2009 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 5-14-2009 

# Ambro sio Rou se v

. II VI Inc 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 . 08-3922

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_2009

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 2009 D e c i sion s b y an authori 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 " Ambr osio Rous e v

. I I VI Inc " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1363. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1363NOT 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. 08- 3922

___________ A M BR O SI O RO U SE

A p p e llan t, v . I I - V I I N C O R P O R A T E D ; B R U C E G L I C K , i n d i v i d u a l l y; CS AB A S Z E L E S , i n d i v i d u a l l y ; KE RR Y C OUR T NE Y, i n d i v i d u a l l y ; CA RL J OHNS ON, i n d i v i d u a l l y ; M AR L E NE A C R E , ind iv id u a lly ; F R A N C IS K R A M E R , ind iv id u a lly

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 06- cv- 00566) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le T erren ce F . M cV erry

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ay13, 2009 B efor e: FI SH E R , J O R D A N and V A N A N T W E R PE N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: M ay14, 2009)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM A p p e llan t A m b ro sio R o u se , P h .D ., a b lac k m a le a n d c iti z e n o f P a n a m a , b e g a n h isB eca us e w e w r i t e pr i m ar i l yforthe part i es , and theyar e fa m i l i arw i th the bac kgr ound 1 of thi s cas e, w e i ncl ude onl ythos e fa ctual and pr ocedur al det ai l s nece s s aryt o our di s cus s i on. 2 em ploym ent w i th eV P roducts , a divi si on of d efen dan tII -V I I nco rporat ed (“I I- V I”) , as a s ur fac e pr oces s i ng engi neer . H i s pr i m aryr es pons i bi l i t i es conce rned s ci ent i fi c r es ear ch 1 and the deve l opm entof I I - V I ’ s pr oduct s . H e l at erbeca m e a Rese ar ch and D evel opm ent (“ R & D ” ) s u rf

a c e p ro c e s s in g s c ie n tis t a t th e c o m p a n y . D e f e n d a n t C s a b a S z e le s , P h .D ., w as R ous e’ s di r ects upervi s or , and the one w ho eval uat ed hi s per form ance . Forthe per i od cover i ng J anuary31, 2000 thr ough J anuary31, 2001, R ous e’ s fi r s ty earw i th the company , Szel es det erm i ned thatR ous e had pe r form ed atthe l evel expec t ed of hi m . For the nextper i od, fr om J anuary31, 2001 thr ough J anuary31, 2002, Szel es r eport ed as fol l ow s w i th r es pectt o R ous e’ s per form ance :

H e fe l l a bi ts hor ton hi s fi r s tt echni cal goal m ai nl ybeca us e of i ns uffi ci ent di s s emi nat i on of pol i s hi ng pr oven deve l opm entr es ul t s . I ti s r ecomm ended th a t h e p u ts [ sic ] m o re e m p h a sis to th e d iss e m in a tio n o f h is re su lts in w ri tte n re p o rt s , o v e rv ie w p re s e n ta tio n s a n d tu to ri a ls to th e e V o rg a n iz a tio n . H e al s o need [ s i c] t o cont i nuous l yi m pr ove on r es ear ch pl anni ng and pr oj ect focus . G ood pr ogr es s i n t echni cal ar eas . N eed [ s i c] i m pr ovementfor c o m m u n ica tio n a n d p rojec t m a n a g e m e n t. See D efe ndant ’ s M ot i on forSum m aryJ udgm ent , atE xhi bi t“M . ” I n an emai l t o Szel es dat ed M ay6, 2002, defe ndantB ruce G l i ck, the D i vi s i on M anage r , al s o expr es s ed c o n c e rn s a b o u t R o u s e ’s p e rf o rm a n c e . Szel es eval uat ed R ous e’ s per form ance forthe fol l ow i ng y ear , J anuary31, 2002 thr ough J anuary31, 2003, on J une 27, 2003. O n thatocca s i on, Szel es expr es s ed theO n Jan u ary3 1 , 2 0 0 3 , R o u se h ad u n il aterall yfo rw ard ed to II-V I em p loy ee s a re p o rt 2 conce rni ng “pol i s hi ng and det ect orper form ance . ” Szel es obj ect ed t o the r el eas e of the r eportw i thoutpr i orr evi ew and di s cus s i on bythe R & D gr oup. Szel es i ndi cat ed i n a February2003 emai l thatthe eV or gani zat i on’ s empl oy ees w oul d be l eftw i th the i m pr es s i on thatR ous e per form ed hi s r es ear ch i ndepende nt l yof the R & D gr oup, and the re lea se o f

th e re p o rt w o u ld lea d to th e m isp e rc e p tio n th a t th e c o n c lu sio n s e x p re ss e d in it r epr es ent ed the vi ew s of the R & D gr oup, w hi ch w as notthe ca s e. Szel es concl uded the e m a il b ys a y in g th a t h e a n d R o u s e n e e d e d to d is c u s s R o u s e ’s “ p e rs o n a l a s p ir a tio n s ,” “ c a r[ e e r] o b

jec tiv e s” a n d “ w o rk sty le,” a n d h o w th e yw e re a b le to f it i n w ith “ th e g o a ls and oper at i ons of the eV t eam. ” See D efe ndant ’ s M ot i on forSum m aryJ udgm ent , at E x h ib it “ Q .” 3 opi ni on thatR ous e nee ded t o s i gni fi cant l yi m pr ove hi s per form ance . T he per form ance appr ai s al w as s uppl ement ed w i th a det ai l ed exa m i nat i on of R ous e’ s per form ance s i gned byboth Szel es and R ous e. Speci fi cal l y , i tw as not ed thatR ous e had f ai l ed t o m ake a ny pr ogr es s on the fi r s tper form ance appr ai s al I m pr ovementT ar getai m ed atdet erm i ni ng t he i m pactof hy dr ogen pr e- cl eani ng on the el ectr i cal per form ance of C dZ nT e det ect or devi ces us i ng anal yt i cal t echni ques and I - V m eas ur ement s . R ous e compl et ed hi s s econd I m pr ovementT ar getatonl ya 30% l evel due t o s uper fi ci al anal y s i s and i nt erpr et at i on of dat a. I n addi t i on t o defi ci enci es r el at ed t o s peci fi c s ci ent i fi c t as ks , Szel es i ndi cat ed that R ous e exhi bi t ed “i ns ubor di nat i on t o t eam goal s , ” a “ des i r e fori ndi vi dual pr oj ect s and s ucce s s es , ” “poorpl anni ng, ” and a “typi cal s uper fi ci al ‘ chas i ng a dr eam’ appr oach. ” See D e f e n d a n t’ s M o tio n f

o r S u m m a ry Ju d g m e n t, a t E x h ib it “ O .” 2 Szel es as ked R ous e t o do a pow erpoi ntvi s ual ai d conce rni ng pr oces s cl eani ng on J anuary28, 2004, w hi ch Szel es neede d fora pr es ent at i on he w as t o gi ve bef or e a m anufa ctur i ng audi ence . R ous e emai l ed Szel es hi s w or k pr oduct , but , i n r es pons i ve4

emai l s Szel es compl ai ned thatR ous e’ s dr aftw as over l ong and notr es pons i ve – i tdi d not inclu d e the sp ec ifi c inf

o rm ati o n that w as n ee d ed . S ee D ef en d an t’ s M o ti o n fo r S u m m ary J u d g m e n t, a t E x h ib it “ R .” O n M ay6, 2004, Szel es m etw i th R ous e and theydi s cus s ed the r es ul t s of a s tudy R o u se h ad p erf

o rm ed p ertaining to the tech n iqu es e m p loy ed at eV P rod u cts t o m ea su re th e e lec tro n m o b ili ty -life tim e p ro d u c t ( ìô ) of the company ’ s C dZ nT e mat er i al . Szel es d o cu m en ted th e m ee ti n g in w h ich h e d eterm ined that R o u se h ad a “ v eryp o o r” u n d e rsta n d in g o f

th e e x p e rim e n tal te c h n iq u e s a n d a n a ly sis m e th o d h e w a s u sin g , d e sp ite “many - m anyhour s ” Szel es had s pentw i th hi m overfoury ear s t eac hi ng hi m the “t echni que, the oper at i on of the equi pm entcomponent s , and ana l y s i s m ethods . . . ” See D e f e n d a n t’s M o tio n f

o r S u m m a ryJu d g m e n t, at E x h ib it “S .” G lick w a s p re se n t at th is m eet i ng and he t oo document ed hi s obs ervat i ons thatR ous e di d notful l yunder s t and the e x p e rim e n tal te c h n iq u e s h e w a s u sin g . S e e D e f e n d a n t’s M o tio n f

o r S u m m a ryJu d g m e n t, at E x h ibit“T . ” R o u se a lso w as c ri ti cize d b ec au se m an yo f h is scientifi c c o n clus ion s w ere alread yw idelyk n o w n in the ind u stryan d thu s w ere o f n o ad d ed v alue to II-V I. T h e m e e tin g c o n tin u e d o n M a y1 4 , 2 0 0 4 , af ter w h ich G lick f

u rth e r d o c u m e n ted h is di s pl eas ur e w i th R ous e’ s abi l i tyt o funct i on as a r es ear ch s ci ent i s tforI I - V I . Fol l ow i ng thi s m eet i ng, on M ay19, 2004, R ous e w as i nform ed thathi s empl oym entw i th I I - V I w as bei ng t erm i nat ed. H e w as form al l ys epar at ed fr om the companythi r tyday s l at er . T he company , i n acc or dance w i th pol i cy , pr om i s ed R ous e onl ya neutr al r efe r ence .5

O n A ugus t2, 2004, R ous e fi l ed a c har ge of di s cr i m i nat i on w i th the Equal E m pl oym entO ppor tuni tyC om m i s s i on ( “EE O C ”) , al l egi ng thathe had be en t erm i nat ed beca us e of hi s r ace and hi s age ( w hi ch w as 43 y ear s ol d) . O n J une 16, 2005, R ous e fi l ed a c o m p lai n t aga inst II -V I, G li ck , S ze les an d H u m an R eso u rce s R ep rese n tat ive K erry C our tneyi n t he C our tof C om m on Pl eas of A l l eghenyC ounty , Penns y l vani a, R ous e v. G li ck , et al. , N o . G D 0 5 -13 8 4 3 . A fter o ral argu m en t on the d ef en d an ts’ p reli m inary obj ect i ons , the H onor abl e J udi th Fr i edman di s m i s s ed R ous e’ s s t at e amended compl ai nt on the mer i t s . T he Super i orC our tdi s m i s s ed R ous e’ s appea l on O ct ober4, 2006, for fai l ur e t o pr os ecut e bec aus e he f ai l ed t o fi l e a br i ef. M eanw hi l e, aft erthe EE O C i s s ued a r i ghtt o s ue l ett er , R ous e comm ence d the i ns t antact i on pr o s e i n U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe W es t ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a on A pr i l 28, 2006. H e named I I - V I , G l i ck, Szel es and C our tneyas defe ndant s and as s ert ed cl ai m s forvi ol at i ons of Ti t l e V I I of the C i vi l R i ght s A ctof 1964, 42 U . S. C . § 2000e ets eq. , the A ge D i s cr i m i nat i on i n E m pl oym entA ct( “A D E A ”) , 29 U . S . C . § 6 21 etseq. , the P enn sy l van i a H um an R el at i on s A ct(“PH R A ”), 43 P a. C on s. S tat. A n n . § 9 5 1 e t se q ., a n d 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 1 a n d § 1 9 8 5 (3 ). R o u se a lso in c lu d e d c o u n ts fort or t i ous i nt er fer ence w i th a contr actual r el at i ons hi p, br eac h of contr act , br eac h of fi duci aryduty , fr audul entm i s r epr es ent at i on, ci vi l cons pi r acy , and i nt ent i onal i nfl i ct i on of em o ti o n al distr ess. L ater, h e f il ed an am en d ed co m p lai n t, ad d ing II- V I co rpo rate o ff icers C ar l J ohns on, M ar l ene A cr e, and Fr anci s K r ameras defe ndant s . R ous e al s o added a6

cl ai m underthe Em pl oy ee Ret i r ementI ncome Secur i tyA ct( “ER I SA ”) , 29 U . S. C . § 1001 ets eq. I ni t i al l y , the def endant s m oved t o di s m i s s the compl ai nt ; thatm ot i on w as deni ed i n partand gr ant ed t o t he ext entthatcl ai m s underthe A D E A and Ti t l e V I I ar i s i ng outof i nci dent s thatoccurr ed 300 day s befor e the EE O C fi l i ng w er e di s m i s s ed as t i m e- barr ed. F o ll o w ing ex tens ive d isco v ery , in w h ich R o u se, S ze les, G li ck an d o thers w ere d e p o se d , the d e f

e n d a n ts m o v e d f

o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t p u rsu a n t to F e d e ra l R u le o f C iv il P ro c e d u re 5 6 (c ). T h a t m o tio n w a s s u p p o rt e d w ith d e p o s itio n te s tim o n ya n d e x h ib its . R ous e r es ponded i n oppos i t i on w i th s i m i l ari t ems. I n an or derent er ed on J ul y24, 2008, th e D istric t C o u rt g ra n ted th e d e f e n d a n ts’ m o tio n f

o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t. R o u se ’s tim e ly m ot i on forr econs i der at i on s ubs equent l yw as deni ed. R ous e appe al s pr o s e. W e w i l l aff

i r m . W e have j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291. R ous e cont ends on appea l thatther e exi s t ed a tr i abl e i s s ue w hetherthe company ’ s r eas ons fort erm i nat i ng h im w e re p re tex tu a l an d w h e th e r d isc rim in a tio n w a s a m o tiv a tin g f a c to r in th e d e c isio n to t erm i nat e hi m , the D i s tr i ctC our tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n l i m i t i ng di s covery , the D i s tr i ct C our terr ed i n deny i ng hi s m ot i on t o s tr i ke ce r t ai n exhi bi t s fr om the def endant s ’ m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent , and the D i s tr i ctC our terr ed i n appl y i ng r es j udi cat a and c ol l at er al esto p p el t o h alf o f h is cl aim s. O u r rev iew o f th e D istri ct C o u rt ' s g ran t of su m m ary j udgm enti s pl enaryand w e mustaff i r m s um m aryj udgm enti f ther e i s no genui ne i s s ue of m at er i al fac tand the movi ng partyi s ent i t l ed t o j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . See C el ot ex C o rp . v . C a tr e tt, 4 7 7 U .S . 3 1 7 , 3 2 2 -2 3 (1 9 8 6 ).7

Feder al R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 56( e) , conce rni ng the r equi r ement s foroppos i ng a m oti on for sum m aryj ud gm ent, provides that R ou se, as an ad verse party , “m ayno tres t upon the mer e al l egat i ons ordeni al s of [hi s ] pl eadi ng, but[hi s ] r es pons e, byaff i davi t s or as ot herw i se provi ded i n thi s rule, m ustsetforth specifi c facts show i ng that there i s a genui ne i s s ue fortr i al . ” O n t he otherhand, fi nal cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i ons on m at er i al i s s u e s c a n n o tb e m a d e i n th e c o n t e x to f a m o t i o n f

o rs u m m a ry j u d g m e n t , n o rm a y a di s tr i ctcourtw ei gh the evi dence . See Petruzzi ' s I G A Super m arket s , I nc. v. D ar l i ngD e la w a re C o ., In c ., 9 9 8 F .2 d 1 2 2 4 , 1 2 3 0 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). T he D i s tr i ctC our taddr es s ed R ous e’ s di s cr i m i nat i on cl ai m s underT i t l e V I I , the A D E A , and the PH R A on t he mer i t s . W e have car eful l yr evi ew ed the r ecor d and concl ude, as di d t he D i s tr i ctC our t , thatther e w as an i ns uffi ci entevi dent i arybas i s on w h ic h a re a s o n a b le ju ry c o u ld f in d in R o u s e ’s f

a v o r o n h is c la im s o f

d is c ri m in a tio n . A nder s on v. L i bertyL obby , I nc. , 477 U . S. 242, 249- 50 ( 1986) . T he compl ai nanti n a T i t l e V I I di s par at e tr eatm enttheoryact i on m us tcarrythe i ni t i al bur den of of fer i ng evi dence t o cr eat e an i nfer ence thatan empl oym entdeci s i on w as m ot i vat ed by d is c ri m in a to ry a n im u s . M c D o n n e ll D o u g la s C o rp . v . G re e n , 4 1 1 U .S . 7 9 2 , 8 0 2 (1 9 7 3 ). I f a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e i s es t abl i s hed, the def endantm us tart i cul at e a l egi t i m at e, nondi s cr i m i nat oryr eas on forthe pl ai nt i ff’ s adver s e tr eatm ent . I d. at802- 803. I f the defe ndantart i cul at es s uch a r eas on, the bur den s hi ft s t o the pl ai nt i ff t o demonstr at e that the r eas on i s m er el ya pr et extfori l l egal empl oym entdi s cr i m i nat i on. I d. at804- 805. See8

al s o Sem pi erv. J ohns on & H i ggi ns , 45 F. 3d 724, 728 ( 3d C i r . 1995) ( i nvol vi ng the A D E A ). W e w i l l assum e, as di d the D i stri ctC ou rt , that R ou se m ade o ut a pr i m a facie cas e o f ra ce an d ag e d iscri m ination ev en tho u g h h is prim a f ac ie ca se w as w ea k . H o w ev er, I IV I a d e q u a te ly sh o w e d th a t th e re a s o n f o r h is te rm in a tio n w a s s u b s ta n d a rd p e rf o rm a n c e . See St . M ary ’ s H onorC ent erv. H i cks , 509 U . S. 502, 506- 07 ( 1993) . R ous e thus w as r equi r ed t o cas tdoubton t he l egi t i m acyof I I - V I ’ s r eas ons orpr ovi de evi dence of d isc rim in a tio n . T o su rv iv e a m o tio n f o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t, a p lain tiff m a yp re v a il ei ther bydi s cr edi t i ng the empl oy er ' s pr offe r ed r eas ons orbys how i ng thatdi s cr i m i nat i on w as m or e l i kel ythan nota mot i vat i ng ordet erm i nat i ve ca us e of the adve r s e empl oym ent a c tio n . S e e F u e n te s v . P e rs k ie , 3 2 F .3 d 7 5 9 , 7 6 4 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). R o u se g a v e tes tim o n yu n d e r o a th a t h is d e p o sitio n , an d h is s w o rn tes tim o n yd id nots at i s fyhi s bur den. See D i s tr i ctC our tM emora ndum and O r der , 7/ 24/ 08, at30- 32 ( ci t i ng R ous e depos i t i on, pas s i m ) . H e mai nt ai ned thatG l i ck’ s and Szel es ’ s cr i t i cal e v a lu a tio n o f

h is p e rf o rm a n c e w a s u n

ju stif ied , b u t h e h a d n o e v id e n c e o th e r th a n h is s ubj ect i ve opi ni on thati tw as unj us t i fi ed. T he company ’ s appr ai s al of hi s per form ance w a s ri c h ly d e ta ile d ; R o u s e ’s o b je c tio n to it c o n s is te d o f b a ld a s s e rt io n s to th e c o n tr a ry. T hi s w as notenough t o s ur vi ve a s um m aryj udgm entm ot i on beca us e i tdi d nots how t hat the company ’ s r eas ons w er e unw or thyof cr edenc e. See R eeve s v. Sander s on Pl um bi ng Pr oduct s , I nc. , 530 U . S. 133, 143 ( 2000) . Fur therm or e, R ous e di d notcont end thatanyofSect i on 2000e- 2( m ) has no appl i cat i on t o A D E A cl ai m s . See G l anzman v. 3 M etrop o li tan M an ag em en t C o rp., 3 9 1 F . 3 d 5 0 6 , 5 1 2 n . 3 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). 9 the i ndi vi dual defe ndant s everm ade a comm entw hi ch l ed hi m t o bel i eve thatthey harbor ed ani m us bas ed on r ace orage, and he ha d no evi dence thatw hi t e ory ounger s ci ent i s t s w i th s i m i l arhi s t or i es w er e tr eat ed pr efe r ent i al l y . H e thus fai l ed t o cas tdoubt o n th e leg iti m a c yo f

II-V I’s d e c isio n to ter m in a te h is e m p lo ym e n t. T h e re c o rd is s im p ly d e v o id o f

a n ye v id e n c e to sh o w th a t an in v id io u s d isc rim in a to ryre a so n w a s m o re lik e ly than no ta m oti vati ng fact or or det erm i nati ve cau se i n thi s em ploym ent deci si on . F uen t es, 32 F. 3d at765 ( "To di s cr edi tthe empl oy er ' s pr offe r ed r eas on . . . the pl ai nt i ff c annot sim p lysh o w th a t th e e m p lo y e r' s d e c isio n w a s 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 ati s s ue i s w hetherdi s cr i m i nat oryani m us m ot i vat ed the empl oy er , notw hetherthe em ploy er i s w i se, shrew d, pruden t , or com petent . ") W i th r es pectt o R ous e’ s m i xed mot i ve theory , the D i s tr i ctC our tr eas oned thathe w o u ld h av e to s h o w , b ya p rep o n d era n ce o f th e e v iden ce , su ff ici en t evid en ce fo r a r eas onabl e j uryt o concl ude thatr ace w as a mot i vat i ng ( r atherthan a de t erm i nat i ve) fac t or i n the de c i s i on t o t e r mi na t e hi s e mpl oyment . Se e D e s e r tPa l a c e , I nc . v. Cos t a , 53 9 U. S. 90, 101 ( 2003) ; 42 U . S. C . § 2000e- 2( m ) ( r es tr i ct i ng r emedi es w her e both perm i s s i bl e and i m perm i s s i bl e fa ct or s m ot i vat ed empl oy er ’ s deci s i on) . W e not e thatthe “mi xed mot i ve” 3 s ta n d a rd is n o rm a lly u s e d in in s tru c tin g ju ri e s , D e s e rt P a la c e , 5 3 9 U .S . a t 9 6 -9 7 . H o w ev er, assu m ing arg u en d o that a “ m ixed m o ti v e” an aly sis i s p rop er a t th e su m m ary ju d g m e n t sta g e , w e a g re e w ith th e D istric t C o u rt th a t R o u se d id n o t es tab lish a triab leR ous e al s o as s ert ed r et al i at i on cl ai m s underal l thr ee of thes e pr ovi s i ons . Forthe 4 r eas ons gi ven bythe D i s tr i ctC our t , s um m aryj udgm entforthe def endant s w as pr operon thes e r et al i at i on cl ai m s . R ous e di d notes t abl i s h thathe enga ged i n conductpr ot ect ed by the A D E A . A l tho ug h h e com plai ned abo ut bei ng a vict i m of race dis cri m i nati on j ust b e f o r e h e wa s t e r mi n a t e d , Ro u s e f a i l e d t o e i th e rd i s c o u n tth e a r t i c u l a t e d r e a s o n s o f I I - VI f o rd i s c h a r g i n g h i m o rp r o v i d e a f f i r m a t i v e e v i d e n c e th a tI I - V I w a s m o t i v a t e d b y a re talia to rya n im u s, a n d , thu s, n o re a so n a b le ju ryc o u ld c o n c lu d e th a t h e w a s te rm in a ted in r et al i at i on forcompl ai ni ng. 10 is s u e , b e c a u s e h e p o in te d to n o e v id e n c e th a t r a c e p la y e d a n yro le a t a ll in h is te rm in a tio n . H is a rg u m e n t in th e m a in w a s f o c u se d o n a ttac k in g th e c o m p a n y ’s ju d g m e n t th a t h is per form ance w as not , as he cont ends , “s t el l ar ” ( A ppel l ant ’ s B r i ef, at16) ; i tw as not f o c u s e d o n s h o w in g th a t r a c e p la y e d a ro le in th e c o m p a n y ’s d e c is io n . W e not e thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tr evi ew ed s i gni fi cantamount s of depos i t i on t es t i m onyand exhi bi t s , and page s upon pages of l egal ar gum entpr es ent ed byR ous e, but the c o u rt ’s th o rou g h rev iew n ec essa ri lyled to the in esc ap ab le co n clus ion that R o u se’s t es t i m ony , even i f bel i eved, di d nothi ng t o cal l the mot i ves of I I - V I i nt o ques t i on. T he D i s tr i ctC our tappl i ed the corr ectgoverni ng l aw i n det erm i ni ng thatther e w as nothi ng for a j uryt o d eci de. S i nce n o reasonab l e j urycou l d co nclude t hat R ou se’ s r ace or age w as a d e ter m in a tiv e f

a c to r in h is te rm in a tio n , o r th a t h is ra c e w a s a m o tiv a tin g f a c to r in h is term ination , su m m aryjud g m en t pro p erlyw as g ran ted w ith resp ec t t o R o u se’s d i s c r i mi n a t i o n c l a i ms u n d e rT i t l e VI I , th e ADE A a n d th e P HR A. 4 T he D i s tr i ctC our tappl i ed the doctr i nes of cl ai m pr ecl us i on and col l at er al es t oppel t o C ou nts 7-16 o f R ou se’ s am end ed co m plai nt i n g rant i ng sum m aryj ud gm ent. C ou nts 7 and 8 asser t ed d i scr i m i nati on and ret al i at i on cl ai m s und er 42 U . S . C . § 1 98 1. C ou nts 911

an d 1 0 asse rt ed d iscri m ination an d retali ati o n claim s u n d er 4 2 U . S . C . § 1 9 8 5 (3). I n C ount11, R ous e cl ai m ed thatG l i ck, Szel es , C our tney , J ohns on, A cr e and K r amer t or t i ous l yi nt er fer ed w i th hi s contr actual r el at i ons hi p w i th I I - V I . C ount12 w as bas ed on a th e o ryo f

b re a c h o f

c o n tra c t, w h ile C o u n t 1 3 w a s b a se d o n a b re a c h o f f id u c iar yd u ty theory . I n C ount14, R ous e al l eged thatthe def endant s comm i t t ed the t ort s of fr audul ent m isre p re se n tatio n a n d f ra u d u len t in d u c e m e n t. C o u n t 1 5 w a s p re m ise d o n a th e o ryo f c iv il cons pi r acy , and, i n C ount16, R ous e cl ai m ed thatthe def endant s comm i t t ed the t or tof i ntent i on al i nfli ct i on of em oti on al dis tres s. H o w ev er, R o u se p rev iou slyh ad fil ed a c o m p lai n t i n the A ll eg h en yC o u n tyC o u rt of C om m on Pl eas agai ns tSzel es , G l i ck, C ourtney , and I I - V I , r ai s i ng cl ai m s of i nt ent i onal i nfl i ct i on of emot i onal di s tr es s , negl i gentper form ance appr ai s al , negl i gents upervi s i on, fai l ur e t o i nves t i gat e, i nt ent i onal i nt er fer ence w i th pr os pect i ve empl oym ent , negl i gent re te n tio n , n e g lig e n t tr a in in g , a n d n e g lig e n t f a ilu re to p ro v id e a s a f

e w o rk e n v ir o n m e n t. A f te r n u m e ro u s a m e n d m e n ts , R o u s e ’s a m e n d e d c o m p la in t w a s d is m is s e d o n th e m e ri ts . T he s t at e tr i al j udge conc l uded, i n pert i nentpart , thatnone of hi s t or torcontr actual cl ai m s based o n h i s having b een f i red w ere com pen sabl e un der Pen nsy l van i a l aw becau se he w as an “a t - w i l l ” empl oy ee. See D efe ndant ’ s M ot i on forSum m aryJ udgm ent , at E xhi bi t“EE . ” I n part i cul ar , ther e i s no dutyunderPenns y l vani a l aw t o pr ovi de a r efe r ence fora form erempl oy ee ort o pr ovi de s upervi s or s w i th tr ai ni ng i n the pr oper pr epar at i on of per form ance eval uat i ons . I d. I n addi t i on, R ous e’ s al l egat i ons di d not12

supp orta cl ai m for i ntent i on al i nfli ct i on of em oti on al dis tres s. W hen a j udgm enti s r ender ed bya s t at e court , fede r al court s ar e s t atut or i l ybound bythe doctr i nes of r es j udi cat a ( orcl ai m pr ecl us i on) and col l at er al es t oppel ( ori s s ue pr e c l us i on ) t o h on ori t . Sa n Remo H ot e l , L. P. v. Countyof Sa n Fr a nc i s c o, Cal . , 54 5 U. S. 323, 336 ( 2005) ( ci t i ng A l l en v. M cC urry , 449 U . S. 90, 94- 96 ( 1980) ) . Par t i es ar e not perm i t t ed “t o r el i t i gat e i s s ues thathave be en r es ol ved bycourt s of compet ent j ur i s di ct i on. ” I d. T he doctr i ne of c l ai m pr ecl us i on pr ohi bi t s r eexa m i nat i on notonl yof m a tters a c tu a llyd e c id e d in a p rio r c a se , b u t als o th o se th a t th e p a rties m ig h t h a v e , b u t d id not , as s erti n t hatact i on. See B r adl eyv. Pi t t s bur gh B d. of Educ. , 913 F. 2d 1064, 1070 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 0 ). I n R ous e’ s cas e, the D i s tr i ctC our tw as r equi r ed t o gi ve the j udgm entr ender ed by the C our tof C om m on Pl eas of A l l eghenyC ountythe s ame pr ecl us i ve ef fec ti tw oul d be acc or ded bya Penns y l vani a court . See Lance v. D enni s , 546 U . S. 459, 466 ( 2006) . R es j udi cat a appl i es i n Penns y l vani a. See B al entv. C i tyof W i l kes - B arr e, 669 A . 2d 309, 313 ( Pa. 1995) . A val i d j udgm enton t he mer i t s bya courtof compet entj ur i s di ct i on pr ecl udes a n yf u tu re su it b e tw e e n th e p a rties o r th e ir p riv iti e s o n th e sa m e c a u se o f a c tio n . Id . It i s undi s put ed thatthe bas i s forR ous e’ s act i on i n the C our tof C om m on Pl eas of A l l egheny C ountyw as the s ame em pl oym entt erm i nat i on deci s i on ati s s ue i n the i ns t antfede r al a c tio n . T h e a c tio n in v o lv e d f o u r o f th e s a m e p a rt ie s : I I- V I, G lic k , S z e le s a n d C o u rt n e y . T o det erm i ne w hetherr es j udi cat a appl i ed, the D i s tr i ctC our tthus w as r equi r ed t o deci de13

( 1) w hetherthe ac t i on i n t he C our tof C om m on Pl eas i nvol ved the s ame “caus e of a ct i on” as the i ns t antact i on; ( 2) w hetherthe part i es had the capaci t i es t o s ue orbe s ued i n the C our tof C om m on Pl eas ; and ( 3) w hetherthe l i t i gat i on i n the C our tof C om m on Pl eas re s u lte d in a d e c is io n o n th e m e ri ts . S e e T u rn e r v . C ra w f o rd S q u a re A p a rt m e n ts II I, L .P ., 4 4 9 F .3 d 5 4 2 , 5 4 8 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ) (re c o g n izin g th e se f a c to rs a s n e c e ss a ryto re s ju d ica ta i nqui ry ) ; B al ent , 669 A . 2d at313. A s a threshol d m at t er, the D i stri ctC ou rt , hav i ng previ ou sl yden i ed the defen dan t s’ m o tio n to d ism iss R o u se ’s c o m p lain t, w a s n o n e th e les s f re e to re c o n sid e r th e re s ju d ica ta issue at th e su m m aryjud g m en t st ag e. T h e c o u rtthen p rop erlyco n clud ed that all fa ctors w er e s at i s fi ed. T he ca us e of a ct i on i n s t at e courtw as the s ame, ther e w as no ju risd ictio n a l im p e d im e n t to b rin g in g th e se c tio n 1 9 8 1 a n d se c tio n 1 9 8 5 (3 ) c iv il righ ts cl ai m s i n s t at e court , M ai ne v. T hi bout ot , 448 U . S. 1, 3 n. 1 ( 1980) , and the s t at e tr i al ju d g e c lea rlyre n d e re d a d e c isio n o n th e m e rits. H a v in g c h o se n to lit ig a te h is c a se f irst in a P e n n sy lv a n ia c o u rt, R o u se ’s v e h icle to re m e d ya n yre su lti n g e rro rs w a s to p u rsu e h is appea l i n the Super i orC our tr atherthan aba ndon i t . W e r ecogni ze thatJ ohns on, A cr e and K ra m e r w e re n o t n a m e d p a rties in th e sta te c o u rt a c tio n , b u t th e d o c trin e o f re s ju d ica ta app l i es t o an d is bindi ng , no ton l yon the actual part i es t o the l i t i gati on , bu tal so t o those w ho ar e i n pr i vi tyw i th t hem. T urner , 449 F. 3d at549 n. 11 ( ci t i ng St evens on v. Si l verm an, 208 A . 2d 786, 788 ( 1965) ) . “Penns y l vani a court s appl ythe doctr i ne of r es j udi cat a ‘ t o di ffe r entpart i es w her e one i s vi car i ous l yr es pons i bl e forthe conduc tofR ous e cont ends that , beca us e he f i l ed hi s E E O C i nt ake f

or m on J une 15, 2004, the 5 300- dayper i od s houl d have be en ca l cul at ed – forpurpos es of the t i m e- barand the re lev a n t p e rio d f

o r d isc o v e ry– f

ro m th a t d a te u n d e r F e d e ra l E x p re ss C o rp . v . H o lo w e c k i, 128 S. C t . 1147 ( 2008) , i ns t ead of fr om the dat e he f

i l ed hi s E E O C char ge. W e nee d not res olve the im pact of H olow ecki on t his case, becau se i tm ade n o d i fference to R ou se w hetherO ct ober2, 2003, ora day48 day s ear l i erw as the appr opr i at e cut - off da t e for p u rp o se s o f

th e tim e -b a r a n d d isc o v e ry . T h e re c o rd re f lec ts th a t d isc o v e ryw a s lib e ra lly g ra n ted , tha t re lev a n t it e m s th a t p re d a te th e d a te s u g g e ste d b yR o u se w e re tu rn e d o v e r in di s covery , and thatthe D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s choi ce of O ct ober2, 2003 as the cut - off da t e i n no w aypr event ed R ous e fr om pr os ecut i ng hi s cl ai m s of di s cr i m i nat i on. 14 another , s uch as pr i nci pal and age ntorm as t erand s ervant , ’ ” i d. ( quot i ng D ayv. V o lk s w a g e n w e rk A k tie n g e s e lls c h a f t, 4 6 4 A .2 d 1 3 1 3 , 1 3 1 7 (P a . S u p e r. C t. 1 9 8 3 ). A ccor di ngl y , the def

endant s w er e ent i t l ed t o s um m aryj udgm enton C ount s 8 - 16 of the a m e n d e d c o m p la in t o n th e b a s is o f c la im p re c lu s io n . L a s t, b e c a u s e R o u s e d id n o t b ri e f th e E R IS A is s u e o n a p p e a l, w e d e e m it w a iv e d . L under s t adtv. C ol afe l l a, 885 F. 2d 66, 78 ( 3d C i r . 1989) ( “ca s ual s t at ement ” ca nnots erve t o pr es erve i s s ue on appe al w her e i ti s cont ai ned i n nei thers t at ementof i s s ues on appea l n o r a rg u m e n t se c tio n o f b rie f ). In a d d iti o n , the D istric t C o u rt d id n o t er r in d e n y in g h is m ot i on forr econs i der at i on as an i m pr operatt emptt o r eca s tar gum ent s thathad al r eady b e e n re jec ted , se e H a rsc o C o rp . v . Z lo tn ick i, 77 9 F .2 d 9 0 6 , 9 0 9 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 5 ), o r in deny i ng hi s m ot i on t o s tr i ke exhi bi t s fr om the def endant s ’ m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent o n th e g ro u n d th a t th e re w a s n o a u th e n tica tio n p ro b lem a n d th e d e f e n d a n ts w o u ld b e a b le t o l aya pr operfoundat i on forthei radmi s s i on attr i al . A l s o, w e ar e notper s uaded thatt he D i s tr i ctC our tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n anyof i t s di s coveryrul i ngs , s ee W i l l i ams v. M o rt o n , 3 4 3 F . 3 d 2 1 2 , 2 2 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). 515

Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m the or der s of the D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant i ng s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t to th e d e f e n d a n ts a n d d e n y in g R o u s e ’s m o tio n f o r r e c o n s id e ra tio n . W e al s o aff

i r m the i nt er l ocut oryor der s appea l ed.