Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-14-03009/USCOURTS-ca3-14-03009-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 14-3009

_____________

ZACHARY BARKER; 

FRANCIS X. BOYD, JR.; DAVID W. SMITH

v.

THE BOEING COMPANY

Francis X. Boyd, Jr. and David W. Smith,

 Appellants 

 

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

District Court No. 2-12-cv-06684

District Judge: The Honorable Luis Felipe Restrepo

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

July 13, 2015

Before: SMITH, GREENAWAY, JR., and SHWARTZ, Circuit Judges

____________________ 

JUDGMENT ORDER

____________________ 

This cause came on to be considered on the record from the United States District 

Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and was submitted on July 13, 2015. 

Francis X. Boyd, Jr., and David W. Smith, both of whom are Caucasian, alleged that 

their former employer, the Boeing Company, discriminated against them on the basis of 

their race, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, when it terminated their employment after 

Case: 14-3009 Document: 003112016460 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/14/2015
2

they appeared in a photograph taken at work with a third employee looking like members 

of the KKK. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Boeing. It 

concluded that Boyd and Smith failed to establish a prima facie case of race 

discrimination because they were not similarly situated to Kenta Smith, the AfricanAmerican employee who took the photograph and reported the incident. In addition, the 

Court reasoned that “[e]ven if a jury could somehow find that the evidence met the prima 

facie threshold,” “[t]here is no evidence that could lead a reasonable jury to conclude that 

Boeing did not really fire the plaintiffs for posing as the KKK, or that a more likely cause 

was Boeing’s animus toward” Caucasians. A10. This timely appeal followed.

The District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Appellate jurisdiction 

exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review over an order granting 

summary judgment. Brown v. J. Kaz, Inc., 581 F.3d 175, 179 (3d Cir. 2009). For 

substantially the same grounds set forth in the well-reasoned opinion of the District 

Court, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment in favor of Boeing. 

On consideration whereof, it is now hereby ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the 

judgment of the District Court entered May 15, 2014, be and the same is hereby 

AFFIRMED. Costs taxed against Appellants.

By the Court,

s/D. Brooks Smith

Circuit Judge

Case: 14-3009 Document: 003112016460 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/14/2015
3

Attest:

s/Marcia M. Waldron

Clerk

DATED: July 14, 2015

Case: 14-3009 Document: 003112016460 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/14/2015