class was December 21, 2007. Id. at ¶ 2. Most of the training activities engaged in by members of the class were conducted at the PSP’s Southwest Training Center (“Center”) in Greensburg, Pennsylvania. Id. at ¶ 4. The remaining activities were held at the PSP’s Academy in Hershey, Pennsylvania. Id. William Potter (“Potter”) and Jason Urbani (“Urbani”) were instructors at the Center. Id. at ¶ 5. Mark W. Greener (“Greener”) was the physical training instructor at the Academy. Id.

Cadets training at the Center or the Academy are required to adhere to the rules and regulations contained in the “Cadet Handbook.” Id. at ¶ 30. Any cadet guilty of wrongdoing is required to acknowledge his or her misconduct in a letter to the appropriate staff member within twenty-four hours of being ordered to do so. ECF No. 32-7 at 29-30. The stated purpose of such a letter is “to deter the [cjadet from behaving in an undesirable manner.” Id. at 34. Under the PSP’s disciplinary system, de minimis infractions result in only the documentation of “wrongdoing or unacceptable behavior,” while more serious infractions can lead to more drastic forms of discipline. Id. at 31-34. First-level infractions can result in counseling or disciplinary training, whereas second-level infractions can “result in disciplinary training, extra duty assignments, restriction, or any combination thereof.” Id. at 31. The most serious violations of PSP rules are classified as third-level infractions, which can result in a cadet’s suspension or dismissal. Id. at 32-34. A cadet who commits seven first-level infractions is guilty of a second-level infraction. Id. at 34. He or she is charged with another second-level infraction upon the commission of five more first-level infractions. Id. A cadet who commits three second-level infractions is guilty of a third-level infraction. Id. at 35. He or she is charged with a second third-level infraction upon the commission of two additional second-level infractions. Id. The accumulation system is more severe when a cadet repeatedly commits the same type of infraction. Where a cadet’s first-level infractions are similar in nature, only five are required to constitute a second-level infraction. Id. at 34. Similarly, a cadet who commits the same second-level infraction on two separate occasions may be charged with a third-level infraction. Id. at 35.

Between June 30, 2007, and December 5, 2007, Mitchell acknowledged in several letters to staff members that she had failed to adhere to the relevant rules and regulations. EOF No. 32-1 at 19-47. The misconduct allegedly engaged in by Mitchell included her failure to preface her questions to staff members with the word “Sir,” her failure to report her illnesses and injuries at the time of formation, her failure to obey specific firearms-related instructions, her failure to properly wear her “uniform tie,” her failure to polish her “campaign hat strap,” her failure to report to class in “full Trooper uniform,” her failure to ask questions in accordance with the proper chain of command, her untruthfulness about the number of push-ups that she had completed, and her unauthorized conversation with another cadet during the course of a swimming exercise. Id. In a desk memorandum dated October 29, 2007, Lieutenant Michael Selgrath (“Selgrath”) informed Corporal Gerald L. Hocker, Jr. (“Hocker”), that he was requesting an Academy Disciplinary Officers’ (“ADO”) inquiry into Mitchell’s “suitability for employment as a Trooper.” ECF No. 32-2 at 7. Hocker was serving as an Assistant ADO at that time. Id. at 2. The memorandum stated that Mitchell’s performance had been unsatisfactory, and that she had been made aware of the request for an ADO inquiry on October 26, 2007. Id.

On November 20, 2007, it was determined that Mitchell’s multiple first-level infractions had rendered her guilty of a second-level infraction. Id. at 18. She was assigned extra duties and ordered to remain at the training facility during an off-duty weekend. Id. Mitchell was informed on December 3, 2007, that additional first-level infractions had caused her to be charged with another second-level infraction. Id. at 17. She was given additional duties and instructed to remain at the training facility “pending the outcome of a disciplinary review.” Id.

Cadets preparing to serve as officers for the PSP are generally required to pass four physical fitness tests. Id. at ¶ 15. Mitchell passed the first two physical fitness tests, which were conducted in June 2007 and August 2007. Id. at ¶ 16. A medical restriction precluded her from undergoing the third test, which was conducted on October 29, 2007. Id. On December 18, 2007, Mitchell failed the fourth and final physical fitness test. ECF No. 32-2 at 64.

Captain Rodney A. Manning (“Manning”) was the Director of the PSP’s Training Division in December 2007. ECF Nos. 33 & 40 at ¶ 41. In a memorandum to Manning dated December 19, 2007, Hocker recommended that Mitchell be immediately dismissed from her employment with the PSP. ECF No. 32-1 at 2-15. The recommendation was based on a finding by Hocker and Assistant ADO William F. Summers (“Summers”) that Mitchell’s commission of the same second-level infraction'on two separate occasions had rendered her guilty of a third-level infraction. Id. at 11-15. Hocker further stated that Mitchell’s repeated infractions had constituted prima facie evidence of “incompetence.” Id. at 14-15.

Selgrath advised Mitchell that she would not be graduating with the other members of the 125th cadet class. ECF Nos. 33 & 40 at ¶ 49. On December 20, 2007, Manning informed Mitchell that Hocker had recommended her dismissal and provided her with an opportunity to refute the allegations against her. Id. at ¶ 50; ECF No. 32-3 at 9. In a memorandum to Manning dated December 21, 2007, Mitchell stated that she had been “punished” and “discriminated” against since her initial injury. ECF No. 32-3 at 10. She accused Potter of telling her that she would never become a “committed and confident” member of the PSP and faulted Urbani for denying her requests for additional training. Id. She explained that her injuries had prevented her from successfully completing some of her “morning runs.” Id. at 11. Mitchell described an incident in which Potter had refused to permit her to remove her mask while she was in the process of vomiting, causing her to risk suffocation. Id. at 11-12. She asserted that Greener had warned her that she would never make it through her “probationary period” even if she were fortunate enough to graduate. Id. at 12. Mitchell concluded her memorandum by expressing her continued desire to serve as a member of the PSP. Id. at 13.

After receiving Mitchell’s memorandum, Manning completed an internal complaint worksheet and turned the matter over to the PSP’s Internal Affairs Division (“IAD”). ECF Nos. 33 & 40 at ¶52. Thirty-eight members of the 125th cadet class graduated on December 21, 2007. Id. at ¶ 3. Among the thirty-eight graduates were thirty-six males and two females. Id.

On January 3, 2008, Manning recommended that Mitchell’s employment with the PSP be terminated. ECF No. 32-3 at 4-8. He summarized the reasons for his recommendation in a five-page memorandum. Id. The memorandum was forwarded to Major Mark E. Lomax (“Lomax”), who was serving as the Director of the PSP’s" Bureau of Training and Education. Lomax expressed his agreement with Manning’s recommendation in a memorandum to Commissioner Jeffrey T. Miller (“Miller”) dated January 7, 2008. Id. at 3.

The investigation resulting from Mitchell’s memorandum of December 21, 2007, was conducted by Sergeant Kenneth A. Karas (“Karas”). ECF Nos. 33 & 40 at ¶ 53. Mitchell supplemented her allegations of misconduct with a memorandum to Karas dated January 25, 2008. ECF No. 32-3 at 23-24. In her supplemental memorandum, Mitchell accused Potter of questioning the credibility of her treating physicians and forcing her to run while injured. Id. at 23. She further stated that many of her letters acknowledging the commission of misconduct had been unwarranted, and that other cadets had not been disciplined for similar missteps. Id. at 23-24. Miller chose to postpone his decision concerning Mitchell’s employment status because of the investigation resulting from her allegations against other PSP officials. ECF Nos. 33 & 40 at ¶ 61. In the meantime, Mitchell was assigned to work at the PSP’s Office of Procurement and Supply in Hershey. Id. at ¶ 92.

During the course of his investigation, Karas interviewed all thirty-eight cadets who had graduated on December 21, 2007. Id. at ¶ 63. He interviewed Mitchell on March 4, 2008. ECF No. 32-5 at 5-44. When questioned about her complaints of discrimination, Mitchell specifically accused Potter, Urbani and Greener of treating her differently because of her sex and medical condition. Id. at 5-44. Mitchell suffered a torn hamstring during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings. ECF Nos. 33 & 40 at ¶ 95. She conditionally resigned from her position with the PSP for the third time on March 11, 2008, with the understanding that she could be reinstated after receiving medical clearance to return to work. ECF No. 32-3 at 30-31.

After reviewing the findings of Karas’ investigation, Manning determined that the allegations of wrongdoing made by Mitchell had been “unfounded.” ECF No. 32-7 at 5, 7. Manning summarized the reasons for his determination in a written report dated April 18, 2008. Id. at 2-7. Lieutenant Colonel John R. Brown (“Brown”), the PSP’s Deputy Commissioner of Administration and Professional Responsibility, recommended on April 24, 2008, that Mitchell’s employment relationship with the PSP be terminated. Id. Miller formally approved Mitchell’s discharge on April 28, 2008. Id. at 20. Linda M. Bonney (“Bonney”), the Director of the PSP’s Bureau of Human Resources, later sent Mitchell a letter informing her of Miller’s decision. ECF No. 24 at ¶ 19.

Mitchell later filed a verified complaint with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (“PHRC”) pursuant to 43 Pa. Stat. § 959(a), alleging that the PSP had discriminated against her because of her sex and disability and retaliated against her for complaining about such discrimination. ECF No. 32-8 at 35-40. The complaint was dual-filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) to exhaust the remedies available to Mitchell under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) [42 U.S.C. § 2000é et seq.] and Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”) [42 U.S.C. § 12111 et seq.]. Id. Mitchell commenced this action against Miller, Bonney, Manning, Greener, Karas, Selgrath, Urbani and Potter on May 18, 2010, alleging violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the applicable provisions of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (“PHRA”) [43 Pa. Stat. § 951 et seq.]. ECF No. 1. At that time, Mitchell’s charge of discrimination was still pending before the EEOC. Id. at ¶ 12.

The Defendants filed a partial motion to dismiss on July 20, 2010, contending that most of Mitchell’s claims were time-barred. ECF Nos. 6 & 7. The partial motion to dismiss was granted in a memorandum opinion and order dated March 23, 2011, 2011 WL 1105650. ECF No. 19. Mitchell was granted leave to file an amended complaint. Id. On May 2, 2011, the EEOC provided Mitchell with written notice of her right to sue the PSP for employment discrimination and retaliation. ECF No. 24-1. Mitchell filed her amended complaint on May 16, 2011. ECF No. 24. She named the PSP as an additional defendant and added claims under Title VII and the ADA. Id. at ¶¶ 40-44.

Selgrath died on July 12, 2011. ECF No. 30 at ¶ 1. On October 25, 2011, the Defendants moved for his dismissal from this case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a)(1). Id. at ¶ 3. They filed a motion for summary judgment on October 31, 2011. ECF No. 31. None of the parties filed a motion for substitution within the ninety-day period established by Rule 25(a)(1). Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(1). Consequently, Selgrath was dismissed as a defendant in this action on February 17, 2012. ECF No. 46. The motion for summary judgment filed by the Defendants is the subject of this memorandum opinion.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Summary judgment may only be granted where the moving party shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact, and that a judgment as a matter of law is warranted. Fed. R. Crv. P. 56(a). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, the Court must enter summary judgment against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish an element essential to his or her case, and on which he or she will bear the burden of proof at trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). In evaluating the evidence, the Court must interpret the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, drawing all reasonable inferences in his or her favor. Watson v. Abington Township, 478 F.3d 144, 147 (3d Cir.2007). The burden is initially on the moving party to demonstrate that the evidence contained in the record does not create a genuine issue of material fact. Conoshenti v. Public Service Electric & Gas Co., 364 F.3d 135, 140 (3d Cir.2004). A dispute is “genuine” if the evidence is such that a reasonable trier of fact could render a finding in favor of the nonmoving party. McGreevy v. Stroup, 413 F.3d 359, 363 (3d Cir.2005). Where the nonmoving party will bear the burden of proof at trial, the moving party may meet its burden by showing that the admissible evidence contained in the record would be insufficient to carry the non-moving party’s burden of proof. Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548. Once the moving party satisfies its burden, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party, who must go beyond his or her pleadings and designate specific facts by the use of affidavits, depositions, admissions or answers to interrogatories showing that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. Id. at 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548. The nonmoving party cannot defeat a well-supported motion for summary judgment by simply reasserting unsupported factual allegations contained in his or her pleadings. Williams v. Borough of West Chester, 891 F.2d 458, 460 (3d Cir.1989).

IV. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

The Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over Mitchell’s federal claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3) and 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a). Supplemental jurisdiction over her PHRA claims is predicated on 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

V. DISCUSSION

Mitchell asserts First Amendment claims against Miller, Bonney, Manning, Greener, Karas, Urbani and Potter. ECF Nos. 24 at ¶¶ 32-35. She alleges that these defendants effectuated her discharge in retaliation for complaints that she had lodged against Greener, Urbani and Potter. Id. Mitchell avers that Greener, Ur-bani and Potter violated her rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by subjecting her to adverse treatment because of her sex. Id. at ¶¶ 36-38. Her federal claims against the PSP are sex- and disability-based discrimination claims arising under Title VII and the ADA. Id. at ¶¶ 39-44. Mitchell also brings PHRA claims against the PSP and the individual defendants. Id. at ¶¶ 45-48.

A. The Federal Constitutional Claims

Mitchell brings her federal constitutional claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides that “[ejvery person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.... ” 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This statutory provision does not create substantive rights. Maher v. Gagne, 448 U.S. 122, 129, n. 11, 100 S.Ct. 2570, 65 L.Ed.2d 653 (1980) (observing that § 1983 “does not create substantive rights at all, but merely provides a remedy for the violation of rights conferred by the Constitution or other statutes”). A plaintiff cannot prevail in an action brought under § 1983 without establishing an underlying violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right. City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams, 544 U.S. 113, 119-120, 125 S.Ct. 1453, 161 L.Ed.2d 316 (2005).

1. The Equal Protection Clause Claims

The first step in the Court’s analysis is to “identify the exact contours of the underlying right said to have been violated.” County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 841, n. 5, 118 S.Ct. 1708, 140 L.Ed.2d 1043 (1998). The Equal Protection Clause provides that “[n]o State shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” U.S. Const., Amend. XIV, § 1. This constitutional provision “protects each person within a State’s jurisdiction (i.e., a “class of one”) from arbitrary or irrational discrimination.” McKivitz v. Township of Stowe, 769 F.Supp.2d 803, 830-831 (W.D.Pa.2010) (emphasis in original), citing Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564, 120 S.Ct. 1073, 145 L.Ed.2d 1060 (2000) (per curiam). For this reason, a plaintiff can ordinarily pursue a claim under the Equal Protection Clause without alleging discrimination based on his or her membership in a particular class. Garcia v. Newtown Township, 819 F.Supp.2d 416, 433, n. 12 (E.D.Pa.2011). This general rule, however, does not apply to claims arising in the context of public employment. Because “employment decisions are quite often subjective and individualized, resting on a wide array of factors that are difficult to articulate and quantify,” a public employee cannot establish a violation of the Equal Protection Clause merely by showing that a personnel action taken against him or her was arbitrary or irrational. Engquist v. Oregon Department of Agriculture, 553 U.S. 591, 604-605, 128 S.Ct. 2146, 170 L.Ed.2d 975 (2008). Instead, a public employee attempting to establish a violation of the Equal Protection Clause must demonstrate that the challenged personnel action was taken because of his or her class membership. Id. at 605, 128 S.Ct. 2146 (explaining that “the Equal Protection Clause is implicated when the government makes class-based decisions in the employment context, treating distinct groups of individuals categorically differently”).

Mitchell alleges that Greener, Ur-bani and Potter violated her rights under the Equal Protection Clause by harassing, humiliating, intimidating, demeaning and ridiculing her “because she was a woman.” ECF No. 24 at ¶ 37. Discrimination perpetrated because of an individual’s sex is actionable in the public employment setting. Engquist, 553 U.S. at 604, 128 S.Ct. 2146 (remarking that “discriminatory classifications” based on sex “implicate basic equal protection concerns”); Nevada Dept. of Human Resources v. Hibbs, 538 U.S. 721, 726-740, 123 S.Ct. 1972, 155 L.Ed.2d 953 (2003) (recognizing that Congress’ authority to enforce the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment includes the power to remedy and deter sex-based discrimination engaged in by public employers). Greener, Urbani and Potter do not take issue with this basic principle. Instead, they argue that Mitchell’s claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. ECF No. 34 at 14-15.

The affirmative defense raised by Greener, Urbani and Potter is grounded in 42 U.S.C. § 1988(a), which provides:

§ 1988. Proceedings in vindication of civil rights

(a) Applicability of statutory and common law. The jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters conferred on the district and circuit courts [district courts] by the provisions of this Title, and of Title “CIVIL RIGHTS,” and of Title “CRIMES,” for the protection of all persons in the United States in their civil rights, and for their vindication, shall be exercised and enforced in conformity with the laws of the United States, so far as such laws are suitable to carry the same into effect; but in all cases where they are not adapted to the object, or are deficient in the provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies and punish offenses against law, the common law, as modified and changed by the constitution and statutes of the State wherein the court having jurisdiction of such civil or criminal cause is held, so far as the same is not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States, shall be extended to and govern the said courts in the trial and disposition of the cause, and, if it is of a criminal nature, in the infliction of punishment on the party found guilty.

42 U.S.C. § 1988(a). Because there is no federal statute of limitations applicable to claims arising under § 1983, the United States Supreme Court has construed § 1988(a) to mean that such claims are subject to the statutes of limitations applicable under state law. Board of Regents v. Tomanio, 446 U.S. 478, 484, 100 S.Ct. 1790, 64 L.Ed.2d 440 (1980) (observing that, in actions brought under § 1983, state statutes of limitations are “binding rules of law”). The statute of limitations applicable to actions brought under § 1983 in a particular State is the statute of limitations applicable to actions brought in that State to recover damages for personal injuries. Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 276-280, 105 S.Ct. 1938, 85 L.Ed.2d 254 (1985). In Pennsylvania, the relevant limitations period is two years. 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5524(2), (7); Smith v. City of Pittsburgh, 764 F.2d 188, 194 (3d Cir.1985).

Mitchell’s Equal Protection Clause claims against Greener, Urbani and Potter all stem from their alleged mistreatment of her during her time at the Center and the Academy. ECF No. 24 at ¶¶ 36-38. Mitchell testified that she had not seen Urbani or Potter after writing her memorandum to Manning. ECF No. 32-9 at 27. That memorandum was dated December 21, 2007, which would have been Mitchell’s graduation date. ECF No. 32-3 at 10. Although Mitchell stated that she had seen Greener in Hershey subsequent to that date, she did not describe any acts of discrimination during that period of time. ECF No. 32-9 at 19-20. On March 11, 2008, Mitchell conditionally resigned from her position with the PSP. ECF No. 32-3 at 30-31. Aside from proceedings conducted in connection with this action, Mitchell never interacted with Greener, Urbani or Potter again. ECF No. 32-9 at 20. This action was commenced on May 18, 2010. ECF No. 1. Since more than two years elapsed between the discriminatory acts alleged by Mitchell and the commencement of this action, her claims under the Equal Protection Clause are barred by Pennsylvania’s two-year statute of limitations.

In an attempt to overcome the statute-of-limitations defense, Mitchell argues that the actions of Greener, Urbani and Potter should be viewed as one part of a “continuing violation” of her constitutional rights that did not end until she was discharged. ECF No. 41 at 22-24. This argument is unavailing. In National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 113-118, 122 S.Ct. 2061, 153 L.Ed.2d 106 (2002), a case governed by Title VII’s anti-discrimination provision, the Supreme Court distinguished between “discrete discriminatory acts” that are individually actionable and acts of harassment that, while not individually actionable, may collectively subject an employer to liability under a “hostile work environment” theory. Speaking through Justice Thomas, the Supreme Court explained that since “[discrete acts such as termination, failure to promote, denial of transfer, or refusal to hire are easy to identify,” “[e]ach incident of discrimination and each retaliatory adverse employment decision constitutes a separate actionable ‘unlawful employment practice.’ ” Morgan, 536 U.S. at 114, 122 S.Ct. 2061. The Supreme Court went on to clarify that a “hostile work environment” claim is timely whenever “an act contributing to the claim occurs within the filing period.” Id. at 117, 122 S.Ct. 2061.

In O’Connor v. City of Newark, 440 F.3d 125, 128-129 (3d Cir.2006), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit extended the standard established in Morgan to claims arising under § 1983. Consequently, that standard governs the timeliness of Mitchell’s claims under the Equal Protection Clause. Since Mitchell’s termination was a “discrete act” of alleged discrimination, it cannot be treated as merely one part of a “continuing violation” of her constitutional rights. Mikula v. Allegheny County, 583 F.3d 181, 185-186 (3d Cir.2009). The conduct engaged in by Greener, Urbani and Potter must be viewed separately. Id.

A public employer violates the Equal Protection Clause when it subjects a public employee to a “hostile work environment” because of his or her sex. White v. Dept. of Correctional Services, 814 F.Supp.2d 374, 392 (S.D.N.Y.2011). In order for such a claim to be timely, however, “an act contributing to the claim” must occur within the applicable “filing period.” Morgan, 536 U.S. at 117, 122 S.Ct. 2061. During her deposition, Mitchell acknowledged that she had not interacted with Greener, Urbani or Potter subsequent to her conditional resignation on March 11, 2008. ECF No. 32-9 at 20, 27. More than two years elapsed between that date and the commencement of this action. Therefore, Mitchell’s claims under the Equal Protection Clause are barred by the statute of limitations even if they are properly treated as “hostile work environment” claims. Morgan, 536 U.S. at 117-118, 122 5.Ct. 2061. The Defendants’ motion for summary judgment will be granted with respect to those claims. ECF No. 24 at ¶¶ 36-38.

2. The First Amendment Claims

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably- to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

U.S. Const., Amend. I. Mitchell’s First Amendment claims against the individual defendants appear to be grounded in the Free Speech and Petition Clauses. ECF No. 24 at ¶¶ 32-35. Those provisions apply to state actors because of their incorporation within the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414, 420, 108 S.Ct. 1886, 100 L.Ed.2d 425 (1988).

It was once unchallenged dogma that the Constitution did not provide a public employee with a basis for objecting to the terms or conditions of his or her employment, even where such terms or conditions restricted the exercise of constitutional rights. Adler v. Board of Education, 342 U.S. 485, 492, 72 S.Ct. 380, 96 L.Ed. 517 (1952) (stating that public employees had no constitutional right to work for the government “on their own terms,” and that those who did not wish to conform to state-imposed conditions of employment were “at liberty to retain their beliefs and associations and go elsewhere”). More recently, however, the Supreme Court has declared that-“a State cannot condition public employment on a basis that infringes the employee’s constitutionally protected interest in freedom of expression.” Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 142, 103 S.Ct. 1684, 75 L.Ed.2d 708 (1983). The test used to determine whether a public employer has transgressed this proscription has its genesis in Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563, 88 S.Ct. 1731, 20 L.Ed.2d 811 (1968), in which the Supreme Court explained:

“The theory that public employment which may be denied altogether may be subject to any conditions, regardless of how unreasonable, has been uniformly rejected.” Keyishian v. Board of Regents, [385 U.S. 589, 605-606, 87 S.Ct. 675, 17 L.Ed.2d 629 (1967)]. At the same time it cannot be gainsaid that the State has interests as an employer in regulating the speech of its employees that differ significantly from those it possesses in connection with regulation of the speech of the citizenry in general. The problem in any case is to arrive at a balance between the interests of the teacher, as a citizen, in commenting upon matters of public concern and the interest of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.

Pickering, 391 U.S. at 568, 88 S.Ct. 1731 (emphasis added). This language in Pickering describes the framework that must be employed in determining whether the First Amendment prohibits a public employer from discharging or disciplining an employee in response to his or her speech.

Decisions rendered subsequent to Pickering illustrate that the precise language used in that decision must be taken seriously. For expression to enjoy the particular form of constitutional protection provided under Pickering, it must come from a public employee who is speaking “as a citizen.” Id. In Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 421, 126 S.Ct. 1951, 164 L.Ed.2d 689 (2006), the Supreme Court held that public employees “are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes” when they “make statements pursuant to their official duties.” The rule established in Garcetti reflects a public employer’s prerogative to control “what the employer itself has commissioned or created.” Garcetti 547 U.S. at 422, 126 S.Ct. 1951. In Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 147, 103 S.Ct. 1684, 75 L.Ed.2d 708 (1983), the Supreme Court held that the Free Speech Clause does not prevent a public employer from taking disciplinary action against an employee who speaks about matters of only “personal interest.” The decision in Connick gives effect to the language in Pickering referring to a public employee’s interest in “commenting upon matters of public concern.” Pickering, 391 U.S. at 568, 88 S.Ct. 1731.

Where a public employee speaks “as a citizen” about “matters of public concern” and is disciplined in retaliation for that speech, “the possibility of a First Amendment claim arises.” Garcetti 547 U.S. at 418, 126 S.Ct. 1951. In that situation, the legality of the disciplinary action generally turns on “whether the relevant government entity ha[s] an adequate justification for treating the employee differently from any other member of the general public,” whether the employee’s speech “has some potential to affect the entity’s operations,” and whether the concomitant restrictions on speech are necessary to the entity’s efficient and effective operation. Id. at 418-419, 126 S.Ct. 1951. Consideration may also be given to whether the speech “impairs discipline by superiors or harmony among co-workers,” “has a detrimental impact on close working relationships for which personal loyalty and confidence are necessary,” “impedes the performance of the speaker’s duties,” or “interferes with the regular operation of the enterprise.” Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378, 388, 107 S.Ct. 2891, 97 L.Ed.2d 315 (1987). Where a public employee speaks not “as a citizen,” but rather pursuant to his or her official duties, “the Constitution does not insulate [his or her] communications from employer discipline.” Garcetti 547 U.S. at 421, 126 S.Ct. 1951. Similarly, where a public employee’s speech does not involve a matter of public concern, the First Amendment does not prevent his or her employer from taking disciplinary action in response to that speech. City of San Diego v. Roe, 543 U.S. 77, 82-83, 125 S.Ct. 521, 160 L.Ed.2d 410 (2004) (explaining that “a public employee’s speech must touch on a matter of ‘public concern’ ” in order to “merit Pickering balancing”).

The Supreme Court’s decisions applying Pickering and its progeny recognize that “[t]he government’s interest in achieving its goals as effectively and efficiently as possible is elevated from a relatively subordinate interest when it acts as sovereign to a significant one when it acts as employer.” Waters v. Churchill, 511 U.S. 661, 675, 114 S.Ct. 1878, 128 L.Ed.2d 686 (1994) (plurality opinion). In order to avail itself of such latitude, however, a government must truly be acting “as an employer.” Pickering, 391 U.S. at 568, 88 S.Ct. 1731. In Connick, the Supreme Court remarked that “an employee’s false criticism of his employer on grounds not of public concern may be cause for his discharge but would be entitled to the same protection in a libel action accorded an identical statement made by a man on the street.” Connick, 461 U.S. at 147, 103 S.Ct. 1684. This observation in Connick reflects the fact that statements made by a public employee pursuant to his or her official duties, or regarding matters of purely personal interest, may be characterized as “unprotected” only “in the sense that employment-related sanctions may be imposed on the basis of such statements.” Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 466 U.S. 485, 504, n. 22, 104 S.Ct. 1949, 80 L.Ed.2d 502 (1984) (emphasis added). Where speech falls “within the general ambit of First Amendment protection” but outside of the “more narrow protection” afforded to the speech of public employees under Pickering, a governmental entity’s ability to discharge or discipline an employee does not provide it with a license to “impose additional sanctions” through the invocation of its “sovereign authority.” Schlarp v. Dern, 610 F.Supp.2d 450, 464, n. 8 (W.D.Pa.2009). The fact that a public employee’s speech may lack constitutional protection from employment-related discipline does not mean that such speech is “totally beyond the protection of the First Amendment.” Connick, 461 U.S. at 147, 103 S.Ct. 1684. There are many forms of expression that could justify a public employee’s termination or suspension even though they would not provide a lawful basis for subjecting the employee to sanctions extending beyond the employment relationship (e.g., criminal punishment, civil liability, or the revocation of a professional license necessary to enable the employee to pursue a particular calling or seek employment with other entities). Schlarp, 610 F.Supp.2d at 464, n. 8.

A plaintiff seeking to prevail in a case governed by Pickering must establish the existence of a causal relationship between his or her speech and the challenged employment action. Stephens v. Kerrigan, 122 F.3d 171, 180 (3d Cir.1997). In Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 97 S.Ct. 568, 50 L.Ed.2d 471 (1977), the Supreme Court made the following observations about the issue of causation in the First Amendment context:

A borderline or marginal candidate should not have the employment question resolved against him because of constitutionally protected conduct. But that same candidate ought not to be able, by engaging in such conduct, to prevent his employer from assessing his performance record and reaching a decision not to rehire on the basis of that record, simply because the protected conduct makes the employer more certain of the correctness of its decision.

Doyle, 429 U.S. at 286, 97 S.Ct. 568. Under Doyle, a plaintiff asserting a First Amendment retaliation claim bears the initial burden of demonstrating that his or her speech was a “substantial” or “motivating” factor behind the employment action at issue. Id. at 287, 97 S.Ct. 568. If such a showing is made, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it would have taken the same action in the absence of the employee’s speech. Id. The issue of causation presents a question of fact. Baldassare v. New Jersey, 250 F.3d 188, 195 (3d Cir.2001).

The Petition Clause provides individuals with a “particular freedom” to communicate with public officials. McDonald v. Smith, 472 U.S. 479, 482, 105 S.Ct. 2787, 86 L.Ed.2d 384 (1985). “Whereas the Free Speech Clause protects the right to ‘wide-open’ debate, the Petition Clause encompasses only activity directed to a government audience.” Foraker v. Chaffinch, 501 F.3d 231, 237 (3d Cir.2007). In Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri, — U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 2488, 2496, 180 L.Ed.2d 408 (2011), the Supreme Court held that the rule adopted in Con-nick applies with equal force to claims arising under the Petition Clause, and that constitutional protection does not extend to grievances relating only to matters such as “working conditions, pay, discipline, promotions, leave, vacations, and terminations.” Speaking through Justice Kennedy, the Supreme Court explained:

Of course in one sense the public may always be interested in how government officers are performing their duties. But as the Connick and Pickering test has evolved, that will not always suffice to show a matter of public concern. A petition that “involves nothing more than a complaint about a change in the employee’s own duties” does not relate to a matter of public concern and accordingly “may give rise to discipline without imposing any special burden of justification on the government employer.” United States v. Treasury Employees, 513 U.S. 454, 466, 115 S.Ct. 1003, 130 L.Ed.2d 964 (1995). The right of a public employee under the Petition Clause is a right to participate as a citizen, through petitioning activity, in the democratic process. It is not a right to transform everyday employment disputes into matters for constitutional litigation in the federal courts.

Guarnieri, 131 S.Ct. at 2501. In the aftermath of Guarnieri, public employees enjoy constitutional protection from retaliatory discipline for their petitioning activities only when such activities “seek to advance political, social, or other ideas of interest to the community as a whole.” Id. at 2498.

Mitchell alleges that each of the individual defendants violated her First Amendment rights by retaliating against her for complaints that she had voiced against Greener, Urbani and Potter. ECF No. 24 at ¶ 33. Two basic principles control the Court’s consideration of these claims. First, a state official sued under § 1983 may be held personally liable only “for his or her own misconduct.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). In this context, liability cannot be premised on a theory of respondeat superior. Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195, 1207 (3d Cir.1988). In order to hold an individual defendant liable under § 1983, Mitchell must establish that he or she was personally involved in the violation of her First Amendment rights. Evancho v. Fisher, 423 F.3d 347, 353-354 (3d Cir.2005). Second, the issue of causation pertaining to a First Amendment claim against a particular defendant generally turns on his or her “specific intent” at the time of the alleged retaliatory action. Monteiro v. City of Elizabeth, 436 F.3d 397, 404 (3d Cir.2006). In this vein, Mitchell must demonstrate that her expressive activities were a “substantial” or “motivating” factor behind the conduct engaged in by a particular defendant in order to hold that defendant liable for violating her First Amendment rights. Ansell v. Ross Township, Civil Action No. 09-1398, 2012 WL 1038825, at *28, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43127, at *84-85 (W.D.Pa. Mar. 28, 2012).

The documentary record contains a copy of letter from Bonney to Mitchell dated May 18, 2008. ECF No. 32-3 at 15. The letter purported to inform Mitchell that she had been dismissed as a PSP cadet on April 28, 2008. Id. In her amended complaint, Mitchell alleges that she never received Bonney’s letter. ■ ECF No. 24 at ¶ 19. Mitchell avers that she learned of her termination during the middle of June 2008, when she received a “letter of termination” from Manning dated May 29, 2008. Id. During her deposition, Mitchell testified that she had received termination letters from both Manning and Bonney; and that both of the letters had been dated May 29, 2008. ECF No. 32-9 at 32.

Mitchell relies on the discrepancy involving the letters as evidence of Bonney’s “involvement in the unlawful plan” to effectuate her dismissal.- ECF No. 24 at ¶ 19. It is not entirely clear how Mitchell believes that the different dates appearing on the letters have probative value with respect to Bonney’s alleged involvement in the termination decision. Miller approved Mitchell’s dismissal on April 28, 2008. ECF No. 32-7 at 20. The manner in which Mitchell was informed of Miller’s decision has no bearing on whether Bonney engaged in unconstitutional conduct.

In a declaration signed on October 27, 2011, Bonney stated that she had played no role in the decision to dismiss Mitchell. .ECF No. 32-7 at 14, ¶ 2. Bonney further declared that her role had been limited to the ministerial duty of informing Mitchell of a dismissal decision that had already been made by Miller. Id. at 14-15, ¶ 3. Mitchell points to nothing in the record which contradicts Bonney’s declaration. ECF No. 41 at 22. Nothing in the record suggests that Bonney played an active role in determining whether Mitchell’s employment with the PSP should be terminated. Since Bonney had no personal involvement in the termination decision, the First Amendment claims asserted against her must be dismissed. Evancho, 423 F.3d at 353-354.

Karas testified that he had first become aware of Mitchell’s involvement with the PSP in January 2008. ECF No. 40-1 at 3. By that time, Hocker had already recommended that Mitchell be dismissed. ECF No. 32-1 at 2-15. Karas was selected to handle the IAD investigation into the allegations contained in Mitchell’s memorandum of December 21, 2007. ECF Nos. 33 & 40 at ¶ 53. Manning and Lo-max both recommended Mitchell’s dismissal while the IAD investigation was still underway. ECF No. 32-3 at 2-8. In a declaration signed on October 25, 2011, Miller stated that he had delayed making his decision concerning Mitchell’s status until after the completion of the IAD investigation. ECF No. 32-7 at 18, ¶ 4. Karas interviewed Mitchell on March 4, 2008. ECF No. 32-5 at 5-44; ECF No. 32-6. Corporal Beth Santelli (“Santelli”) was present for the interview. ECF No. 32-5 at 5. The investigation conducted by Karas also included interviews with the thirty-eight cadets who had graduated on December 21, 2007. ECF No. 32-7 at 3-4. The cadets apparently denied that Mitchell had been treated unfairly. Id. After reviewing the findings of the IAD investigation, Manning determined that the allegations contained in Mitchell’s memorandum had been “unfounded.” ECF No. 32-7 at 2-7. He articulated this determination in a report dated April 18, 2008. Id. On April 24, 2008, Brown recommended that Mitchell’s employment with the PSP be terminated. Id. at 22. Miller formally dismissed Mitchell on April 28, 2008. Id. at 20.

In a declaration dated December 16, 2011, Mitchell blamed Urbani and Potter for turning the other cadets against her. ECF No. 42 at 4, ¶ 10. She did not deny that the cadets had refuted her allegations of unfair treatment during their interviews with Karas. Indeed, she stated that the cadets “hated” her. Id. Mitchell’s First Amendment claims against Karas appear to be based on his alleged failure to competently investigate her allegations of misconduct. Id. at 3-5, ¶ 9-13.

Nothing in the record suggests that Karas played an active role in terminating Mitchell’s employment. Greener, Urbani and Potter were the “subjects” of the IAD investigation. ECF No. 32-7 at 2. Karas did not directly evaluate Mitchell’s suitability to serve as a police officer. Had Karas uncovered evidence suggesting that Greener, Urbani and Potter were guilty of wrongdoing, he might have prevented Mitchell’s discharge. After all, Miller decided not to proceed with the recommended dismissal precisely because he wanted to wait for the results of the IAD investigation. Id. at 18, ¶ 4. Nonetheless, it does not follow that Karas can be held liable for violating Mitchell’s First Amendment rights merely because he found her “speech” to be lacking in credibility. If it were otherwise, a plaintiff could insulate himself or herself from impending disciplinary actions simply by questioning the basis for those actions. Lauren W. v. DeFlaminis, 480 F.3d 259, 267-268 (3d Cir.2007). Karas became involved in the matter because of Mitchell’s “speech.” Even if his investigation was somehow inadequate, his failure to affirmatively prevent the PSP from discharging Mitchell cannot be reasonably characterized as an attempt to retaliate against her for triggering the investigation in the first place. On the basis of the existing record, no reasonable trier of fact could conclude that Karas was personally involved in the challenged termination decision. Gagliardi v. Fisher, 513 F.Supp.2d 457, 473-474 (W.D.Pa.2007) (finding an allegation that a state official had failed to cooperate in an investigation to be insufficient to establish the official’s direct involvement in the constitutional violations alleged). The First Amendment claims asserted against Karas will be dismissed.

Unlike Bonney and Karas, the remaining individuals named as defendants played a direct role in the termination of Mitchell’s employment. Greener, Urbani and Potter each charged Mitchell with infractions during the course of her training. ECF No. 32-1 at 20, 27-35, 38-47. Manning recommended Mitchell’s dismissal on January 3, 2008. ECF No. 32-3 at 4-8. This recommendation was based, in large part, on the number of infractions that Mitchell had accumulated. Id. at 5, 7. Miller ultimately approved Mitchell’s dismissal on April 28, 2008. ECF No. 32-7 at 20.

Mitchell alleges that these five individuals retaliated against her for complaining about the “unlawful treatment” that she had suffered at the hands of Greener, Ur-bani and Potter. ECF No. 24 at 133. Construing Mitchell’s allegations to mean that she suffered retaliation because of the statements that she had made in her memorandum of December 21, 2007, the Defendants argue that the memorandum was prepared pursuant to her “official duties” and, therefore, unprotected from employer discipline under the rule established in Garcetti ECF No. 34 at 5, n. 3. The record indicates that the memorandum was prepared at Manning’s direction. ECF No. 32-3 at 9. Mitchell’s First Amendment claims, however, are not based on the memorandum alone. Instead, they are also based on less formal complaints that she voiced on previous occasions. ECF No. 41 at 17.

Sergeant Calvin Andrews (“Andrews”) served as the Station Commander for the Center during the fall of 2007. ECF No. 43-1 at ¶ 1. In a declaration dated December 17, 2011, Andrews stated that both Mitchell and her mother had contacted him and characterised the behavior of Ur-bani and Potter as “gender discrimination and harassment.” Id. at ¶ 3. Andrews further declared that he had spoken to Potter about the matter “and counseled him to avoid any actions that could be construed as discriminatory or retaliatory.” Id. at ¶ 4. In her declaration, Mitchell stated that Potter had directly confronted her about her conversation with Andrews, and that he had threatened to have her terminated if she continued to “stir the pot.” ECF No. 42 at ¶ 3. She also declared that Potter had refused to let her speak with a “disciplinary officer” about the situation. Id. When questioned about her encounter with Potter, Mitchell testified as follows:

Q. Did you know that there’s an Equal Opportunity Office?

A. Yep. Yes. Can I elaborate on that?

Q. Yeah.

A. I was told by Trooper Potter that if I did anything stupid or silly, if I come back on him by reporting him in whatever means, that he would have me fired. I’d be terminated. I’d be gone. He’s on the phone right now with Selgrath, I’d be gone. And this was not a democracy at the academy. So I don’t — you know, for me to report that, you know, my taking the chance of being terminated, because I want to tell the truth or I just sit here and hunker down and take the abuse until the end, until I graduate. Well, I didn’t graduate.

ECF No. 32-9 at 28. This testimonial evidence could enable a reasonable trier of fact to conclude that Potter charged Mitchell with infractions in retaliation for her complaints to Andrews. Given the impact that such infractions had on Mitchell’s employment prospects, it is clear that they could have “deterred a person of ordinary firmness from exercising his or her First Amendment rights.” McKee v. Hart, 436 F.3d 165, 173 (3d Cir.2006).

It is not clear how Mitchell believes that her complaints to Andrews or her memorandum to Manning were “substantial” or “motivating” factors behind the actions taken by the other defendants. Reilly v. City of Atlantic City, 532 F.3d 216, 224 (3d Cir.2008). Although Andrews relayed Mitchell’s complaints to Potter, Mitchell points to nothing in the record which suggests that Greener and Urbani knew about them. ECF No. 41 at 19; Gorum v. Sessoms, 561 F.3d 179, 188 (3d Cir.2009) (recognizing that a plaintiff attempting to establish a First Amendment violation on a theory of retaliation must demonstrate that the relevant defendant was aware of his or her constitutionally protected conduct at the time of the alleged retaliatory act). Mitchell’s memorandum to Manning postdated the infractions charged to her by Greener, Urbani and Potter. ECF No. 32-3 at 10-13. Moreover, the memorandum was written precisely because Hocker had already recommended Mitchell’s dismissal. ECF No. 32-1 at 2-15. Manning’s recommendation was consistent with that of Hocker. ECF No. 32-3 at 4-8. Instead of immediately acting on the collective advice of Hocker, Manning and Lomax, Miller delayed Mitchell’s discharge so that Karas could complete the IAD investigation. ECF No. 32-7 at 18, ¶4. The investigation uncovered no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Greener, Urbani and Potter. ECF No. 32-7 at 5, 7. When Miller finally decided to discharge Mitchell, he acted in accordance with the recommendations made by Hocker, Manning, Lomax and Brown. ECF No. 32-7 at 20, 22. Hocker made his recommendation before Mitchell’s complaints had come to light. ECF No. 32-1 at 2-15. An employer’s decision to proceed “along lines previously contemplated, though not yet definitively determined, is no evidence whatever of causality.” Clark County School District v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268, 272, 121 S.Ct. 1508, 149 L.Ed.2d 509 (2001) (per curiam). Consequently, Mitchell can satisfy her evidentiary burden pertaining to causation only with respect to her First Amendment claims against Potter.

The remaining question is whether Mitchell’s complaints to Andrews enjoyed constitutional protection from employer discipline under Pickering and its progeny. Under the present eircumstances, there is no need for the Court to consider whether Mitchell voiced her complaints pursuant to her official duties, or whether her interest in speaking was outweighed by the PSP’s interest in maintaining “the effective and efficient management of its internal affairs.” Guamieri, 131 S.Ct. at 2500. On the basis of the existing record, the Court cannot conclude that Mitchell’s statements to Andrews related to matters of public concern. Id. at 2501.

“Speech implicates a matter of public concern if the content, form, and context establish that the speech involves a matter of political, social, or other concern to the community.” Miller v. Clinton County, 544 F.3d 542, 548 (3d Cir.2008). The “public concern” inquiry required under Connick presents a question of law for the Court to decide. Connick, 461 U.S. at 148, n. 7, 103 S.Ct. 1684; Page v. Connecticut Dept. of Public Safety, 185 F.Supp.2d 149, 161 (D.Conn.2002) (“The question of whether certain speech is protected under the First Amendment is one of law, not fact.”). A critical factor in determining whether an employee’s expression relates to a matter of public concern is whether it is fairly analogous to expressive or petitioning activities typically “engaged in by citizens who do not work for the government.” Garcetti, 547 U.S. at 423, 126 S.Ct. 1951. When a public employee speaks only about internal personnel matters, “there is no relevant analogue to speech by citizens who are not government employees.” Id. at 424, 126 S.Ct. 1951.

According to Andrews, Mitchell reported to him that she had been “the subject of gender discrimination and harassment by Urbani and Potter.” ECF No. 43-1 at ¶ 3. Mitchell testified that she had complained to Andrews about “being targeted as a female.” ECF No. 32-9 at 27. The record does not reveal the precise content of Mitchell’s statements. That is problematic from an evidentiary standpoint, since the existence or absence of constitutional protection under Pickering often turns on precisely what a public employee says to his or her employer. Connick, 461 U.S. at 147-148, 103 S.Ct. 1684 (“Whether an employee’s speech addresses a matter of public concern must be determined by the content, form, and context of a given statement, as revealed by the whole record.”) (emphasis added). The context in which Mitchell complained, however, suggests that she was speaking only about the circumstances surrounding her status as a cadet and prospects for graduation. There is nothing in the record which suggests that she was merely trying “to participate, as a citizen, in the process of deliberative democracy.” Guarnieri, 131 S.Ct. at 2500.

Mitchell argues that “gender discrimination and harassment are inherently matters of public concern.” ECF No. 41 at 17. Contrary to her belief, Connick’s application to complaints about sex-based discrimination is considerably less categorical. When a public employee complains only about generic forms of sex-based discrimination perpetrated against him or her in the workplace, he or she does not speak about matters of public concern. Gross v. Town of Cicero, 619 F.3d 697, 706 (7th Cir.2010); Ruotolo v. City of New York, 514 F.3d 184, 190 (2d Cir.2008); Campbell v. Galloway, 483 F.3d 258, 268 (4th Cir.2007); Wilhelm v. City of Calumet City, 409 F.Supp.2d 991, 998 (N.D.Ill.2006); Lehmuller v. Incorporated Village of Sag Harbor, 944 F.Supp. 1087, 1095 (E.D.N.Y.1996). In Azzaro v. County of Allegheny, 110 F.3d 968, 980 (3d Cir. 1997), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit specifically recognized that some complaints about sexual harassment do not involve matters of public concern. The protected status of complaints alleging sexual harassment is a “particularly thorny question” that generally depends upon “the way in which the complaints [a]re made and the scope of the harassment” alleged. Olivieri v. County of Bucks, 811 F.Supp.2d 1112, 1126, n. 8 (E.D.Pa.2011).

In Azzaro, a female employee of a public entity alleged that the executive assistant to an elected official had improperly started to loosen and remove her clothing during the course of a private meeting. Azzaro, 110 F.3d at 970. The employee’s job was eliminated several months after she had reported the incident. Id. at 971-973. She later brought an action against several defendants, alleging that she had been discharged in retaliation for her speech, in violation of the First Amendment. Id. at 973. Because the communications at issue concerned allegations of sexual misconduct perpetrated by an individual “exercising authority in the name of a public official,” the Court of Appeals reasoned that they “should be regarded as [addressing] a matter of public concern unless something in their form or context deprived them of their value to the process of self-governance.” Id. at 978-979. Finding nothing that significantly detracted from the value of those communications to “the process of self-governance,” the Court of Appeals concluded that they related to a matter of concern to the general public. Id. at 979. It was noted, however, that some complaints about workplace harassment would not satisfy Connick’s “public concern” requirement. Id. at 980 (“[W]e do not suggest that all public employee complaints about sexual harassment are matters of public concern.”).

Where an allegation of sexual harassment addresses a matter of public concern, it may enjoy constitutional protection under Pickering even if the misconduct alleged is not sufficiently severe or pervasive to create an actionable violation of Title VII. Campbell, 483 F.3d at 270 (explaining that constitutional protection under Pickering “is not limited to complaints about conduct that is ultimately found to violate Title VII”). It does not follow, however, that every violation of Title VII committed by a public employer necessarily implicates matters of public concern. The sexual misconduct alleged in Azzaro was found to implicate matters of public concern “under all of the surrounding circumstances.” Azzaro, 110 F.3d at 980. The “surrounding circumstances” involved a person “exercising authority in the name of a public official” who, during a work-related meeting, allegedly opened the lapels of a woman’s blazer and “pulled her blouse out of her slacks.” Id. at 970, 978. The harassing contact alleged by the plaintiff in that case was severe. Worth v. Tyer, 276 F.3d 249, 268 (7th Cir.2001) (stating that “direct contact with an intimate body part constitutes one of the most severe forms of sexual harassment”). The alleged behavior was arguably criminalized under Pennsylvania law. 18 Pa. Cons.Stat. §§ 3101, 3126(a). The reasoning employed in Azzaro does not place Mitchell’s complaints about unfair treatment within the ambit of Pickering. Unlike the plaintiff in Azzaro, Mitchell did not claim to have been assaulted or harassed in a sexually-oriented manner. Instead, she merely - complained that her superiors had subjected her to unfair treatment “because she was a woman.” ECF No. 24 at ¶ 37. Although the alleged mistreatment may have adversely impacted Mitchell’s status as a cadet and prospects for continued employment with the PSP, her complaints to Andrews were not of sufficient “value to the process of self-governance