2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 7-12-2005 

# H a yes v . D ai sy C ons tr C o P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 04-4117

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " H a ye s v . D ai s y C on s tr C o " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 865. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/865NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N O . 04- 4117

________________ D A LE A . H A Y ES, A ppel l ant v. DAI S Y C ONS T RU CT I ON C OM P ANY

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

F o r th e D istri ct of

D elaw are ( D . C . C i v. N o. 02- cv- 00066) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e G r egoryM . Sl eet

_______________________________________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J ul y1, 2005 BEFORE: REN DELL, AM BRO a n d FUEN TES, CI RCU I T J UD GES ( Fi l ed J ul y12, 2005)

_______________________

OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C UR I AM D al e H ay es appea l s fr om t he or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he D i s t r i ctof D el aw ar e gr ant i ng t he A ppel l ee’ s m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm enti n t hi s act i onbr oughtunderT i t l e V I I of the C i vi l R i ght s A ctof 1964, 42 U . S. C . § 2000e ( “Ti t l e V I I ”)

a n d s t a t e l a w. T h e f a c tu a l an d p ro c e d u ra l h isto ryo f th is c a se n e e d n o t b e d isc u ss e d a t len g th h ere ; i t i s w ell -kn o w n to the p arti es a n d is set fo rth in the D istri ct C o u rt ’s op inion . In 2002, H ay es br oughtt hi s act i on underT i t l e V I I al l egi ng t hatD ai s yC ons t ruct i on C om pany( “D ai s y ”) di s cr i m i nat ed aga i ns thi m on acc ountof hi s r ace and col orbyfai l i ng t o payhi m att he s ame hour l yr at e as non- m i nor i t yempl oy ees forcompar abl e w or k and byr efus i ng t o gi ve hi m a pr om ot i on aft ers ucce s s ful compl et i on of an on- t he- j ob t r ai ni ng pr ogr am i n connec t i on w i t h t he I - 95 T ol l Pl aza pr oj ect . H e cl ai m ed thatD ai s ybr eac hed i t s contr actw i t h t he U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof Tra ns por t at i on, Feder al H i ghw ay A dm i ni s t r at i on and thathe w as notpai d t he pr evai l i ng w age f ora conc r et e fi ni s herunder D el aw ar e l aw . H e r eques t ed compens at i on forl os tw ages and damages form ent al angui s h, pai n, and s uffe r i ng. D a isym o v e d f

o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t cla im in g th a t H a y e s f a iled to m a k e o u t a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e on hi s T i t l e V I I cl ai m s , t hatt he br eac h of contr actand pr evai l i ng w age cl ai m s w er e barr ed byt he appl i cabl e s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons , and thatt he pai n and s uffe r i ng cl ai m l acke d r ecor d s uppor t . U pon cons i der at i on of the part i es ’ w r i t t en s ubm i s s i ons , t he D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed s um m aryj udgm entforD ai s y . Fi r s t , t he D i s t r i ctC our trul ed that al t hough H ay es s at i s fi ed the fi r s tt hr ee pr ongs of the pr i m a fa ci e ca s e forempl oym ent di s cr i m i nat i on underM cD onnel l D ougl as C orp. v. G r een, 411 U . S. 792 ( 1973) , t her e w as no evidence from w hich t he D i stri ctC ou rtcou l d infer that D ai sycom pen sat ed H ay es l esst han others i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed non- m i nor i t yper s ons orr efus ed t o pr om ot e H ay es beca us e of

h is ra c e o r c o lo r. S p e c if ica lly , the D istric t C o u rt f o u n d th a t n o n e o f

th e n o n -m in o rity con cret e fi nis hers ci t ed b yH ay es as com parabl es w ere s i m i l arl ysi tuated t o h i m becau se theyh ad ad d it ion al sk il ls th at qu ali fied them fo r a h igh er b ase p ayrate. A s fo r D aisy ’s al l eged f ai l ur e t o pr om ot e H ay es , t he D i s t r i ctC our tfound thatt her e w as no evi dence s h o w in g th a t n o n -m in o ri ty w o rk e rs w e re tr e a te d m o re f a v o ra b ly in re c e iv in g p ro m o tio n s . T he D i s t r i ctC our tr ej ect ed H ay es ’ s cl ai m t hathi s payw as r educe d aft erhe compl et ed the pr ogr am i n or dert o for ce hi m t o r es i gn, not i ng t hatH ay es admi t t ed thathe r ece i ved a pa y i ncr eas e t o $9. 50 an hour , fol l ow ed bya mer i ti ncr eas e t o $10. 50 an houroccurr i ng fi ve m ont hs l at er . T he D i s t r i ctC our tdet er m i ned thatH ay es fai l ed t o r ebutD ai s y ’ s evi dence ats um m aryj udgm entt hati thad ful fi l l ed al l of i t s obl i gat i ons t o H ay es . T her e w as no r ecor d evi dence i ndi cat i ng t hatD ai s ydi d noti nt end t o r et ai n H ay es as a perm anent empl oy ee ort hatH ay es w as for ced t o r es i gn. T hus , bas ed on the undi s put ed fa ct s , t he D istric t C o u rt h e ld th a t H a y e s f a iled to m a k e o u t a p rim a f a c ie a d v e rse tre a tm e n t cla im f o rf a i l u r e t o c o mp e n s a t e o rp r o mo t e b a s e d o n r a c e o rc o l o ra s a ma t t e ro f l a w. T he D i stri ctC ou rtal so rul ed thatH ay es fai l ed to st at e a cl ai m un der D el aw are’ s Pr evai l i ng W age Law , 29 D el . C . § 6960. T he D i s t r i ctC our tfound thatH ay es admi t t ed t hathe w as pai d acc or di ng t o t he appr opr i at e pr evai l i ng w age c l as s i fi cat i on undert he I - 95 T ol l Pl aza contr act , and thatt he cl ai m w as t i m e- barr ed i n anyeventbeca us e the c o m p lain t w a s b ro u g h t m o re th a n tw o y e a rs a f ter th e c a u se o f

a c tio n a c c ru e d . S e e 2 9 D e l. C . § 6960( h) . A s forD ai s y ’ s fai l ur e t o honori t s G overnm entcontr act , as s um i ng t hatH ay es had s t andi ng, t he D i s t r i ctC our thel d t hatt he br eac h of contr actcl ai m w as barr ed

b y t h e a p p l i c a b l e t h r e e - ye a rs t a tu t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s p u r s u a n tt o 1 0 D e l . C . § 8 1 0 6 . F i n a l l y, t he D i s t r i ctC our tfound no r ecor d evi dence s uppor t i ng H ay es ’ s gener al cl ai m of m ent al angui s h, pai n, and s uffe r i ng. W e h av e a p p ell ate jurisdicti o n p u rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 an d ex erc ise p lena ry r evi ew overan or dergr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm ent . See Pub. I nt er es tR es ear ch G r oup of N .J., In c . v . P o w e ll D u f f ryn T e rm in a ls, In c ., 9 1 3 F .2 d 6 4 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 0 ). A s is w e ll under s t ood, s um m aryj udgm enti s gr ant ed w hen “no ge nui ne i s s ue [e xi s t s ] as t o any m at er i al fac tand [w hen] t he movi ng par t yi s ent i t l ed t o a j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . ” Fed. R . C i v. P. 56( c) . W e vi ew t he fa ct s i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he nonmovi ng par t yand w e dr aw al l i nfer ence s i n t hatpar t y ’ s favor . See R ei t z v. C ount yof B ucks , 125 F .3 d 1 3 9 , 1 4 3 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 7 ). W e a g re e w ith th e D istric t C o u rt o n th e d isp o sitio n o f a ll of H ay es ’ s cl ai m s and w e w i l l aff i r m fors ubs t ant i al l yt he s ame r eas ons s etfor t h i n t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s opi ni on. H ay es a rgu es th at t h e D istri ct C o u rtfa il ed to p rop erlyinv esti g ate h is T it le V II cl ai m s and thathe neve rgott he oppor tuni t yt o pl ead hi s cas e bef or e a j ur y . H e r ei t er at es h is c laim s th a t D a isyre f u se d to tra in h im a n d f

a iled to m a k e g o o d o n th e ir p ro m ise to prom ote hi m . M oreove r, he co ntends t hat he w as treat ed h ars hlybyhis superi ors because o f h is r ac e a n d co lor. W e r ecogni ze thatt he i nqui r yi nt o w hetheran empl oy ee’ s r ace orcol orcaus ed the conductati s s ue oft en r equi r es an as s es s m entof the i ndi vi dual ’ s m ot i vat i ons and s t at e ofm i nd, m at t er s t hatar e notas r eadi l yamenabl e t o di s pos i t i on ats um m aryj udgm ent . Faced

wi t h a p r o p e r l ys u p p o r t e d s u mma r yj u d g me n tmo t i o n , h o we v e r , a p l a i n t i f f mu s tc o me fo rth w ith so m e e v iden ce su ff ici en t t o cre ate a g en u ine issu e o f m aterial fa ct. In H ay es’s cas e, he has notm ethi s bur den of s how i ng t hatD ai s ydi s cr i m i nat ed aga i ns thi m bas ed on hi s r ace orcol or . A s forhi s cl ai m of har s h t r eatm ent , he made a s i m i l aral l egat i on r egar di ng co- w or ker s m aki ng r aci al r emar ks i n t he amended compl ai nt . H ay es does not po i nt t o an yevidence, and w e fi nd no ne o n thi s r ecord, t hat s up po rt s ei t her of these c o n ten tio n s. V iew in g th e e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o st f a v o ra b le to H a y e s, w e a g re e w ith th e D istric t C o u rt th a t h e w a s n o t trea ted d if f e re n tlyth a n sim ilarlysitu a ted n o n -m in o rity w or ker s i n t er m s of compensa t i on orpr om ot i on. T hus , w e conc l ude thatt he D i s t r i ct C o u rt p ro p e rl yg ra n te d s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t in f a v o r o f D a is y . A c c o rd in g ly , w e w ill a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.