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 8-2-2005 

# F r anks v . Lehigh P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-2971

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . 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 and 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 ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

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

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" F r ank s v . L ehi gh" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 756. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/7561 NOT 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- 2971 TI M O TH Y FRA N K S, A ppel l ant

v. CO UNT Y OF L E HI GH, T HOMAS L AZ OR I K, B R IA N K A H L E R , T E D K E H M , JA N IC E E . N E S B IT J AN E BA KER , RI CH AR D O
. KLO TZ
A p p e a l f ro m th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( C i v. N o. 02- cv- 02652) Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J ul y14, 2005 Bef or e : SLO V I TER , M c K EE and W EI S C i r cui tJudges

( Fi l ed: A ugus t2, 2005) OP I NI ON
M c K E E , C i r cui tJudge
. T i m ot hyFr anks as ks us t o r evi ew the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm ent in f a v o r o f h is e m p lo y e rs in th e a c tio n h e f iled a g a in st th e m u n d e r th e A m e ric a n s w ith D is a b iliti e s A c t ( A D A ), c o d if ie d a t 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 2 1 0 1 , e t s e q . Forthe r eas ons that f o l l o w, we wi l l a f

f i r m.2 I . B eca us e w e w r i t e pr i m ar i l yforthe part i es , i ti s notnece s s aryt o r eci t e the fa ct s of t hi s cas e i n det ai l
. I ti s s uffi ci entt o not e thatA ppel l antFr anks w or ked as an ac count ant fo r th e C o u n tyo f L eh igh fro m 1 9 9 7 u n ti l 20 0 1 , w h en h e w as term inated
. F ran k s su ff ers f r o m T yp e I D i a b e t e s M e l l i tu s ( “ d i a b e t e s ” ) , a n d d u r i n g h i s e m p l o ym e n tw i t h th e C o u n ty, he expe r i ence d num er ous acut e hyper - and hypogl y cemi c att acks thatr equi r ed medi cal
car e. Fr anks al l eges t hathe i s ent i t l ed t o r ecove runderthe A D A beca us e

h is s u p e rv iso rs w e re o v e rlyp re o c c u p ied w ith h is d iab e tic condi t i on and w er e par anoi d aboutthei row n pot ent i al p erso n al l iabili tysh o u ld F ran k s b ec o m e inju red w h il e a t w o rk a s a re su lt o f

a d iab e tic a ttac k
. . . . th e C o u n tym a n ip u late d h is fi nal per form ance eval uat i on t o r efl ecta bogus ‘ uns at i s fac t or y ’ r at i ng and cr eat e a ba s i s forhi s t erm i nat i on. A p p e lla n t’ s B r. a t 3
. S u m m a ryju d g e m e n t is o n lya p p ro p ria te if , “th e p lea d in g s, d e p o sitio n s, a n sw e rs to interrog atories, an d ad m issi o n s o n fil e, t o g ethe r w ith [a n y ] af fid av it s, . . . sh o w that there is n o g e n u in e iss u e a s to a n ym a ter ial f a c t an d th a t th e m o v in g p a rtyis e n tit led to ju d g m e n t as a m a tter o f law ," w h e n th e e v id e n c e is v iew e d in th e lig h t m o st f a v o ra b le to th e n o n m o v in g p a rt y . F e d .R .C iv .P . 5 6 © ). T he D i s t r i ctC our tappl i ed the McD on nell D ou glas bur den- s hi ft i ng fr amew or k that
s o oft en gui des i nqui r i es i nt o empl oym entdi s cr i m i nat i on. A pp. 14, ci t i ng Shanerv. Synthes , 2 0 4 , F . 3 d 4 9 4 , 5 0 0 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 0 )
. Th e c o u r tf o u n d th a tF r a n k s p r o v e d h i s p r i ma fac i e ca s e, butfai l ed t o adequa t el yr efut e the C ount y ’ s ar t i cul at i on of a l egi t i m at e and3

n o n -d is c ri m in a to ry g ro u n d f o r t h e a d v e rs e e m p lo ym e n t a c tio n ta k e n a g a in s t F ra n k s .

II. I n Fu e n tes v . P e rs k ie , 3 2 F .3 d 7 5 9 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 4 ), w e h e ld th a t: [T]o a voi d s um m aryj udgm ent , the pl ai nt i ff' s evi dence rebut t i ng t he em ploy er' s proffered l egit i m at e reas on s m ust a llo w a f a c tf in d e r re a so n a b lyto in f

e r th a t each of the empl oy er ' s pr offe r ed non- di s cr i m i nat oryr eas ons . . . w as ei t hera pos thoc f

a b ric a tio n o r o th e rw ise d id n o t ac tu a lly m ot i vat e the empl oym entact i on ( t hati s , the pr offe r ed r eas on is a p re te x t)
. T o di s cr edi tt he empl oy er ' s pr offe r ed r eas on, how ever , the pl ai nt i ff c annots i m pl ys how thatthe empl oy er ' s deci s i on w as w ro n g o r m ista k e n , sin c e th e f a c tu a l d isp u te a t issu e is w hetherdi s cr i m i nat oryani m us m ot i vat ed the empl oy er , not w h e th e r th e e m p lo y e r is w ise , sh re w d , p ru d e n t, or c o m p e ten t.

. . . R ather , t he non- m ovi ng pl ai nt i ff mustdemonstr at e s uch w eakn esses , i m plausi bil i t i es, i nco nsi st encies , i nco herencies , o r c o n tra d ictio n s in th e e m p lo y e r' s p ro f f e re d leg iti m a te rea so n s fo r i ts acti o n that a re aso n ab le fa ctfind er c o u ld r at i onal l yfi nd t hem “unw or t hyof cr edenc e, ” .
. . and henc e i nfer“thatt he empl oy erdi d notactfor( t he as s ert ed) nondi s cr i m i nat or yr eas ons . ” Fu e n te s , 32 F . 3d at76 5 (i nternal ci t at i on s om i t t ed). T he C ou ntyci t ed F ranks’ i ncompet ence as r efl ect ed i n per form ance eval uat i ons overthe cour s e of tw o y ear s , as t he
r eas on he w as t erm i nat ed. Fr anks s oughtt o di s cr edi tthi s pr offe r ed r eas on byal l egi ng i ncons i s t enci es i n t he eva l uat i on s cheme as a w hol e. A s the D i s t r i ctC our ts um m ar i zed:

F o r e x a m p le, th e p o in t is m a d e th a t . . . w h a t ar e a p p a re n tly s i m i l argr ades as s i gned i n a por t i on of the 1999 eva l uat i on, w h ich re su lt ed in an o v era ll sati sfa ctoryrati n g , are i nco nsi st ent w i t h .
. . w hat ar e given as com parabl e readi ng s,4 butw i t h a di ffe r entbot t om l i ne i n t he 2000 eva l uat i on. A p p . 1 8
. Ju d g e P o ll ak rec o g n ized a lac k o f c o h ere n ce in the test im o n yo f F ran k s’s
s upervi s or s i n t hei rexpl anat i on of the w ei ght i ng of the var i ous eval uat i on fac t or s . A pp. 19. H ow ever , J udge Pol l ak conc l uded thatthe i ncons i s t enci es di d notdemonstr at e that t he empl oy er ’ s s t at ed r at i onal e w as a pr et ext , northatthe empl oy erw as m ot i vat ed by di s cr i m i nat or yani m us . A pp. 26. I n a w el l
- r eas oned and thor ough or al rul i ng, J udge Pol l ak expl ai ned w hyt he def endant s w er e ent i t l ed t o s um m aryj udgm entas a mat t erof la w , a n d w e c a n a d d littl e to h is d is c u s s io n . See A p p . 0 0 9 -0 2 8 . A c c o rd in g ly , w e w ill aff i r m s ubs t ant i al l yfort he r eas ons s etfor t h bythe D i s t r i ctC our ti n i t s rul i ng fr om the bench on D ece m ber1, 2004.