2008 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 irc uit 12-22-2008 

# C l a yton v . P A D ept W elf are 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 . 07-3171

F o llow thi s and a ddit ion al works at : http://di git alc ommon s .l a w . vill anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2008

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 by 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 ill 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 2008 D e c i sion s by an authori z e d a dmini s trat or of V ill 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 . vill anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " C l a yt on v . P A D ept W el fare " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 63. http://di git alc ommon s .l a

w . vill anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2008/63H onor abl e Thom as N . O ’ N ei l l , J r . , Seni orU ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctJ udge forthe * E as t ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on 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. 07- 3171 S AM UE L CL AYT ON, J R. , M . D. A p p e l l a n t

v . P E N N S Y L V A N IA D E P A R T M E N T O F W E L F A R E , b ya n d th o u g h th e ir A g e n t,

E s t el l e R i chman, Secr et ary , D epart m entof Publ i c W el far e; H A R R I SB U R G ST A T E H O SPITA L , byand thr ough thei ragent , D r . A nn Shem o,

M edi cal D i r ect or , PA D epart m entof Publ i c W el far e,

H arr i s bur g St at e H os pi t al

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 M id d le 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. 05- cv- 00768) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le Jo h n E . Jo n es, II I Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

D ece m ber2, 2008 B e f o re : A M B R O a n d G R E E N B E R G , C ir c u it J u d g e s , and O ’ N E I L L , D i s tr i ctJ udge * ( O pi ni on fi l ed: D ece m ber22, 2008)2 OP I NI ON A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udge Sam uel C l ayt on, J r . , M . D . appea l s the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm ent to E ste lle R ich m a n , A n n S h e m o , M .D ., a n d th e P e n n sy lv a n ia D e p a rtm e n t o f P u b lic W el far e on ( 1) hi s cl ai m of r aci al di s cr i m i nat i on under42 U . S. C . § 1981, T i t l e V I I of the C i vi l R i ght s A ctof 1964 ( “Ti t l e V I I ”) , 42 U . S. C . § 2000e et s eq. , an d th e P e n n sy lv a n ia H um an R el at i ons A ct( “PH R A ”) , 43 Pa. C ons . St at . A nn. § 951 et s eq. ; ( 2) hi s r et al i at i on claim u n d er 4 2 U . S . C . § 1 9 8 1 , T it le V II, an d the P H R A ; and (3) h is ho sti le w o rk e n v i r o n me n ta n d c o n s tru c t i v e d i s c h a r g e c l a i ms . F o rth e f o l l o wi n g r e a s o n s , we a f f i r m. I. B e c a u se w e w rite o n lyf o r th e b e n e f

it o f th e p a rties , o u r re c itatio n o f th e f a c ts is br i ef. D r . C l ayt on i s an A fr i can- A m er i can phy s i ci an w ho w as empl oy ed part - t i m e fr om 1985 unt i l hi s r et i r ementi n 2003 atH arr i s bur g St at e H os pi t al ( “the H os pi t al ”) , a ment al h e a lth f a c ili tyo p e ra ted b yth e P e n n sy lv a n ia D e p a rtm e n t o f P u b lic W e lf

a re . E ste lle R ichm an is an d h as b ee n the S ec retaryo f P u b li c W elfa re in P en n sy lvan ia si n ce 2 0 0 3 . D r. A n n S h e m o w a s th e M e d ica l D ire c to r a t H a rrisb u rg S tate H o sp ital f ro m M a rc h 2 0 0 0 u n til Sept ember2004. D r. C layt o n f

iled a c h a rg e w ith th e P e n n sy lv a n ia H u m a n R e latio n s C o m m iss io n in February2001 al l egi ng an i m pr operchange i n hi s w ork s chedul e. I n M ar ch 2001, he fi l ed an a m ended c har ge w i th the Equal E m pl oym entO ppor tuni tyC om m i s s i on3

(“ E E O C ” ), co m p lain in g o f m u lti p le d isc rim in a to ryin c id e n ts. T h e E E O C iss u e d a rig h tt o- s ue l ett eri n J anuary2005, aft erw hi ch D r . C l ayt on fi l ed hi s compl ai nti n the D i s tr i ct C o u rt. I n hi s compl ai nt , D r . C l ayt on cl ai m ed thathe s uffe r ed the fol l ow i ng i ndi vi dual i nci dent s of di s cr i m i nat i on and r et al i at i on betw een 1999 a nd 2003: ( 1) the H os pi t al r e d u c e d h i s o n - c a l l t i me a f t e ra b r i e f

p e r i o d o f

e q u a l i z i n g o n - c a l l h o u r s b e twe e n f u l l - t i me a n d p a rt-tim e p h y sic ian s; (2 ) th e H o sp ital a d v ise d h im th a t h e m ig h t b e f u rlo u g h e d to m ake w ayforanotherphy s i ci an; ( 3) the H os pi t al change d hi s w ork s chedul e i n a w aythat i nt er fer ed w i th hi s pr i vat e pr act i ce; ( 4) the H os pi t al , atthe di r ect i on of D r . Shem o, m oved h is m a ilb o x to a n e w a d m in istra tiv e b u ild in g a p p ro x im a telyo n e m o n th b e f o re m o v in g a ll otherphy s i ci ans ’ m ai l boxes ; ( 5) the H os pi t al deni ed hi m a s peci al tyboar d cert i fi cat i on bonus ; ( 6) the H os pi t al r emoved a s econd de s k fr om hi s offi ce f orr es t or at i on w i thout r eques t i ng hi s cons ent ; ( 7) D r . Shem o di d notpr ovi de hi m w i th the s peci fi c off i ce s he had pr om i s ed t o hi m ; ( 8) the H os pi t al negl ect ed t o payhi m s t ep- cas h paym ent s ; and ( 9) the H o s p ita l f

a ile d to re s p o n d tim e ly to f ile d g ri e v a n c e s . S ee C layto n v. P en n sylva n ia D ep ’t of Pu bli c W

el f are , N o . 4 :C V 0 5 -07 6 8 , 2 0 0 7 W L 5 7 5 6 7 7 , * 2

– 4 (M . D . P a. F eb . 2 0 , 2 0 0 7 ). T h e D istric t C o u rt re

jec ted a ll o f

D r. C layt o n ’s c laim s. A s a p re lim in a rym a tter, it di s m i s s ed M s . R i chman as a party , l i m i t ed D r . Shem o’ s l i abi l i tyt o cl ai m s under§ 1981, a n d d ism iss e d D r. C layt o n ’s P H R A a n d § 1 9 8 1 c laim s a g a in st th e D e p a rtm e n t o f P u b lic W e lf a re . Se e id . a t* 4

– 6 . Th e Co u r ta l s o c o n c l u d e d th a ta l l o f Dr . Cl a yt o n ’ s P HRA cl ai m s , w i th the exc ept i on of hi s change i n w ork s chedul e al l egat i on, w er e barr ed for4

f a ilu re to e x h a u s t. Se e id . at*7–8. I tdet erm i ned as w el l thatthe s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons b a rr e d D r. C la yto n ’s T itle V II o n -c a ll- h o u rs c la im a n d a ll b u t th re e o f h is § 1 9 8 1 c la im s . S e e id . at*14–15. Ad d r e s s i n g th e me r i t s o f Dr . Cl a yt o n ’ s d i s c r i mi n a t i o n a n d r e t a l i a t i o n c l a i ms ( i ncl udi ng thos e barr ed bys t atut e) , the D i s tr i ctC our thel d thatD r . C l ayt on coul d not m ake outa p rim a fa c ie case becau se he co uld not es t abli sh that he suffered an adv ers e e m p lo ym e n t ac tio n o r w a s s u b jec t to a h o stile w o rk e n v iro n m e n t o r c o n stru c tiv e ly d is c h a rg e d . Se e id . at*8–13. T he C our tnot ed thatD r . C l ayt on fai l ed t o s how that s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed mem ber s of otherr ace s w er e tr eat ed more favor abl ythan he w as , or that there w as a n yd iscri m inato ryo r retal iat o rym o ti v e b eh ind the H o sp it al’s or D r. S h e m o ’s a c tio n s . See i d. T he C our tr eaf

fi r m ed i t s concl us i ons i n a deni al of D r . C l ayt on’ s m ot i on for re c o n s id e ra tio n in J u n e 2 0 0 7 . See A p p . at 4 a – 2 0 a . D r. C layt o n th e re a f tertim e ly appea l ed. II. T he D i s tr i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1331. W e have j ur i s di ct i on u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W h e n th e D istric t C o u rt g ra n ts a m o tio n f o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t, o u r r e v ie w is p le n a ry. See E l sm ere P ark C l ub , L . P . v. T ow n o f E l sm ere , 542 F. 3d 412, 416 ( 3d C i r . 2008) . Sum m aryj udgm enti s appr opr i at e w hen no genui ne i s s ues of m a te ri a l f

a c t e x is t a n d th e m o v in g p a rt yis e n title d to ju d g m e n t a s a m a tte r o f la w . See C e lo tex C o rp . v. C a tre tt , 477 U . S. 317, 322–23 ( 1986) . W e r es ol ve al l fac tual doubt s and5

d ra w a ll r e a s o n a b le in f

e re n c e s in f

a v o r o f th e n o n m o v in g p a rt y . See D L R es . , I nc. v. F i rs t E nger gy Solut i ons C or

p. , 5 0 6 F . 3 d 2 0 9 , 2 1 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ).

III . D r. C layton arg u es th at th e D istri ct C o u rterred in co n clud ing that (1) h is T it le V II on- cal l - hour s cl ai m w as t i m e barr ed, ( 2) he had notpr es ent ed s uffi ci entevi dence of di s cr i m i nat i on orr et al i at orybehavi ort o defe ats um m aryj udgm enton hi s i ndi vi dual d iscri m ination all eg ati o n , an d (3) h e c o u ld n o t est ab li sh a c lai m fo r a h o sti le w o rk envi r onm entorcons truct i ve di s char ge. W e c o n side r firstw h ethe r th e D istri ct C o u rterred in d eterm ining that D r. C l ayt on’ s cl ai m thatthe H os pi t al r educe d hi s on- cal l t i m e fordi s cr i m i nat oryr eas ons w as t i m e b a rr e d . T i t l e V I I r e q u i r e s a c l a i m a n tt o f i l e a c h a r g e w i th th e E E O C w i th i n 3 0 0 d a ys o f th e a lle g e d ly u n la w f

u l e m p lo ym e n t p ra c tic e . See 42 U . S. C . § 2000e- 5( e) ( 1) . T he C our tfound thatD r . C l ayt on’ s cl ai m of di s cr i m i nat i on r egar di ng hi s on- cal l t i m e ac crued i n O ct ober1999 and w as barr ed af t erJ une 2000— ni ne mont hs befor e hi s M ar ch 2001 f ilin g w ith th e E E O C . See Cl ayton , 2 0 0 7 W L 5 7 5 6 7 7 , at * 1 3 . D r. C layt o n re to rts th a t h is a llo tm e n t o f

re d u c e d h o u rs r e p re se n ted a c o n tin u in g v io latio n th a t d id n o t ac c ru e u n til h is departur e fr om the H os pi t al i n 2003. H e expl ai ns that“thi s i s a ‘ pay chec k’ cas e, and everydi s cr i m i nat orypay chec k r epr es ent s a vi ol at i on of Ti t l e V I I . ” C l ayt on’ s B r . at16; s ee al s o i d. at44–45 ( ci t i ng B az em or e v. Fr i day , 4 7 8 U . S . 3 8 5 , 3 9 5

– 9 6 ( 1 9 8 6 ) ) . We di s agr ee. T he Supr eme C our t ’ s r ece ntopi ni on i n L e db e tte rv . G o o d y e a rT ir e & R u b b e rC o .,6

I nc. , 550 U . S. 618, ___, 127 S. C t . 2162, 2166–72 ( 2007) , for ecl os es the ar gum entthat e a c h p a y c h e c k D r. C la yto n re c e iv e d c o n s titu te d a n e w a n d s e p a ra te v io la tio n o f T itle V II . T he C our ti n L edb et t er s t at ed that“[a ] new vi ol at i on does notoccur , and a ne w char gi ng p e rio d d o e s n o t co m m e n c e , u p o n th e o c c u rre n c e o f su b se q u e n t n o n d isc rim in a to rya c ts thatent ai l adver s e ef

fec t s r es ul t i ng fr om pas tdi s cr i m i nat i on. ” Id . at2169. T he H os pi t al m a d e th e d e c isio n to re d u c e D r. C layt o n ’s— a n d a ll o th e r p a rt-tim e p h y sic ian s’— o n -c a ll tim e in O c to b e r 1 9 9 9 . See Cl ayton , 2 0 0 7 W L 5 7 5 6 7 7 , at * 1 3 . T h is w a s a d isc re te empl oym entdeci s i on, aboutw hi ch D r . C l ayt on compl ai ned t o hi s s uper i or s butdi d not f ile a tim e ly E E O C c o m p la in t. See C layt o n ’s B r. at 4 2 . H e th u s f o rf e ited h is o p p o rtu n ity t o fi l e a Ti t l e V I I compl ai ntr egar di ng hi s al l ocat i on of on- cal l t i m e, and he c annotnow r el yon hi s pay chec ks t o “br eathe l i fe i nt o pr i or , unchar ged di s cr i m i nat i on. ” Ledbet t er , 1 2 7 S .C t. at 2 1 6 9 ; s ee al s o N at ’ lR . R . P as s engerC or p. v. Mor

gan , 536 U . S. 101, 110–14 (20 0 2 ). W e n e x tr e v i e w t h e me r i t s o f Dr . Cl a yt o n ’ s i n d i v i d u a l d i s c r i mi n a t i o n c l a i ms . To es t abl i s h a pr i m a f

aci e cas e of r aci al di s cr i m i nat i on orr et al i at i on underT i t l e V I I , § 1981, orthe PH R A , a cl ai m antm us t , among ot herthi ngs , demonstr at e thathe w as s ubj ectt o an a d v e rs e e m p lo ym e n t a c tio n . See J ones v. Sch. D is t . of

P hi la. , 198 F. 3d 403, 410–11 ( 3d C i r . 1999) . T he D i s tr i ctC our thel d thatD r . C l ayt on fai l ed t o s at i s fythi s r equi r ement beca us e he di d nots how thathe s uffe r ed an “ act i on by[hi s ] empl oy erthat[w as ] s er i ous and t angi bl e enough t o al t er[hi s ] compensa t i on, t erm s , condi t i ons orpr i vi l eges of empl oym ent . ” C layton , 2007 W L 575677, at*8 ( quot i ng St or ey v . B ur ns I nt ’ lSec.7

Servs. , 390 F. 3d 760, 764 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( i nt ernal quot at i ons om i t t ed) ) . O urr eadi ng of the r ecor d confi r m s thatD r . C l ayt on i s unabl e t o pr ove thathe w as s ubj ect ed t o a d isc rim in a to ryo r re talia to rye m p lo ym e n t ac tio n th ro u g h a n yo f th e in d iv id u a l in c id e n ts r ecount ed i n hi s cl ai m . W e thus have nothi ng t o add t o the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s thor ough a n a lysis , s ee Cl ayton , 2 0 0 7 W L 5 7 5 6 7 7 , at * 8

– 1 2 ; A p p . at 7 a – 1 5 a , an d w e a f f irm its det erm i nat i on thatD r . C l ayt on has notr ai s ed i s s ues of m at er i al fac tnece s s aryt o s urvi ve a m o tio n f o r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. See O ’ C onnorv. C ons ol . C oi n C at er ers , C or p. , 51 7 U. S. 3 0 8 3 1 2 (19 9 6 ). W e c o n c lu d e b yc o n sid e rin g th e D istric t C o u rt’s r e jec tio n o f

D r. C layt o n ’s h o stile w o rk e n v ir o n m en t and co n stru cti v e d isch arg e c lai m s. T o p rev ail o n a h o sti le w o rk envi r onm entcl ai m underT i t l e V I I and the PH R A , D r . C l ayt on m us ts how that( 1) he su ff ere d inten ti o n al discrim ination b ec au se o f h is r ac e, (2) the d iscri m ination w as se v ere orpervas i ve, ( 3) thi s detr i m ent al l yaff ect ed hi m , ( 4) i tw oul d have de tr i m ent al l yaff ect ed a re a s o n a b le p e rs o n in lik e c ir c u m s ta n c e s , a n d (5 ) a b a s is f o r e m p lo y e r l ia b ility is p re s e n t. See J ens en v. P ot t er , 435 F. 3d 444, 449 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . V i ew i ng al l of the fa ct s i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o D r . C l ayt on, w e conc l ude thathe ca nnots at i s fythi s s how i ng b e c a u se th e re is n o e v id e n c e th a t h e su f f e re d in ten tio n a l d isc rim in a tio n b e c a u se o f h is r ace orthats uch di s cr i m i nat i on w as s ever e orpervas i ve. T he r ecor d has ni ne al l eged i nci dent s of di s cr i m i nat i on s pr ead ove ra fi ve- y earper i od. N one of thes e i nci dent s w as se v e re o r p e rv a siv e in n a tu re , an d n o n e w a s s h o w n b yD r. C layt o n to h a v e b e e n ra c ially m o tiv a ted . A c c o rd in g ly , the D istric t C o u rt w a s c o rre c t to d e n yD r. C layt o n ’s h o stile8

wo rk e n v i r o n me n tc l a i m. T o es t abl i s h cons truct i ve di s char ge, D r . C l ayt on m us ts how that“the empl oy er k n o w in g lyp e rm itt e d c o n d iti o n s o f d isc rim in a tio n in e m p lo ym e n t so in to ler a b le th a t a r eas onabl e per s on s ubj ectt o them w oul d r es i gn. ” A m an v. C or tFur ni t ur e RentalC or p. , 85 F. 3d 1074, 1084 ( 3d C i r . 1996) ( i nt ernal quot at i ons om i t t ed) . B eca us e D r . C l ayt on has f a iled to p re se n t an ye v id e n c e o f ra c ial d isc rim in a tio n , h o w e v e r, h e c a n n o t sa tisf yth is re q u ire m e n t. T h e D istric t C o u rt th u s p ro p e rlyg ra n ted su m m a ryju d g m e n t o n th is c laim a s w e ll. C

f . C l ow es v. A l l egheny V al l ey H os p. , 991 F. 2d 1159, 1161–62 ( 3d C i r . 1993) ( hol di ng thatobj ect i ve pr oof of di s cr i m i nat i on i s r equi r ed t o s us t ai n an al l egat i on of cons truct i ve di s char ge) IV . F o r th e se re a so n s, w e a f f irm th e D istric t C o u rt’s g ra n t o f su m m a ryju d g m e n t.