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. 10- 1741

______________ I RE N E SH I PE v. H A V E R F O R D T O W N S H IP

______________ RO BE RT L AWS ON

v . H A V E R F O R D T O W N S H IP R obertL aw s on and I r ene Shi pe, A p p e llan ts

______________ 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 E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i v. N os . 09- 00719/ 00720) H onor abl e R . B ar cl aySur r i ck, D i s tr i ctJ udge

______________ Subm i t t ed underT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

N ovember18, 2010 B E FO R E : A M B R O , FI SH E R , and G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: N ovember23, 2010)

______________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

______________ G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJ udge.2

T h is m att er c o m es o n b ef o re this C o u rto n ap p ea ls of Iren e S h ipe a n d R o b ert L aw s on fr om an or derdat ed February16, 2010, and ent er ed February17, 2010, acc om pany i ng the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s compre hens i ve opi ni on dat ed February16, 2010, g ra n tin g a m o tio n f

o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t o f d e f e n d a n t-a p p e llee , H a v e rf o rd T o w n sh ip , in thes e A ge D i s cr i m i nat i on i n E m pl oym entA ct , 29 U . S. C . §§ 621 ets eq. , and P e n n s y lv a n ia H u m a n R e la tio n s A c t, 4 3 P a . S ta t. A n n . § § 9 5 1 e t s e q . (W e s t 1 9 9 1 ), c a s e s . T he D i s tr i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on under29 U . S. C . § 626 and 28 U . S. C . §§ 1331 and 1367, and w e have j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291. W e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew of the or derof the D i s tr i ctC our t , and thus can a ffi r m onl yi f ther e i s no di s put e of mat er i al fa c ta nd H a ve r fo r d i s e nt i t l e d t o j ud gmen ta s a mat t e rof l a w . Se e Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 5 6 (c)(2); S an tos e x rel. B ea to v . U n it ed S tat es, 55 9 F . 3 d 1 8 9 , 1 9 3 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). In m ak ing o u r rev iew , w e re co g n ize tha t eve n tho u g h m an yo f th e f ac ts i n thes e c ase s are germ ane t o both appel l ant s ’ appea l s , thei rcl ai m s ar e s epar at e and thus i tw oul d be po ssi ble for us t o reach d i fferentres ult s on the app eal s. W e s ee no ne ed t o s etfor th t he bac kgr ound of the ca s es atl ength beca us e the D istri ct C o u rtd id so in it s co m p reh en sive o p inion . W e o b serv e, ho w ev er, th at th e C o u rt d e c id e d th e c a se s a p p ly in g th e b u rd e n sh if tin g a n a ly sis th a t th e S u p re m e C o u rt se t f o rth in M cD onnel l D ougl as C orp. v. G r een, 411 U . S. 792, 93 S. C t . 1817 ( 1973) , r ej ect i ng H av erf o rd’s a rgu m en t th at G ross v . F B L F inan cial S erv ices, Inc., 1 2 9 S . C t. 2 3 4 3 (20 0 9 ), r equi r ed the appl i cat i on of a s om ew hatdi ffe r entand more oner ous appr oach f or a p p e llan ts to m e e t in th e se a g e d isc rim in a tio n c a se s. W e se e n o n e e d to c o n sid e r th is3

poi nt , as the part i es have br i efe d t he ca s es on thi s appea l underthe pr i nci pl es of M cD onnel l D ougl as and thus w e cons i derthe ca s es on thatbas i s . W e al s o not e that , as the D i s tr i ctC our tobs erved, ther e i s no di ffe r ence i n the ana l y s i s of thei rcl ai m s under fe d era l and stat e law . S ee C o n n ers v . C h ry sler F in. C o rp., 1 6 0 F . 3 d 9 7 1 , 9 7 2 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). T hough appel l ant s undoubt edl ydemonstr at ed i n the D i s tr i ctC our tthattheyhad estab li sh ed p ri m a f

ac ie ca ses o f a g e d iscri m ination , itis eq u all yclea r th at H av erf o rd p ro f f e re d leg iti m a te r e a so n s f o r th e ir ter m in a tio n , i. e ., a b u d g e t sh o rtf a ll co u p led w ith H av erf o rd’s b eli ef

that if ap p ell an ts’ p o sit ion s w ere eli m inated o ther H av erf o rd e m p lo y e e s c o u ld tak e o v e r th e ir d u ties . C o n se q u e n tly , the b u rd e n p a ss e d to a p p e llan ts to offe revi dence thatH aver for d’ s as s ert i on thati tt erm i nat ed thei rempl oym entfor l egi t i m at e r eas ons actual l yw as a pr et extfordi s cr i m i nat i on. A p p ell an ts si m p lyd id n o t m ee t th at bu rde n b yp rese n ti n g su ff ici en t fac ts t o req u ir e orperm i tthe D i s tr i ctC our tt o s ubm i tthe i s s ue t o the j ury . I n thi s r egar d, aft erexami ni ng the part i es ’ br i efs , w e have l i t t l e t o add t o the C our t ’ s opi ni on. W e mer el ynot e thateven as s um i ng thatH aver for d coul d have s ol ved i t s fi nanci al pr obl ems w i thoutt erm i nat i ng a p p e llan ts’ e m p lo ym e n t, i ts o b v io u slyre a so n a b le d e ter m in a tio n o f h o w to a d d re ss its pr obl ems s houl d notbe s ubj ectt o s econd gue s s i ng bycourt s and j ur i es . A s w e i ndi cat ed i n G r ayv. Y or k N ew s paper s , I nc. , 957 F. 2d 1070, 1082, 1083 ( 3d C i r . 1992) , “[t ] he A D E A m us tnotbe perm i t t ed t o become a mechani s m t o i nhi bi tor di narym anage r i al deci s i ons ” and “ the A D E A i s a di s cr i m i nat i on s t atut e and i s noti nt ended t o handcuf f the4

m a n a g e m e n t an d o w n e rs o f b u sin e ss e s to th e sta tu s q u o .” T h o u g h G ra yw a s n o t a p u b lic empl oym entcas e, i t s pr i nci pl es ar e appl i cabl e her e. Forthe for egoi ng r eas on the or derfors um m aryj udgm entent er ed on February17, 2010, w i l l be af

fi r m ed.