2010 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 Third C ir c uit 3-30-2010 

# Ron ald M a jewsk i v . Ge ne Fi schi P re c e de nt i al or N on-P re c e de nt i al : N on-P re c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-2919

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al works at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s brou ght t o you for f re 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 Third C irc 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 2010 D e c i sion s by 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 more 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 " Ron ald M a

j ewski v . Ge ne F i s chi " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1607. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2010/1607NOT 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. 09- 2919 R O N A L D A . M A J E W S K I, A ppel l ant

v. G E N E FI SC H I , W ar den; SA M U E L H Y D E R ; J O SE PH M O R R I S, D eputyW ar den and W or k R el eas e C ouns el or ; T O N Y SE I W E L L , C urr entB us i nes s A gent& Suppor tSt aff Of f i c e r ; L AB OR E RS I NT E RN AT I ONAL UNI ON OF NOR T H AMER I CA L OC AL - 1 3 0 0 ; GR E G S KR E P E NAK, Ch a i r ma n ; T ODD VO NDE RH E I D; S T E VE U R B A N ; W I ST E R Y U H A S; R O B E R T PA Y N E ; R O W L A N D R O B E R T S, For m erD ep. W a r d e n ; LUZERN E CO UN TY; LUZERN E CO UN TY C OR RECTI ON AL FA CI LI TY

APP EAL F ROM THE UNI TE D ST ATE S DI S TRI CT C OURT F O R T H E M ID D L E D IS T R IC T O F P E N N S Y L V A N IA

( D . C . C i vi l N o. 05- cv- 02396) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J ames M . M unl ey Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ar ch 8, 2010 B efor e: M cK E E , B A R R Y and G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: M ar ch 30, 2010)

OP I NI ONM a

je w s k i w a s p re v io u s ly ab s e n t o n J u ly 1 7 , 2 0 0 1 . 1 2 B A R R Y , C i r cui tJ udge I. B eca us e w e w r i t e onl yforthe part i es , w e s etforth onl ythe fa ct s r el evantt o the var i ous cl ai m s . R onal d M aj ew s ki began w or ki ng atthe Luzerne C ountyC orr ect i onal Faci l i ty( “LC C F”) i n 1991. I n 1994, he s uffe r ed a w or k- r el at ed i nj ury . I n O ct ober2000, h e re tu rn e d to w o rk a s a c o n tr o l b o o th g u a rd – a p e rm a n e n t lig h t- d u ty jo b c re a te d f o r h im . B eca us e hi s col l eague s w er e appa r ent l yenvi ous of hi s l i ght - dutypos i t i on, i n J une 2002, th e yc ir c u la te d a g ri e v a n c e c o m p la in in g th a t h is e m p lo ym e n t c re a te d s a f e ty iss u e s . M aj ew s ki i nform ed W ar den G ene Fi s chi of the gr i evanc e and c om pl ai ned aboutbei ng d en ied o v erti m e, an d M ajew sk i’ s co u n sel sen t Fisch i a l ett er reg ard ing the g ri ev an ce . In r es pons e, a deputyw ar den i s s ued a w arni ng r egar di ng har as s m ent . T her e i s no evi dence thatthe gr i evanc e w as everfi l ed. O n N ovember14, 2002, M aj ew s ki w as s us pended f orthr ee da y s w i thoutpaydue t o ab sent eei sm w hen his car br ok e do w n en rout e t o w ork. W hen he call ed L C C F t o ask fortr ans por t at i on, hel p w as deni ed. M aj ew s ki w as notperm i t t ed t o us e a s i ck or emer gencyvaca t i on dayt o cur e hi s abs ence . T he LC C F C ode of Et hi cs cat egor i zes “abs ent eei s m ” as a thi r d- l evel offe ns e. A s econd s uch off ens e m er i t s a thr ee- day 1 s us pens i on. I n D ece m ber2002, M aj ew s ki ’ s couns el s enta l ett ert o Fi s chi al l egi ng that th e s u s p e n s i o n w a s r e t a l i a t o ry.3

A ccor di ng t o Fi s chi , as l ong as M aj ew s ki t i m el y“ca l l ed out ” and c l ai m ed thathe coul d notw or k due t o hi s w or k- r el at ed i nj ury , he w as notdi s ci pl i ned and w as pai d by u til izin g a sic k , p e rso n a l, stres s. o r v a c a tio n d a y . If M a jew sk i “c a lled o u t” d u e to h is w or k- r el at ed i nj urybuthad exha us t ed hi s acc rued, pai d t i m e off , he w oul d notbe di s ci pl i ned, butw oul d be gi ven the t i m e off w i thoutpay . O n A pr i l 17, 2003, M aj ew s ki fi l ed a c om pl ai ntw i th the Equal E m pl oym entO ppor tuni tyC om m i s s i on cont endi ng that hi s s us pens i on w as i n r et al i at i on forobj ect i ng t o the gr i evanc e thathad bee n ci r cul at ed a b o u th i m. O n D ece m ber7, 2004, atappr oxi m at el y2: 30 a. m . , L C C F em pl oy ees w i tnes s ed M aj ew s ki exhi bi t i ng s i gns of i nt oxi cat i on. A ft erappr oxi m at el ys even a t t empt s on a br eathal y zer( dur i ng s om e of w hi ch M aj ew s ki w as notbl ow i ng har d enough) , he r ecor ded a b lo o d -a lc o h o l c o n te n t o f .1 8 6 % . H e d e n ie s b e in g in to x ic a te d . L at erthatday , M aj ew s ki r eturned, m etw i th L C C F offi ci al s , and w as s us pended, w i tho ut pay , pen ding t erm i nati on . T hat act i on w as i n acco rdance w i th the C od e of E thics , w hi ch def

i ned i nt oxi cat i on atw or k as a fi r s t - l evel offe ns e, perm i t t i ng di s m i s s al . A ft erthe m e e tin g , M a

jew sk i as k e d D e p u tyW a rd e n S a m u e l H y d e r, “[ w ]h ya re th e yd o in g th is to m e?” ( A 535. ) H y derpoi nt ed upw ar ds and s ai d “[t ] heyw anty ou fi r ed. ” (I d. ) M aj ew s ki e n ter e d a lco h o l re h a b ili tatio n f o r n in e tee n d a y s o f

in p a tien t trea tm e n t. O n Ja n u a ry5 , 2 0 0 5 , M a jew sk i re q u e ste d m e d ica l lea v e p u rsu a n t to th e F a m ily M edi cal L eave A ct( “FM L A ”) t o compl et e outpat i entr ehabi l i t at i on. O n J anuary25,4

2 0 0 5 , h is re q u e st f

o r F M L A lea v e w a s g ra n ted , retro a c tiv e to D e c e m b e r 7 , 2 0 0 4 . H is l eave expi r ed i n m i d- M ar ch 2005. I n February2005 and M ar ch 2005, M aj ew s ki w as pr es ent ed w i th – and r ej ect ed – n u m e ro u s v e rsio n s o f

a las t ch a n c e a g re e m e n t. T h e a g re e m e n t, i n su m , p e rm itt e d h im to re tu rn to w o rk if

h e a g re e d to c o m p le te h is o u tp a tie n t tr e a tm e n t a n d re p o rtto w o rk s o b e r. I n l at e A ugus t2005, Fi s chi i nform ed M aj ew s ki thathe w oul d r ecomm end hi s t erm i nat i on atthe nextpr i s on boar d m eet i ng. O n Sept ember19, 2005, M aj ew s ki w as t erm i nat ed. I n J anuary2006, M aj ew s ki fi l ed an a m ended c om pl ai ntal l egi ng vi ol at i ons of 42 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 (a ss e rtin g v io latio n s o f th e F irst, F o u rth , F if

th , an d F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n ts), 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 5 , the A m e ric a n s w ith D isa b ili ties A c t, th e P e n n sy lv a n ia H u m a n R e l a t i o n s A c t( “ P H R A ” ) , a n d th e F M L A , a n d c a u s e s o f a c t i o n f o rc o n s p i r a c y, in te n tio n a l in f

lic tio n o f e m o tio n a l d is tr e s s , a n d w ro n g f u l d is c h a rg e . A f ter th e d e f

e n d a n ts f iled a m o tio n f

o r ju d g m e n t o n th e p lea d in g s, im p ro p e rly c a p tio n e d a s a m o tio n to d ism iss , the D istric t C o u rt d ism iss e d M a jew sk i’s § 1 9 8 3 c laim p r e mi s e d o n v i o l a t i o n s o f th e F o u r th , F i f

th , a n d F o u r t e e n th Ame n d me n t s ; § 1 9 8 5 c l a i m; an d inten ti o n al i n fli cti o n o f e m o ti o n al distr ess c lai m . F o ll o w ing m o ti o n s fo r sum m ary j udgm entand s uppl ement al br i efi ng, the C our tgr ant ed s um m aryj udgm enti n the defe nd ants ’ favor on all rem ai ning cl ai m s. II. T he D i s tr i ctC our thad s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . §§ 13315

and 1367( a) . W e have appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. T h e D istric t C o u rt’s g ra n t o f ju d g m e n t o n th e p lea d in g s a n d su m m a ryju d g m e n t is s u b je c t to p le n a ry re v ie w . E . I . D uP ontde N

em ours & Co. v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 508 F. 3d 126, 1 3 1 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 7 ). W e “ c o n stru e a ll fa c ts a n d in f e re n c e s 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 rty , an d ju d g m e n t w ill n o t b e g ra n ted u n les s th e m o v a n t cle a rly es t abl i s hes ther e ar e no mat er i al i s s ues of fa ct , and he i s ent i t l ed t o j udgm entas a mat t er of l aw . ” I

d. at 13 2 (qu o tat ion an d alt era ti o n o m itted). III . 1. Fi r s t A m e ndm e nt A thr es hol d i nqui ryfocus es on w hetherM aj ew s ki ’ s s peec h i nvol ved a mat t erof p u b lic c o n c e rn . B aldas s ar e v. N ew Jer s ey , 2 5 0 F .3 d 1 8 8 , 1 9 5 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 1 ). “A p u b lic empl oy ee’ s s peec h i nvol ves a mat t erof publ i c conc ern i f i tcan be fai r l ycons i der ed as r el at i ng t o anym att erof pol i t i cal , s oci al , orotherconce rn t o the comm uni ty . ” G r een v . P hi la. H ous . A uth. , 1 0 5 F . 3 d 8 8 2 , 8 8 5 -86 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) (qu o tat ion o m itted). H o w ev er, “publ i c s peec h cannotcons t i tut e mer el yper s onal gr i evanc es . ” B r ennan v. N or t on , 350 F .3 d 3 9 9 , 4 1 2 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 3 ) (q u o tatio n a n d e d iti n g m a rk s o m itt e d ); s ee al s o Sanguigniv. P i t t s bur gh B d. of P ub. E d. , 9 6 8 F .2 d 3 9 3 , 3 9 9 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 2 ) (“ sp e e c h re late d so lelyto m u n d an e e m p loym en t gri ev an ce s” is n o t m att er o f p u b li c c o n ce rn). M a jew sk i’s s p e e c h w a s p e rso n a l in n a tu re . H is c o m p lain ts to F isc h i an d h is cou nsel ’s l et t ers t o F i schi and the P ri son B oard co ncerned on l yhis personal gr i evan ces.6

“ P u re ly p e rs o n a l” s p e e c h is n o t p ro te c te d . See Bre nnan , 3 5 0 F .3 d a t 4 1 2 . 2. Four t h A m e ndm e nt W hen eva l uat i ng the cons t i tut i onal i tyof an e m pl oy ee t es tfori nt oxi cat i on – s uch as the br eathal y zert es tchal l enged he r e – w e mustcons i der : “( 1) the natur e of the pr i vacy i nt er es tupon w hi ch the s ear ch i ntrudes ; ( 2) the ext entt o w hi ch the s ear ch i ntrudes on the empl oy ee’ s pr i vacy ; and ( 3) the natur e and i m m edi acyof the governm ent al conce rn at i s s ue, and the ef

fi cac yof the means empl oy ed bythe governm entform eet i ng that conce rn. ” W

i l cherv. C i t

y of W i lm i ngt on , 1 3 9 F . 3 d 3 6 6 , 3 7 4 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). Fi r s t , M aj ew s ki enj oy ed a di m i ni s hed expe ct at i on of pr i vacybas ed on hi s pos i t i on as a corr ect i ons offi cer . “[T] he s afe tyconce rns as s oci at ed w i th a part i cul artype of empl oym ent ” may“di m i ni s h an empl oy ee’ s expec t at i on of pr i vacy . ” See i d. (f ire f ig h ter s); s ee al

s o N at ’ lTre as ur

y Em pl oyee s U

ni on v. V on R aab , 489 U . S. 656, 672 (1989 ) ( cust om s offici al s) . C orr ect i on s officer s, l i ke fir efi gh t ers and cust om s offici al s, ar e s afe ty - s ens i t i ve empl oy ees . “[E] ven a mom ent aryl aps e of a t t ent i on can ha ve di s as tr ous cons equenc es . ” Skinn er v . R a ilw a y L a b o r E

xe cu ti ve s A ss’n , 489 U . S. 602, 628 (19 8 9 ).S ec o n d , b rea thaly ze r t ests are m inim all yintru sive . B rea th tests “d o n o t r eq u ir e pi er ci ng the s ki n and maybe conduc t ed s afe l yout s i de a hos pi t al envi r onm entand w i th a m i ni m um of i nconveni ence orembar r as s m ent . ” I d. a t 6 2 5 . M o re o v e r, th e ir re su lts “r evea l the l evel of al cohol i n the empl oy ee’ s bl oods tr eam and nothi ng m or e. ” Id . T hi r d,7

the i m m edi acyof conduc t i ng a br eathal y zert es ti s pat entbeca us e al cohol i s “el i m i nat ed fr om the bl oods tr eam ata cons t antr at e. ” I d. at623. T hes e fa ct or s al l i ndi cat e thatthe br eathal y zert es tati s s ue her e w as notan unr eas onabl e s ear ch. 3 . ADA U n d er McD onnel lD ouglas C or p. v. G r een , 411 U . S. 792 ( 1973) , aft era pl ai nt i ff has es t abl i s hed a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e of di s par at e tr eatm ent , the bur den s hi ft s t o the defe ndantt o s t at e a l egi t i m at e, nondi s cr i m i nat oryr eas on fori t s act i on. I f the def endant m eet s that burden, the p res um pti on of d i scr i m i natoryact i on rai sed bythe p ri m a facie cas e i s r ebutt ed. T he pl ai nt i ff mayr es pond bys how i ng thatthe def endant ’ s pr offe r ed r eas on w as pr et extual . T o pr ove thatan expl anat i on i s pr et extual , a pl ai nt i ff must“ca s t [] su f f icie n t d o u b t u p o n e a c h o f th e leg iti m a te r e a so n s p ro f f e re d b yth e d e f

e n d a n t so th a t a fac t fi ndercoul d r eas onabl yconcl ude thateac h r eas on w as a fa br i cat i on . . . or. . . al l ow [] the fa ct fi ndert o i nferthatdi s cr i m i nat i on w as m or e l i kel ythan nota mot i vat i ng or det erm i nat i ve ca us e of the adve r s e empl oym entact i on. ” W is hki n v. P ot t er , 476 F. 3d 180, 185 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . A pl ai nt i ff maydefe ats um m aryj udgm entby

“‘ ( I ) di s cr edi t i ng the empl oy er ’ s pr offe r ed r eas ons , ei therci r cumst ant i al l yordi r ect l y , or (i i) ad d u cing ev iden ce , w h ethe r circum stan ti al or d ir ec t, that d iscri m ination w as m o re 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 entact i on. ’ ” I d. (qu o tat ion o m itted). A s s um i ng ar

guendo thatM aj ew s ki s etforth a p rim a fa c ie c a se , L u z e rn e C o u n tyM aj ew s ki al s o cl ai m s thathe w as deni ed overt i m e due t o hi s w or k- r el at ed i nj ury , but 2 offe r s no evi dence s ubs t ant i at i ng the al l egat i on. B eca us e “f actual al l egat i ons notbas ed on per s onal know l edge [ ar e] i ns uffi ci entt o avoi d s um m aryj udgm ent , ” O l ym pic Juni or, I nc. v. D avi d C r

ys tal , I nc. , 463 F. 2d 1141, 1146 ( 3d C i r . 1972) , the r ecor d i s i ns uffi ci ent t o es t abl i s h thatM aj ew s ki w as deni ed overt i m e. A l though the D i s tr i ctC our tdi d notconducta bur den- s hi ft i ng anal y s i s , w e may 3 aff i r m on “anygr ounds s uppor t ed bythe r ecor d. ” Ni ci ni v. Morra , 212 F. 3d 798, 805 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) ( e n b a n c ). 8 and L C C F off

ered l egit i m at e, no n-di scr i m i natoryreas on s for each no n-tri vial adv ers e e m p lo ym e n t ac tio n tak e n a g a in st h im , inc lu d in g th e w rite- u p s, su sp e n sio n s, a n d h is t e r mi n a t i o n . S p e c i f

i c a l l y , e a c h d i s c i p l i n a rya c t i o n wa s s u p p o r t e d b yM a j e ws k i ’ s o wn 2 m i scond uct and i m po sed i n acco rdance w i th the C od e of E thics . M ajew sk i, h o w ev er, fail ed to d em o n str ate tha t th e p rof fe red n o n -discrim inato ry rea so n s w ere p retex tual. V iew ing the e v iden ce in the li g h t m o st fav o rab le t o h im , there w as i ns uffi ci entcompet entevi dence fr om w hi ch a f act fi ndercoul d ei therdi s bel i eve the s t at ed r eas ons orconcl ude thatdi s cr i m i nat i on w as the mot i vat i ng ordet erm i nat i ve fa ct or in th e a d v e rse e m p lo ym e n t ac tio n s. A ll th a t M a jew sk i su b m itt e d in su p p o rt o f h is c laim thatL uzerne C ountyand LC C F’ s r eas ons w er e pr et extual w er e: ( 1) hi s al l egat i on that non- di s abl ed corr ect i ons offi cer s w er e notdi s ci pl i ned s i m i l ar l y ; ( 2) hi s concl us i on that the br eathal y zerw as know n t o be i nacc ur at e; and ( 3) H y der ’ s s t at ement , fol l ow i ng M a jew sk i’s s u sp e n sio n f

o r b e in g in to x ica ted , tha t “[ t]h e yw a n t y o u f ire d .” N o t o n lyis none of thi s admi s s i bl e, butconcl us oryal l egat i ons ar e i ns uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h a genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac t . W e r ej ectw i thoutfurtherdi s cus s i on M aj ew s ki ’ s s ubm i s s i on of an 3T h e s a m e a n a lysis a p p lie s to th e P H R A c la im . See S alley v. C i rcui tC i t y Stores , 4 I nc. , 1 6 0 F . 3 d 9 7 7 , 9 7 9 n . 1 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). 9 incid en t r ep o rtind icati n g that D o n ald O rav ic, a c h ef at L C C F – n o t a co rrecti o n s o ff icer – arr i ved l at e forw or k and w as perm i t t ed t o cont i nue hi s s hi ft , and new s paperart i cl es conce rni ng E m oryI s hl ey , J r . , a cook a tL C C F, w ho w as s us pended a ft err egi s t er i ng a .0 1 3 % b lo o d a lco h o l co n ten t w h ile a t w o rk b u t re in sta ted b e c a u se it w a s lik e lyth a t h is bl ood al cohol cont entdi d notqual i fyhi m as bei ng “i nt oxi cat ed, ” an unde fi ned t erm i n the C ode of Et hi cs . M aj ew s ki ’ s . 186% bl ood al cohol cont entw oul d qual i fyas “i nt oxi cat ed” u n d e ra n yd e f

i n i t i o n o f th e t e r m. 4 4. E qual P rot ect i on M aj ew s ki cont ends thathe w as deni ed equa l pr ot ect i on beca us e the C ode of Et hi cs w a s s e le c tiv e ly en f

o rc e d a g a in s t h im . T o e s ta b lis h a s e le c tiv e e n f o rc e m e n t c la im , a p lain tiff m u st d e m o n stra te th a t o th e r, sim ilarlysitu a ted in d iv id u a ls w e re n o t ad v e rse ly tr eat ed and thatthe s el ect i ve tr eatm entw as bas ed on an “ unj us t i fi abl e s t andar d s uch as r ace , orr el i gi on, ors om e otherarbi tr aryfac t or , . . . ort o pr eventthe exe r ci s e of a fundament al r i ght . ” Hi l lv. C i t y of Scr ant on , 411 F. 3d 118, 125 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( quot at i on o m itted). M aj ew s ki cannots at i s fyei therpr ong of the t es tenumer at ed i n Hill . H e o ff ers insu ff ici en t evid en ce that the C o d e o f E thics w as n o t app li ed to o ther c o rrecti o n s o ff icers o r t h a t a n yp u rp o rt e d s e le c tiv e e n f o rc e m e n t w a s p re m is e d o n a n u n ju s tif ia b le s ta n d a rd .10

E ven a c ur s oryr eadi ng of Hill u n d e rs c o re s th e e v id e n tia ry sh o rt f a ll o f M a je w s k i’ s c la im . 5 . FM LA N e x t, M a

jew sk i cla im s th a t F isc h i, H y d e r, an d D e p u tyW a rd e n Jo se p h M o rris i nt er fer ed w i th hi s r i ght s underthe FM L A . T he FM L A ent i t l es el i gi bl e empl oy ees t o “12 w or kw eeks of l eave dur i ng any12- m onth per i od” i f the empl oy ee ha s a qual i fy i ng s er i ous h e a lth c o n d itio n . See 2 9 U . S . C . § 2 6 1 2 (a)(1)(D ). T h e statute f u rth er p rov ides that “[ a]n el i gi bl e empl oy ee mayel ect , oran empl oy erm ayr equi r e the empl oy ee, t o s ubs t i tut e any of the ac crued pai d vaca t i on l eave , per s onal l eave , orm edi cal ors i ck l eave of the em p loy ee fo r l ea v e p rov ided . ” 2 9 U . S . C . § 2 6 1 2 (d)(2 )(B ).

“ [ T ]o a ss e rt a c laim o f

in ter f e re n c e , an e m p lo y e e m u st s h o w th a t h e w a s e n tit led to benef i t s underthe FM L A and thathi s empl oy eri l l egi t i m at el ypr event ed hi m fr om obt ai ni ng thos e bene fi t s . ” Sar now s kiv. A i rB r ooke Li m ous i ne, I nc. , 510 F. 3d 398, 401 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 7 ). A n e m p lo y e r in ter f e re s w ith th e e x e rc ise o f F M L A b yre f

u sin g to a u th o r i z e F M LA l e a v e o r“ d i s c o u r a g i n g a n e mp l o y e e f r o m u s i n g s u c h l e a v e . ” 2 9 C. F . R. § 8 2 5 . 2 2 0 (b). A ft erbei ng s us pended w i thoutpaydue t o hi s i nt oxi cat i on, M aj ew s ki r eques t ed FM L A l eave t o cont i nue outpat i ental cohol r ehabi l i t at i on. O n J anuary25, 2005, M aj ew s ki ’ s r eques tforFM L A l eave w as gr ant ed, r etr oact i ve t o D ece m ber7, 2004 – the dat e hi s s us pens i on began. A t th e tim e o f

h is re q u e st f

o r F M L A lea v e , M a

jew sk i d id n o t as k to u se h is11

acc rued t i m e pr i ort o comm ence m entof hi s FM L A l eave . M or eover , the FM L A s t at es th a t an e m p lo y e r “ m a yre q u ire ” a n e lig ib le e m p lo y e e to u se a c c ru e d , p a id lea v e p rio r to comm ence m entof the tw el ve- w eek FM L A l eave . 29 U . S. C . § 2612( d) ( 2) ( B ) . T he F M L A d o e s n o t, a s M a

je w s k i c o n te n d s , requir e an em ploy er t o d o such . N evertheles s, even i f M aj ew ski w as perm i t t ed to ut i l i ze anyaccrued, paid l eave, s uch l eave “ run[s] c o n c u rr e n tly w ith th e u n p a id F M L A le a v e .” 2 9 C .F .R . § 8 2 5 .2 0 7 (a ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ). T hus , M aj ew s ki ’ s us e of a nyacc rued s i ck and/ orper s onal l eave w oul d nothave i m pact ed the s t atut or i l yr equi r ed tw el ve w eeks of FM L A l eave thathe r ece i ved. F u rth e rm o re , the p ro p o se d las t ch a n c e a g re e m e n ts d id n o t in ter f e re w ith , res tra in or denyM aj ew ski ’s exerci se of h i s FM L A ri gh t s. T he requ estthat M aj ew ski si gn a l ast chan ce agreem ent had n o im pact on h i s abi l i tyt o o btai n F M L A ben efi t s. 6. W rongf

ul D i s charge M aj ew s ki al s o cont ends thathe w as w r ongful l ydi s char ged. I n Penns y l vani a, “the t or tof w r ongful di s char ge i s avai l abl e o n ly w hen the empl oym entr el at i ons hi p i s at - w i l l . ” P hi l l i ps v. B abcock

& W i l cox , 50 3 A . 2d 36 , 38 (Pa. 19 86 ) ( em ph asi s added ). T hu s, w h e r e a n e m p l o ye e , l i k e M a j e w s k i , i s n o ta n a t - w i l l e m p l o ye e , b u tr a th e rp r o t e c t e d b y a co ll ec ti v e b arg ainin g ag ree m en t, the e m p loy ee m u st seek red ress thro u g h the a g ree m en t’ s g ri e v a n c e p ro c e d u re s . R os s v. Mont ourR . R . C o. , 5 1 6 A . 2 d 2 9 , 3 2 (P a. S u p er. C t. 1 9 8 6 ). 7. C i vi l C onspi racy F in a lly , M a

jew sk i alle g e s th a t th e d e f e n d a n ts e n g a g e d in a c iv il co n sp ira c yto12

depr i ve hi m of hi s r i ght s unders t at e and f eder al l aw . H ow ever , beca us e ci vi l cons pi r acy depends on the per form ance of s om e under l y i ng t or t i ous act , the cons pi r acyi t s el f i s not in d e p e n d e n tly a c tio n a b le . B o y a n o w sk i v. C a

p ita l A re a In ter m e d ia te U n it , 215 F. 3d 396, 4 0 7 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 0 ); GM H A s s ocs . v. P r udent i alR eal t y G r oup , 752 A . 2d 889, 905 ( Pa. S u p e r. C t. 20 0 0 ). B e c a u se M a jew sk i f a iled to e sta b lish a n u n d e rly in g to rt, h is c iv il c o n s p i r a c yc l a i m f

a i l s a s a ma t t e ro f

l a w. I V. F o r t h e f o re g o in g re a s o n s , w e w ill a f f ir m th e o rd e rs o f

th e D is tr ic t C o u rt .