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 11-22-2005 

# L ap e v . C omm P A 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 . 05-1094

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 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
" L ape v . C omm P A" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 207. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/207NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL I N TH E 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 C as e N o: 05- 1094 SH A RE N LA PE a /k /a Shar en A nder s on, A ppel l ant v. CO M M ONWE AL T H OF P E NNS YL VANI A; P E NNS YL VANI A DE P AR T M E NT OF

CO RR EC TI O N S; J EFFR EY BE A RD , D e pu tySe c r e t a ry , PA D ept . of C orr ect i ons , i n hi s i ndi vi dual and off i ci al capac i ty ; T H O M A S R O G O S K Y , D i rect or, P A D ept. of C orr ect i on s, B ur eau of

C om m uni tyC orr ect i ons , i n hi s i ndi vi dual and of fi c i a l c a pa c i ty ; RO BE RT BE LC I K , Regi on a l D i r e c t or , PA D e p t. of C o rre c tio n s, C o m m u n ityC o rre c tio n s - R e g io n III, in hi s i ndi vi dual and off

i ci al capa ci ty ; K E N N E T H D E H U S, C ent er D i rect or, P A D ept. of C orr ect i on s, C om m un i tyC orr ect i on s - R egi on I I I , C ent er2, i n hi s i ndi vi dual and off i ci al ca p ac ity ; W IL L IA M M O R S E , C o n tr ac t Fa cil ityC o o rdin ator, R egi on I I I , PA D ept . of C orr ect i ons , i n hi s i ndi vi dual and o ff ici al ca p ac ity ; PE T E R B A L E S T R E IR E , P erso n n el O ff icer, PA D ept . of C orr ect i ons , i n hi s i ndi vi dual and off i ci al capa ci ty ; L I N D A E SH E L M A N , R egi onal T r ai ner , PA D ept . of C orr ect i ons , C om m uni tyC orr ect i ons , i n heri ndi vi dual and

o f f icia l ca p a c ity 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 i s tr i ctC our tN o. : 01- C V - 02169 D i s tr i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e G aryL . L anca s t er

A r gued O ct ober20, 20052 B e f o re : S M IT H , B E C K E R , a n d N Y G A A R D , C i r cui tJudges

( Fi l ed: N ovember22, 2005 ) B ra d ley M . B a ss i Jef fre yT . O lup [A rgu ed ] B as s i , M cC une & V r eel and 111 Fal l ow fi el d A venue P. O . B ox 144 C har l er oi , PA 15022 J i l l A . D evi ne 103 M ai n St r eet W es tN ew t on, PA 15089 C ouns el f orAppel lant R o d n e yM . T o rb ic C hr i s t i an D . B ar efor d [A r gued] O f f ice o f A tto rn e yG e n e ra l o f

P e n n sy lv a n ia 564 Forbes A venue M anorC om pl ex Pi t t s bur gh, PA 15219 C ou nself

or App el l ees

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT S M IT H , C i r cui tJudge . Shar en A nder s on w as an empl oy ee of the Penns y l vani a D epart m entof C orr ect i ons ( “D O C ”) atthe C om m uni tyC orr ect i ons C ent er#2 ( “C C C #2") i n Pi t t s bur gh i n 1998. She m ayhave de vel oped a r el at i ons hi p w i th M i chae l L ape, an i nm at e w ho w as hous ed att hatA l though Shar en A nder s on change d hername t o Shar en Lape, w e w i l l r efe rt o herby 1 herm ai den name. T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt h a d s u b je c t m a tte r j u ri s d ic tio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § § 1 3 3 1 a n d 1 3 4 3 . 2 W e exe r ci s e j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. W e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew over a D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s g ra n t o f a m o tio n f

o r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. A z z ar o v. C ount

y of A l l egheny , 1 1 0 F .3 d 9 6 8 , 9 7 3 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) ( e n b a n c ). 3 fac i l i ty , and s he s ubs equent l ym arr i ed hi m aft erhe w as par ol ed. T he D O C i nves t i gat ed 1 A nder s on’ s conductand conc l uded thats he had vi ol at ed the D O C ’ s C ode of Et hi cs . For that r eason, A nd ers on w as di scharged. In r espon se, A nd ers on i nit i at ed thi s act i on against m ul t i pl e D O C offi ci al s and empl oy ees al l egi ng vi ol at i ons of herFi r s t , Fi fth and F o u rt ee n th A m en d m en t r igh ts, a c lai m o f re v erse rac ial d iscri m ination u n d er T it le V II, an d a state law claim u n d er P en n sy lvan ia’s W h ist leblo w er A ct. A fter the D istri ct C o u rt gr ant ed the D O C ’ s m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm enton eac h of hercl ai m s , A nder s on fi l ed thi s t i m el yappea l . Forthe r eas ons s etfor th bel ow , w e w i l l aff i r m the j udgm entof the D istric t C o u rt. 2 I. A n d e rso n o b tain e d a p o sitio n w ith D O C in M a rc h 1 9 9 2 , an d w a s tra n sf e rre d in e a r l y1 9 9 8 t o CCC # 2 . S h o r t l yth e r e a f t e r , o n M a r c h 3 0 , M i c h a e l La p e wa s p l a c e d a tCCC # 2 . A n d e rso n w a s L a p e ’s c o u n se lo r u n til h e w a s tra n sf e rre d to a n o th e r f

a c ili tyin P itt sb u rg h o n Ju ly1 5 , 1 9 9 8 . L a p e tele p h o n e d A n d e rso n a t h o m e c o m p lain in g a b o u t th is tr ans fer . H e al s o m ai l ed corr es pondence t o A nder s on. She admi t t ed thats he mayhave s e n t L a p e a C h ri s tm a s c a rd a t th e e n d o f th e y e a r.4

O n M a rc h 3 , 1 9 9 9 , L a p e w a s p a ro led . H e a n d A n d e rso n m e t so c iallysh o rtly ther eaf t er . O n M ay7, 1999, w hi l e vac at i oni ng t ogetheri n Fl or i da, A nder s on and Lape w e re m a rrie d . W h e n A n d e rso n re tu rn e d to w o rk a f ter v a c a tio n , sh e a d d e d h e r h u sb a n d to h e r m e d ic a l c o v e ra g e , b u t c o n tin u e d to u s e h e r m a id e n n a m e a t w o rk . A lm o s t a y e a r l a te r, o n A p ri l 4 , 2 0 0 0 , L a p e w a s re a d m itte d a s a p a ro le v io la to r. A f ter se rv in g tim e in se v e ra l sta te c o rre c tio n a l in stitu tio n s, h e w a s tra n sf e rre d in D ece m berof 2000 t o the G at ew ayB r addock c om m uni tycorr ect i ons cent er , w hi ch w as s i tuat ed i n A l l eghenyC ount y . O n M ar ch 19, 2001, w hi l e s t i l l hous ed atG at ew ay B ra d d o c k , L a p e su b m itt e d a R e sid e n t D riv in g P riv ileg e f o rm re q u e stin g p e rm iss io n to oper at e hi s w i fe’ s m ot orvehi cl e. T he form i dent i fi ed “Shar en Lape” a s the ow nerof the veh i cl e. B i l l M orse, G at ew ayB raddoc k’s cont ractfaci l i tydir ect or, forw arded t he requ est to R o b e rt B e lc ik , th e R e g io n a l D ir e c to r f o r C o m m u n ity C o rr e c tio n s . O n Fr i dayM ar ch 23, A nder s on s ubm i t t ed a l ett ert o T hom as R ogos ky , D i r ect orof th e B u re a u o f

C o m m u n ityC o rre c tio n s. T h e lette r w a s c o p ied to B e lcik a n d K e n n e th D eH us , the D i r ect orof C C C #2. T her ei n, A nder s on expl ai ned w hys he bel i eved thatt he curr ents y s t em of t r eatm entfors ex off ender s atthe A l l eghenyC ountyfac i l i tyw as i nadequa t e. She pr opos ed that“a c orr ect i onal empl oy ee be des i gnat ed as a r egi onal Sex O ffe nderT r eatm entSpeci al i s tforthe C C C s ” and s ubm i t t ed a l i s tof r es pons i bi l i t i es and an out l i ne t o us e fortr eatm ent . She al s o expr es s ed herw i l l i ngnes s t o be cons i der ed for s uch a pos i t i on i f i tw as cr eat ed.S ect i on B -6 provi des: 3 T here shal l be n o frat erni zat i on or pri vate r el at i on shi p o f st aff w i th inm at es, par ol ees , orm ember s of thei rfami l i es . T hi s i ncl udes , buti s notl i m i t ed t o, tr adi ng, b arteri n g o r rece iving g ift s, m o n eyan d fa v o rs fro m the in m ate o r th e inm ate’s f rie n d s, re lativ e s, o r re p re se n tativ e s. M o re o v e r, em p lo y e s a re n o t to d e liv e r g if ts or m on eyt o inm at es’ fri end s, rel at i ves or r epresent at i ves. 5 O n M o n d ay , M arc h 2 6 , 2 0 0 1 , B elcik issu ed a m em o ran d u m to h is sup erior, R ogos ky , advi s i ng thatL ape ha d s ubm i t t ed a r eques tfordr i vi ng pr i vi l eges w hi ch i ndi cat ed thathi s w i fe w as Shar en Lape, and thatShar en Lape had the s ame addr es s as Shar en A nder s on, a corr ect i ons couns el oratC C C #2. B el ci k not ed thatL ape ha d been a t C C C #2 buthad bee n m oved i n J ul yof 1998 “be caus e of uns ubs t ant i at ed i nform at i on at thatt i m e thatther e mayhave de vel oped a r el at i ons hi p betw een M i chae l L ape a nd Shar en A nder s on. ” B el ci k r eques t ed thatan i nves t i gat i on be i ni t i at ed t o “det erm i ne i f A r t i cl e #6 oranyothers ect i on of the [D O C ] C ode of Et hi cs has been vi ol at ed. ” B e lcik ’s r e q u e st w a s g ra n ted a n d a n in v e stig a tio n w a s c o n d u c ted b yJo h n M a rk e l, w ho w as w i th t he D O C ’ s O ffi ce of Pr ofes s i onal R es pons i bi l i ty . I n the meant i m e, R ogos kyr es ponded t o A nder s on’ s M ar ch 23 pr opos al and advi s ed thata vendorhad al readybeen sel ect ed to provide sex off end er treatm ent t o C C C #2 res i den t s. M a rk e l in ter v iew e d b o th A n d e rso n a n d L a p e o n A p ril 1 0 , an d c o m p lete d h is i nves t i gat i on on A pr i l 17, 2001. I n hi s r eport , M arkel concl uded thatthe i nves t i gat i on “s ubs t ant i at ed thatC orr ect i ons C ouns el orI I Shar en A nder s on vi ol at ed” s ect i ons B - 6 and B - 14 of the C ode of Et hi cs . A condens ed form of M arkel ’ s r eport , ent i t l ed “Execut i ve 3S ect i on 14 of the C od e of E thics st at es:

E m p lo y e s w ill p ro m p tlyre p o rt to th e ir su p e rv iso r a n yin f o rm a tio n w h ich c o m e s to thei ratt ent i on and i ndi cat es vi ol at i on of the l aw , rul es , and/ orr egul at i ons of the [ D O C ] b ye ith e r a n e m p lo y e o r a n in m a te, a n d w ill m a in tain re a so n a b le f a m ili a rity w i th the provis i on s of such dir ect i ves. 6 Sum m ary , ” w as s ubm i t t ed on A pr i l 23, 2001, byH . C l i ffor d O ’ H ar a, D i r ect orof the D O C ’ s O ffi ce of

Pr ofes s i onal R es pons i bi l i ty , t o D O C Secr et aryJ eff r eyB ear d. T he s um m aryal s o concl uded thatthe i nves t i gat i on s ubs t ant i at ed thatA nder s on vi ol at ed s ect i ons B - 6 and B - 14 of the C ode of Et hi cs as s he beca m e i nvol ved i n a pr i vat e r el at i ons hi p w i th i nm at e M i chae l L ape w hen he w as a r es i dentof Penn Pavi l i on. . . . T heycorr es ponded w i th eac h other w hi l e he r es i ded atthatfac i l i tyand bega n dat i ng al m os ti m m edi at el yupon hi s r el eas e. T w o m onths aft erhi s r el eas e, theyw er e mar r i ed. C orr ect i ons C ouns el orShar en A nder s on fai l ed t o r eportthats he r ece i ved corr es pondence fr om I nm at e M i chae l L ape w hi l e he w as a r es i dent atPenn Pavi l i on. C ouns el orA nder s on i nt ent i onal l yw i thhel d i nform at i on fr om the D O C w i th r egar d t o herm arr i age, hername change a nd her hus band’ s change of s t atus upon hi s r eturn t o pr i s on. T h e re a f ter , A n d e rso n w a s n o tifie d th a t a p re -d isc ip lin a ryc o n f e re n c e w o u ld b e h e ld on M ay8, 2001 t o aff

or d heran opportuni tyt o r es pond t o char ges thats he had vi ol at ed s ect i ons B - 6 and B - 14 of the C ode of Et hi cs “as a r es ul tof a r el at i ons hi p betw een [her ] s el f and a r es i dentatthe Penn Pavi l i on C ontr actC om m uni tyC orr ect i ons C ent er . ” A n d e rs o n a tte n d e d th e p re -d is c ip lin a ry c o n f e re n c e , to g e th e r w ith M ia G iu n ta , a rep rese n tat ive f

rom the P en n sy lvan ia S o cial S erv ices U n ion (“P S S U ”). D O C ’s re p re se n tativ e s w e re B e lcik , p e rso n n e l sp e c ialist P e ter B a les trier e , inv e stig a to r M a rk e l, a n d K im K illia n , a s e c re ta ry w h o s u b s e q u e n tly p re p a re d th e typ e d m in u te s .7

T h e m inu tes o f th e c o n fe ren ce ind icate tha t th e c h arg es o f v iolati n g sec ti o n s B -6 and B - 14 of the C ode of Et hi cs and M arkel ’ s exec ut i ve s um m aryw er e r ead. A nder s on w as gi ven an opportuni tyt o r es pond and s he conf i r m ed thats he had r ece i ved l ett er s fr om L a p e w h ile h e w a s a t P e n n P a v ilio n a n d th a t s h e h a d s e n t h im a C h ri s tm a s c a rd . A ccor di ng t o t he mi nut es , “as a r es ul tof the l ett er s s he r ece i ved fr om hi m w hi l e he w as at P en n P av il ion , . . . ‘see d s w ere p lanted ’ th at l ed to h er h av ing ‘rom an ti c f ee li n g s’ t o w ard hi m and thi s l ead t o heracc ept i ng hi s t el ephone c al l s and the i nvi t at i on t o di nneronce he w as par ol ed. ” A nder s on expl ai ned thats he di d noti nform hers upervi s orof herm arr i age beca us e s he thoughts he w oul d be fi r ed i nas m uch as L ape ha d pr evi ous l ybeen on he r c a s e lo a d . T he i nform at i on r egar di ng the pr e- di s ci pl i naryconfe r ence w as s entt o T i m othy M us s er , C hi ef of

the D O C L aborR el at i ons D i vi s i on. A n empl oy ee f r om thatdi vi s i on r ecomm ended a thr ee t o fi ve days us pens i on. T hatr ecomm endat i on w as r evi ew ed on M a y1 5 , 2 0 0 1 b yDa n i e l T e p s i c , th e Di r e c t o ro f th e Bu r e a u o f

Hu ma n Re s o u r c e s . He r ecomm ended t erm i nat i on, expl ai ni ng thatA nder s on “w as i nvol ved w /hi m w hi l e he w as underourj ur i s di ct i on, & neveri nform ed mgt . ” Thats ame day , D eputySecr et aryL ove c o n c u rr e d in th e re c o m m e n d a tio n f o r t e rm in a tio n . C ons i s t entw i th t hi s deci s i on, B el ci k advi s ed A nder s on i n a l ett erdat ed M ay23, 2001, thats he w as t erm i nat ed fr om herpos i t i on as C orr ect i ons C ouns el or2 eff ect i ve M ay 1 7 , 2 0 0 1 . Th e l e t t e rr e c i t e d th a ts h e h a d b e e n c h a r g e d wi th v i o l a t i n g S e c t i o n s B- 6 a n d B-8

14 of the C ode of Et hi cs . T he l ett erexpl ai ned thatcert ai n fac t s w er e es t abl i s hed dur i ng a p r e - d i s c i p l i n a r y r e c o r d o n M a y 8 , n a m e l y: 1. A s a r es ul tof an i nves t i gat i on conduct ed bythe [D O C ] offi ce of Pr ofes s i onal R es pons i bi l i ty , i thas been ve r i fi ed thaty ou, M s . A nder s on, beca m e i nvol ved i n a pr i vat e r el at i ons hi p w i th an i nm at e bythe name of M i chae l L ape, w hen he w as a r es i dentof Penn Pavi l i on, a contr act C om m uni tyC orr ect i ons C ent er . T he i nves t i gat i on i ndi cat es thaty ou corr es ponded w i th t hi s i nm at e thr ough the mai l w hi l e he w as a r es i dentat th a tf a c i l i tya n d b e g a n d a t i n g a l mo s ti mm e d i a t e l yu p o n h i s r e l e a s e . T wo m onths aft erhi s r el eas e, y ou w er e mar r i ed t o thi s i nm at e. 2. I thas been s ubs t ant i at ed thaty ou, M s . A nder s on fai l ed t o r eportthat y ou had r ece i ved corr es pondence fr om thi s i nm at e w hi l e he w as a r es i dent a t P e n n P a v ili o n . It h a s b e e n c o n c lu d e d th a t y o u in ten tio n a llyw ith h e ld in f o rm a tio n f

ro m th e [ D O C ], y o u r S u p e rv iso r, th e R e g io n a l D ire c to r, w ith r egar ds t o fr at erni zat i on w i th an i nm at e, y ourm arr i age, y ourname change, and y ourhus bands ’ [s i c] change of s t atus upon t o [s i c] hi s r eturn t o pr i s on. 3 B yy ourow n admi s s i on, y ou i ndi ct ed [s i c] thaty ou di d notnot i fy y ours upervi s orof y ourm arr i age, beca us e y ou w er e af r ai d t o l os e y ou [s i c] j o b . I th a s a l s o b e e n s u b s t a n t i a t e d th a ty o u we r e i n f a c ta wa r e o f

th e [ DOC] C o d e o f E thics req u ir em en t th at y o u w ere su b ject t o in this m att er. T h e le tte r f

u rt h e r e x p la in e d L a p e ’s a p p e a l r ig h ts . O n N ovember16, 2001, A nder s on comm ence d thi s ci vi l act i on agai ns tthe fol l ow i ng defe ndant s : the C om m onw eal th of Penns y l vani a; the D epart m entof C orr ect i ons ; J eff

r eyB ear d, the D O C Secr et ary ; T hom as R ogos ky , D O C ’ s D i r ect orof the B ur eau of

C om m uni tyC orr ect i ons ; R obertB el ci k, D O C ’ s R egi onal D i r ect orforthe B ur eau of

C om m uni tyC orr ect i ons ; K enneth D ehus , D O C ’ s D i r ect orforC C C #2; W il li am M o rse, D O C ’s C o n tr ac t Fa cil ityC o o rdin ator; P eter B alestreir e, D O C ’s Per s onnel O ffi cer ; and, L i nda Eshel m an, D O C ’ s R egi onal T r ai ner . T he C om pl ai nt as s ert ed fi ve count s gener al l yagai ns tal l of the def endant s . C ount s I - I I I w er e ent i t l ed9

“ De p r i v a t i o n o f

r i g h t s g u a r a n t e e d b yF i r s t , F i f th a n d F o u r t e e n th Am e n d me n t s t o th e US C ons t i tut i on. ” C ountI V al l eged a cons pi r acycl ai m . C ountV cl ai m ed thatthe defe ndant s w er e l i abl e underPenns y l vani a’ s W hi s t l ebl ow erA ctforw r ongful di s char ge, 43 Pa. C on. St at . § 1423. In a d d itio n to in itia tin g th is c iv il a c tio n , A n d e rs o n f ile d a g ri e v a n c e w ith h e r u n io n , the PSSU , and r eques t ed arbi tr at i on. I ni t i al l y , PSS U r ecomm ended a rbi tr at i ng her gr i evanc e. O n N ovember8, 2002, how ever , PSS U advi s ed A nder s on thati thad r ece i ved a se ttl e m e n t o f

f e r a n d “ d e ter m in e d th a t th e se ttl e m e n t is so u n d . T h e re f o re , w e in ten d to acc eptthi s offe ron y ourbehal f, as the exc l us i ve r epr es ent at i ve. ” A l though A nder s on appea l ed thatdeci s i on t o PSS U ’ s par entuni on, the Servi ce Em pl oy ees I nt ernat i onal U ni on ( “SE I U ”) , the SE I U advi s ed A nder s on on M ay5, 2003, thati t s s t at ew i de gr i evanc e a p p e a l co m m itt e e a g re e d w ith th e re c o m m e n d a tio n to a c c e p t th e se ttl e m e n t o f f e r a n d it cl os ed hergr i evanc e. In th e m e a n tim e , the D istric t C o u rt a llo w e d A n d e rso n to a m e n d h e r c o m p lain t to a d d a c laim o f

re v e rse ra c ial d isc rim in a tio n in v io latio n o f T itl e V II a n d th e P e n n sy lv a n ia H um an R el at i ons A ct . T he C our tdeni ed, how ever , a s ubs equentr eques ti n M ayof 2004 t o amend hercompl ai nty etagai n t o as s erther§ 1983 cl ai m s agai ns taddi t i onal empl oy ees o f th e DOC, a n d t o a s s e r tRI CO a n d b r e a c h o f th e d u tyo f

f a i rr e p r e s e n t a t i o n c l a i ms a g a in s t a ll o f

th e d e f e n d a n ts , th e u n io n , its p a re n t, a n d th e A tto rn e yG e n e ra l’ s O f f ic e . T her eaf t er , the D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed the D O C ’ s m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm enton eac hW e r evi ew a di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deni al of a mot i on t o amend underR ul e 15 foran abus e of 4 d is c re tio n . G a rv in v . C ity o f P h ila d e lp h ia , 354 F. 3d 215, 219 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . I f fa ctual f in d in g s a re re v ie w e d , w e re v ie w f o r c le a r e rr o r. Si ngl etar y v. P enns

ylvani a D ep’ tof C or r ect i ons , 26 6 F . 3d 18 6, 19 3 (3d C i r. 20 01 ). If the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s l egal conclusi on s a re a t is s u e , o u r r e v ie w is p le n a ry. I d. N onethel es s , w e not e thatthe fe der al dutyof fa i rr epr es ent at i on cl ai m i s t i m e barr ed, 5 see D el C ost el l o v. Int ’l

B hd
. of Team st ers , 4 6 2 U .S . 1 5 1 , 1 7 2 (1 9 8 3 ), an d th e sta te c laim fai l s as a mat t erof l aw beca us e Penns y l vani a’ s Publ i c Em pl oy ee Rel at i ons A ctdoes not p ro v id e u n io n m e m b e rs w ith a c a u s e o f a c tio n a g a in s t th e irb a rg a in in g a g e n t. C as nerv. A F S C ME , 658 A . 2d 865, 869 ( Pa. C om m w . C t . 1995) ( ci t i ng Z icc a rd i v. C o m m o n w e a lth o f P e n n sy lva n ia , 456 A . 2d 979 ( Pa. 1982) ) . T he R I C O cl ai m agai ns tthe s t at e i s barr ed b yth e E le v e n th A m e n d m e n t. R o b i n s o n v . Ca l i f o r n i a B d
. o

f P r is o n T

e r ms , 997 F. Supp. 1 3 0 3 , 1 3 0 7 (C .D . C a l. 19 9 8 ); s ee al s o P edr i na v. C hun , 9 7 F . 3 d 1 2 9 6 , 1 3 0 0 (9th C ir . 10 o f h e r c la im s . T h is tim e ly ap p e a l f o llo w e d . II. A nder s on cont ends thatthe D i s tr i ctC our terr ed i n deny i ng herm ot i on t o amend b ec au se lea v e to a m en d sh o u ld h av e b ee n g ran ted u n d er Fo m a n v . D a v is , 371 U . S. 178 ( 1962) , and bec aus e R ul e 15( c) perm i t s amendm ent s t o add def endant s . T he fe w pages

4 of A nder s on’ s br i ef de vot ed t o the deni al of herm ot i on t o amend do noteven f ocus on hercl ai m s al l egi ng a R I C O vi ol at i on, a comm on l aw cons pi r acycl ai m , and a br eac h of the dutyof fa i rr epr es ent at i on. I n the abs ence of anys peci fi c ar gum enton appea l that th e s e c la im s s h o u ld s u rv iv e , w e d e e m th e s e c la im s a b a n d o n e d . Kos tv. Koz aki ew i cz , 1 F .3 d 1 7 6 , 1 8 2 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 3 ); s ee al s o Labore rs ’I

nt ’ lU ni on v. Fos t erW

heelerC or

p. , 26 F. 3d 375, 398 ( 3d C i r . 1994) ( “A n i s s ue i s w ai ved unl es s a partyr ai s es i ti n i t s openi ng br i ef, and forthos e purpos es a pas s i ng r efe r ence t o an i s s ue . . . w i l l nots uffi ce t o br i ng that issue b ef

o re this co u rt ”) (interna l qu o tat ion m ark s an d cit ati o n o m itted). 51 9 9 6 ) (re itera tin g th a t g o v e rn m e n t en tit ies a re in c a p a b le o f f o rm in g th e re q u isite m al i ci ous i nt entt o s uppor ta R I C O act i on) . T he R I C O cl ai m s agai ns tthe other defe ndant s fai l t o s at i s fyR ul e 9( b) ’ s part i cul ar i tyr equi r ement . M or eover , w e fi nd the d e lay atte n d a n t to d e v e lo p in g a R IC O c laim w a s a su f f icie n t b a sis f

o r d e n y in g lea v e to add thi s cl ai m i n l i ghtof the fa ctthatthe s um m aryj udgm entm ot i on w as r i pe for d is p o s itio n . S e e Fo m a n v . D a v is , 371 U . S. 178, 182 ( 1962) ( acknow l edgi ng thatdel ay m ayb e a b asis fo r de n y ing leav e to a m en d ). 11 B eca us e A nder s on’ s § 1983 cl ai m agai ns tthe addi t i onal D O C offi ci al s and e m p lo y e e s w a s tim e -b a rr e d , s h e h a d to s a tis f yth e re q u ir e m e n ts o f

R u le 1 5 (c ). W e concl ude thatA nder s on’ s bel at ed ef for tt o j oi n K i l l i an and M arkel fai l s beca us e s he i dent i fi ed thes e tw o i ndi vi dual s byname i n hercompl ai ntand y etfai l ed t o as s ertany c la im a g a in s t th e m a t th a t tim e . S e e G a rv in v . C ity o f P h ila d e lp h ia , 354 F. 3d 215, 221- 22 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( “[A ] n amended compl ai ntw i l l notr el at e bac k i f the pl ai nt i ff ha d been aw are of t he n ew l ynam ed p art i es w hen she fi l ed h er or i ginal com plai nt and si m plycho se n o t to su e th e m a t th a t ti m e .”). T h e c laim a g a in st M u ss e r m u st a lso f a il b e c a u se th e re is n o th in g in th is re c o rd to e sta b lish th a t M u ss e r w a s p e rso n a llyin v o lv e d in th e d e c isio n to di s char ge A nder s on. A s a r es ul t , ther e i s no evi dence t o es t abl i s h thatM us s erhad ei t her th e n o tic e o r t h e k n o w le d g e re q u ir e d u n d e r R u le 1 5 (c ). S e e S in g leta ry v . P e n n sy lva n ia D ep’ tof C or r ect i ons , 266 F. 3d 186, 194- 98 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . I ti s a cl os ercal l w hethert he r equi r ement s of R ul e 15( c) w er e metw i th r egar d t o T eps i c, w ho m ade the r ecomm endat i on t o t erm i nat e A nder s on. W e nee d notaddr es s w hetherther e w as an abus e of di s cr et i on, how ever , i nas m uch as hi s i nt er es t s w er e s uffi ci ent l yal i gned w i th the otherD O C offi ci al s thatthe cl ai m s agai ns thi m m aybe r es ol ved atthi s j unctur e and do12

notr equi r e r emand. III . A nder s on cl ai m ed thatherFi r s tA m endmentr i ghtt o fr ee s peec h w as vi ol at ed beca us e s he w as fi r ed i n r et al i at i on forherM ar ch 23, 2001 l ett er , w hi ch i dent i fi ed a ne ed thatC C C #2 had w i th r es pectt o cert ai n types of off ender s , pr opos ed a s ol ut i on, and expr es s ed herw i l l i ngnes s t o fi l l a pos i t i on s houl d hers ugges t i on be ac cept ed. A nder s on devot ed a s i ngl e par agr aph i n herbr i ef t o thi s cl ai m , and thatpar agr aph compl et el yfai l ed to a d d re ss th e e lem e n ts n e c e ss a ryto re a c h a ju ry . T h is p a ss in g re f e re n c e is in su f

f icie n t to b ri n g th e is s u e b e f

o re u s . Fos t erW

heelerC or

p. , 2 6 F .3 d a t 3 9 8 . Y e t ev e n w e re w e to c o n c lu d e th a t A n d e rso n ’s s p e e c h w a s o n a m a tter o f p u b lic c o n c e rn , sh e h a s f a iled to a d d u c e su f

f icie n t ev id e n c e to e sta b lish th a t itw a s a m o tiv a tin g f a c to r in th e d e c isio n to d is c h a rg e h e r. See Azz ar o v. C ount y of A l l egheny , 110 F. 3d 968, 975 ( 3d C i r . 1997) ( en b a n c ) (d isc u ss in g e lem e n ts n e c e ss a ryf o r a c laim o f

re talia tio n ); se e a lso R o b in so n v . C ity of P i t t s bur gh , 120 F. 3d 1286, 1302 ( 3d C i r . 1997) ( i ns truct i ng thati f “t i m i ng al one” i s t he e v id e n c e a d d u c e d to e sta b lish th e e lem e n t o f c a u sa tio n in a re talia tio n c laim , the f a c ts m us tbe “unus ual l ys ugges t i ve” of r et al i at orym ot i ve) . A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l aff i r m the g r a n to f s u mma r yj u d g me n to n th i s c l a i m. I V. A nder s on al s o cl ai m ed thats he w as di s char ged i n r et al i at i on forherM ar ch 23, 2 0 0 1 le tte r i n v io la tio n o f P e n n s y lv a n ia ’s W h is tle b lo w e r A c t, 4 3 P a . C o n . S ta t. § 1 4 2 3 .13

T h is A c t p ro h ib its re talia tin g a g a in st a n e m p lo y e e w h o “ m a k e s a g o o d f a ith re p o rt o r is aboutt o r eport , verbal l yori n w r i t i ng, t o the empl oy er. . . an i ns t ance of w r ongdoi ng or w as t e. ” I

d. W ro n g d o in g is d e f

in e d b yth e A c t as a “ v io latio n w h ich is n o t o f a m e re ly t echni cal orm i ni m al natur e of a Feder al orSt at e s t atut e orr egul at i on. . . . ” 43 Pa. C on. S tat. § 1 4 2 2 . In lig h t o f th e p lain tex t o f

th e sta tu te, A n d e rso n ’s w h istleb lo w e r c laim f a ils b e c a u s e h e r l e tte r d id n o t r e p o rt a n in s ta n c e o f w ro n g d o in g . V. A nder s on al s o al l eged thatthe D O C vi ol at ed herFi r s tA m endmentas s oci at i on r i ght s w hen i tfi r ed herbeca us e s he w as m arr i ed t o a par ol ee. A s the D i s tr i ctC our tnot ed, ther e i s no fac tual s uppor tforhercl ai m thats he w as fi r ed bec aus e of he rm arr i age t o a par ol ee. T he M ay23 l ett eradvi s i ng herof hert erm i nat i on s peci fi cal l yi ndi cat ed thats he w a s b e in g te rm in a te d b e c a u s e s h e h a d h a d a “ p ri v a te re la tio n s h ip w ith a n in m a te . . . w hen he w as a r es i dentof Penn Pavi l i on, ” had “ fai l ed t o r eport ” thats he had r ece i ved corr es pondence fr om an i nm at e, and had “ i nt ent i onal l yw i thhel d i nform at i on” r egar di ng herfr at erni zat i on w i th an i nm at e, herm arr i age, and the cha nge i n herhus band’ s s t atus w hen he w as r ei ncar cer at ed as a par ol e vi ol at or . I n the abs ence of s om e evi dence thats he w a s d is c h a rg e d b e c a u s e s h e w a s m a rr ie d to a p a ro le e , w e n e e d n o t a d d re s s th a t c la im . B eca us e A nder s on w as t erm i nat ed forvi ol at i ng the ant i - fr at erni zat i on rul e s etout i n Sect i on B - 6 of the C ode of Et hi cs , w e have cons i der ed w hetherthatrul e vi ol at ed her a s s o c ia tio n a l r ig h ts to m a rr ya n d to m a in ta in c e rt a in in tim a te h u m a n re la tio n s h ip s . SeeI n A b b o tt , the S u p re m e C o u rt c o n sid e re d a c iv il righ ts c laim a ss e rte d b ya c las s o f b o th 6 pr i s oner s and publ i s her s . 490 U . S. at408- 410. T her e, the C our ti ns truct ed thatthe Turne rs t andar d of r evi ew “foc us es on the r eas onabl enes s of pr i s on r egul at i ons ” and that this st an d ard w as p ref

erred o v er Mar t i nez ’ s l es s defe r ent i al appr oach be caus e the l att er w as nots uffi ci ent l ys ens i t i ve “t o the nee d fordi s cr et i on i n m eet i ng l egi t i m at e pr i s on needs . ” A b b o tt , 490 U . S. at409- 410. I n a footnot e, the C our tr ej ect ed the ar gum ent pr es s ed bythe pr i s oner s and the publ i s her s thati ts houl d focus on the “i dent i tyof the i ndi vi dual s w hos e r i ght s al l egedl yhave be en i nfr i nged. ” I d. at409 n. 9. I texpl ai ned that “anyatt empt t o for ge s epar at e s t andar ds forcas es i m pl i cat i ng the r i ght s of out s i der s i s out of s t ep” w i th s ever al deci s i ons i s s ued betw een M ar t i nezand Turne r . I

d. 14 R ober t s v. U ni t ed Stat es Jayc ees , 46 8 U . S . 60 9, 61 7-18 (19 84 ) ( dis cussi ng F i rs t A m e n d m e n t’s rig h t o f

in tim a te a ss o c iatio n ); Za b lo c k i v. R e dh a il , 434 U . S. 374, 386 ( 1978) ( “r eaf

fi r m i ng the funda m ent al char act erof the r i ghtt o m arry ” underthe S u b sta n tiv e D u e P ro c e ss C lau se o f th e F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t). A lth o u g h A n d e rso n is n o t an in m a te a n d h e r c laim m ig h t ar g u a b lyb e su b jec t to re v iew in a c c o rd a n c e w ith P r ocuni erv. M

ar t i nez , 416 U . S. 396, 409 ( 1974) , beca us e s he r ece i ved out goi ng c o rre sp o n d e n c e , w e w ill , in a c c o rd w ith th e g u id a n c e o f th e S u p re m e C o u rt’s d e c isio n in T h o rn b u rg h v . A b b o tt , 490 U . S. 401 ( 1989) , appl ythe Turne rv. Saf l ey s t andar d. A b b o tt ,

6 490 U . S. at409- 410 ( di s cus s i ng the appl i cabi l i tyof Turne rv. Saf l ey , 482 U . S. 78 (19 8 7 )). I n Turne r , the Supr eme C our tdecl ar ed that“w hen a pr i s on r egul at i on i m pi nges on in m a tes ’ c o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts, th e re g u latio n is v a lid if it i s re a so n a b lyre late d to legiti m ate p en o log ical i n terests. ” 4 8 2 U . S . at 89 . T h is an aly sis, the S u p rem e C o u rt i nst ruct ed, requi res con si derat i on of sev eral fact ors: fi r s t , w hetherthe r egul at i on bear s a “va l i d, r at i onal connec t i on” t o a15

legiti m ate a n d n eu tr al go v ern m en tal o b jecti v e; sec o n d , w h ethe r prison ers have a l t ernat i ve w ay s of exe r ci s i ng the ci r cumscr i bed r i ght s ; thi r d, w hether accom m od at i ng the ri gh tw ou l d h ave a d el et eri ou s i m pact on o ther i nm at es, guar ds , and the al l ocat i on of pr i s on r es our ces gener al l y ; and fourth, w hether al t ernat i ves exi s tthat“ful l yacc om m odat e[] the pr i s oner ’ s r i ght s atde m i nim us costt o v al i d p eno l og i cal i nter est s. Fr ais e v. Ter hune , 283 F. 3d 506, 513- 14 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( quot i ng Turne r , 4 8 2 U . S . at 89 ). T h e f ir st fac tor co m p els th e c o n clus ion , co n sist en t w ith the S u p rem e C o u rt ’s obs ervat i ons i n O v e rto n v . B a zz e tta , 5 3 9 U .S . 1 2 6 , 1 3 2 -3 3 (2 0 0 3 ), th a t th e a n tif ra ter n iza tio n ru le in th e C o d e o f E th ics b e a rs a re a so n a b le c o n n e c tio n to th e leg iti m a te s t at e i nt er es ti n m ai nt ai ni ng s ecur i tyati t s corr ect i onal fac i l i t i es . T he s econd f act or f o c u se s o n w h e th e r th e re a re a ltern a tiv e m e a n s o f e x e rc isin g th e rig h t to m a rrya n d to engage i n cert ai n i nt i m at e r el at i ons hi ps . T o be s ur e, pr i s oner s and guar ds m ayenj oy thes e r i ght s ; the l i m i t at i on i m pos ed mer el yrul es outr el at i ons hi ps w i th “i nm at es , par ol ees and mem ber s of thei rfami l i es . ” S e e Ke e n e y v . H e a th , 57 F. 3d 579, 581 ( 7th C i r . 1995) (ob serv ing that “b u rde n o n the righ t t o m arryw as li g h t or at m o st m o d era te” a s a g u ard di d nothave t o “t ake a vow of ce l i bacy ”) . W i th r egar d t o the thi r d fac t or , w e conc l ude thatacc om m odat i ng the r i ghtbyal l ow i ng unfett er ed fr at erni zat i on betw een c orr ect i onal offi cer s and i nm at es w oul d have a del et er i ous i m pacton the s t aff and i nm at es of the c o rre c tio n a l f

a c ili ty . F ra ter n iza tio n b e tw e e n g u a rd s a n d p riso n e rs w o u ld n o t o n ly i ncrease the ri sk t hat cont raband cou l d b e i ntr od uced i nto the fa ci l i ty , bu tw ou l d als o compromi s e the r es pectand author i tythatm us tbe comm anded bycorr ect i onal offi cer s by gi vi ng i nm at es a bas i s t o ques t i on thei ri m part i al i ty . “J us tthe s us pi ci on of fa vor ed16

tre a tm e n t co u ld c re a te s e rio u s p ro b lem s o f m o ra le. P riso n e rs n o t m a rrie d o r e n g a g e d to guar ds w oul d attr i but e anydi ffe r ence s i n tr eatm entbetw een themsel ves and s uch pr i s oner s t o the r el at i ons hi p. ” I d. Fi nal l y , w e ar e unaw ar e of a nyr eadyal t ernat i ves t hat coul d ful l yacc om m odat e thi s r i ghtata de mi ni m us cos tt o the i nt er es t s of s ecur i tyatt he f a c ili ty . A c c o rd in g ly , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e a n ti-fr a ter n iza tio n ru le is re a so n a b lyre late d to a l egi t i m at e penol ogi cal i nt er es tand thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tappr opr i at el ydet erm i ned that A n d e rso n ’s a ss o c iatio n a l cla im lac k e d m e rit. V I. A nder s on al s o al l eged thatthe D O C offi ci al s and empl oy ees had depr i ved herof herpr ocedur al due pr oces s r i ght s underthe Four t eenth A m endment . I n G i l ber tv. H om ar , 520 U . S. 924, 928- 29 ( 1997) , the Supr eme C our tr ei t er at ed that“publ i c empl oy ees w ho c a n b e d isc h a rg e d o n lyf o r c a u se h a v e a c o n stitu tio n a llyp ro tec ted p ro p e rtyin ter e st in thei rt enur e and c annotbe fi r ed w i thoutdue pr oces s . . . . ” A ccor di ngl y , w e mustfocus on w hether“the pr ocedur es avai l abl e pr ovi ded [A nder s on] w i th ‘ due pr oces s of l aw . ’ ” A lvin
v. Suz uki , 227 F. 3d 107, 116 ( 3d C i r . 2000) . W e agr ee w i th the D i s tr i ctC our tthatthe r equi r ement s of due pr oces s w er e meti n l i ghtof the not i ce s he r ece i ved, the hea r i ng t hat w a s c o n d u c ted , an d th e f a c t th a t sh e h a d a g rie v a n c e a n d a rb itratio n p ro c e d u re a v a ilab le to c h a lle n g e h e r d is c h a rg e . Se e D y ke s v . SEPTA , 6 8 F . 3 d 1 5 6 4 , 1 5 7 2 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 5 ); Jack s on v. Tem

pl e U ni v. , 7 2 1 F . 2 d 9 3 1 , 9 3 3 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 3 ) (co n clud ing that em p loy ee ’s r i ghtt o pr ocee d t o arbi tr at i on pr ovi ded an a dequat e due pr oces s s afe guar d even i f the17

h e a ri n g c o n d u c te d b yth e e m p lo y e r w a s b ia s e d ). A nder s on ar gues thatherdue pr oces s r i ght s w er e vi ol at ed bec aus e the uni on s e t t l e d h e rg r i e v a n c e b e f o r e i twa s a rb i tr a t e d . T h i s f a c td o e s n o ta l t e ro u rc o n c l u s i o n . As w e poi nt ed outi n D

yke s , the av ai l abil i tyof the gri evan ce and arbi trat i on proced ure i s a fac t ori n det erm i ni ng w hetherthe pr oces s aff or ded i s adequa t e. 68 F. 3d at1572. W hether an empl oy ee i s abl e t o s ucce s s ful l yarbi tr at e hercl ai m , how ever , i s notdet erm i nat i ve of w hetherthe pr oces s w as cons t i tut i onal l yadequa t e. V II. A ccor di ng t o A nder s on, the D O C ’ s conductal s o vi ol at ed hers ubs t ant i ve due p ro c e ss rig h ts u n d e r th e F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t. T h e p ro p e rtyin ter e st A n d e rso n h a d in her pub l i c em ploym ent i s not an i nter estthat i s prot ect ed b ythe S ub st anti ve D ue P rocess C la u s e . Ni cholas v. P enns ylvani a Stat e U

ni v. , 227 F. 3d 133, 143 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ( concl udi ng thatpr ofes s or ’ s t enur ed publ i c empl oym entw as w hol l ys t at e- cr eat ed contr act r i ghtthatw as nota funda m ent al pr opertyi nt er es tforpurpos es of the Subs t ant i ve D u e P ro c e ss C lau se ); se e a lso G ika s v . W a sh in g to n Sc h . D ist. , 328 F. 3d 731, 736- 37 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( fol l ow i ng Ni cholas a n d c o n c lu d in g th a t v e ter a n ’s p re f e re n c e c re a ted b ysta te law w as n o t fu n d am en tal ri g h t pro tected b ythe s u b stan ti v e d u e p roc ess c laus e). V III . A nder s on amended hercompl ai ntt o i ncl ude a c l ai m of r ever s e r aci al di s cr i m i nat i on. She al l eged thats he had be en di s cr i m i nat ed aga i ns tbeca us e s he w asC auca s i an and the D O C had tr eat ed A fr i can- A m er i cans m or e fa vor abl y . C ontr aryt o the

D istric t C o u rt’s a ss e rtio n , w e h a v e a d d re ss e d w h a t is n e c e ss a ryto e sta b lish a p rim a f a c ie cas e of r ever s e di s cr i m i nat i on i n I adi m ar co v. R unyon , 1 9 0 F .3 d 1 5 1 , 1 6 1 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). W e dec l ar ed that“al l thats houl d be r equi r ed . . . i s forthe pl ai nt i ff t o pr es ents uffi ci ent evidence to al l ow a fact fi nd er t o co nclude t hat the em ploy er i s treat i ng som e peo ple l ess favor abl ythan other s bas ed upon a tr ai tthati s pr ot ect ed underT i t l e V I I . ” Id
. Scrut i nyof the re co rd in this case sh o w s tha t A n d erso n fa il ed to sa ti sfythis st an d ard . T h e re co rd cont ai ns evi dence thatthe D O C di s ci pl i ned both C auca s i an and A fr i can- A m er i can empl oy ees fors i m i l arconduct . W e w i l l aff i r m the gr antof s um m aryj udgm enton A n d e rs o n ’s re v e rs e d is c ri m in a tio n c la im . I X. F in a lly , w e a d d re ss A n d e rso n ’s c o n sp ira c yc laim . B e c a u se sh e f a iled to e lab o ra te on the bas i s of hercl ai m ort o i dent i fyanyevi dence t o s uppor ti t , w e conc l ude thats he h a s a b a n d o n e d it. Kost , 1 F. 3d at182. I n s um , w e w i l l aff

i r m the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm entforthe defe nd ants .