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 Thir d C ir c uit 2-12-2010 

# T e rryn R i sk v . B urgett s t own B orough 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 . 08-4746

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_2010

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 2010 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
" T e rryn R i sk v . B urg e tts t own Bor ou gh P

A" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1900. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1900Par t i es cons ent ed t o j ur i s di ct i on byU . S. M agi s tr at e J udge Li s a P. L eni han * pu rs uan tt o 2 8 U . S . C . § 6 36 (a) (3) . S ee O rderR eferr i ng C ase t o M agis trat e Judg e L i sa Pupo L eni han, R i s k v. B ur gett s t ow n B or ough, Penns y l vani a, N o. 05- cv- 01068 ( W . D . Pa. S ep t. 2 7 , 2 0 0 5 ). 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. 08- 4746

___________ T E RR YN R I S K,
v. B U R G E T T S T O W N B O R O U G H , P E N N S Y L V A N IA , A ppel l ant .

_______________ 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 ( N o. 05- cv- 01068) M agi s tr at e J udge: L i s a P. L eni han *

_______________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 34. 1( a)

N ovember10, 2009

______________ B efore: A M B R O , G A R T H and R O T H , C i rcui tJudg es.

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: February12, 2010)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________2

G A R T H , C i r cui tJudge : App e l l a n tBur g e tt s t o wn Bo r o u g h , Pe n n s y l v a n i a ( “ Bor o u g h”) appea l s fr om the D i s tr i ct C o u rt’s d e n ial o f

its m o tio n f

o r j u d g m e n t a s a m a tter o f law o r f o r a n e w trial. W e w ill
a f f i r m. I. A. A ppel l ee Terr yn R i s k w as empl oy ed byB or ough as a pol i ce of fi cer fr om O ct ober 2 0 0 2 th ro u g h M a rc h 5 , 2 0 0 5 . F ro m 2 0 0 2 th ro u g h th e su m m e r o f 2 0 0 4 , R is k w o re a sm a ll cr os s - pi n on the l apel of hi s pol i ce uni form w hi l e he w as on dutyas a s i gn of hi s s tr ong C hr i s t i an bel i efs . R i s k fr eel ydi s cus s ed hi s r el i gi ous co n v ict i ons w i th B or ough’ s C hi ef of Pol i ce G eor ge R obert s and hi s ot hercol l eague s on the pol i ce f or ce. I n the s um m erof 2004, C hi ef R obert s t ol d R i s k t o r emove t he cr os s - pi n fr om the l apel of hi s uni form . R i s k compl i ed w i th thi s r eques t , butr egi s t er ed hi s pr ot es tt o m ember s of the B ur gett s t ow n B or o u g h Cou n c i l , i n c l u d i ng C ounci l Pr es i dentPam C hur ch and Counci l Pol i ce D epart m entL i ai s on D an J ohns on. C hur ch and J ohns on both t ol d R i s k that th ey had no p ro b lem w ith h is w e a rin g a c ro ss -p in o n th e lap e l o f h is p o lice u n if

o rm . R isk su b se q u e n tly b e g a n w e a rin g th e c ro ss -p in a g a in u n til C h ief R o b e rts a g a in a sk e d h im to re m o v e it. D ur i ng R i s k’ s t enur e w i th t he pol i ce f or ce, fel l ow offi cerL i eut enantJ os eph M ur r ay w as o v erh ea rd b ya loc al st o re c lerk, A m yP rev o st, sp ea k ing to an o ther o ff icer ab o u t R isk’s
r el i gi ous bel i efs i n a der ogat ory m anner . A ccor di ng t o Pr evos t , M urr ayt ol d the otheroffi cer3

t o m ake sure he ca rr i ed T y l eno l al on g w i th h i m on his up com i ng patr ol w i th R i sk, becau se he w as l i kel yt o geta hea dache fr om havi ng t o l i s t en t o R i s k’ s pr eac hi ng about “chur ch and G od. ” Pr evos ts ubs equent l yr ep o r t ed thi s conver s at i on t o C hi ef Rober t s and expr es s ed c o n c e rn re g a rd in g th e u n f a v o ra b le c h a ra c ter iza tio n o f R isk ’s r e lig io u s b e lief s, b u t in
r es pons e R obert s m er el yl aughed. I n fal l 2004, m ember s o f the B or ough C ounci l began di s cus s i ng the nee d t o r educe the numberof off

i cer s i n i t s pol i ce depart m ent for budget ary r eas ons . A tthe t i m e, B or ough empl oy ed one f

ul l t i m e pol i ce offi cer— C hi ef R obert s — and ni ne part - t i m e offi cer s , one of
w hom w as R i s k. A s tudyconduct ed b y the B or ough C ounci l concl uded thati tw oul d be mo r e e c o n o m i c a l f

o rth e t o wn t o e m p l o ytwo f u l l
- t i m e o f

f i c e r s a n d o n l yth r e e p a r t - t i me o f f ic e rs . I n N ovember2004, C hi ef R obert s w as chatt i ng w i th Pr evos t , and i n the cour s e of the conver s at i on the ybegan di s cus s i ng the i m pendi ng cut s t o the pol i ce f or ce. R obert s as ked P re v o st h e r o p in io n re g a rd in g w h ich th re e o f th e d e p a rtm e n t’s n in e p a rt-tim e o f f ice rs s h o u ld be r et ai ned, and Pr evos t r es ponded by nami ng R i s k, L t . M urr ay , and a thi r d offi cer , Ser geant A ugus tM odi n. R obert s then comm ent ed thatR i s k w oul d notbe r et ai ned bec aus e hi s chur ch att endanc e i nt er fer ed w i th hi s o b li g ati o n s t o the pol i ce f or ce. Pr evos tr es ponded thats he di dn’ tthi nk the B or ough s houl d getr i d of a good of fi cerj us tbeca us e he w entt o chur ch. P revostsubsequ entl yi nfo rm ed R i sk of h er conv ers at i on w i th C hief R ob erts. R i sk bel i eved thatR obert s ’ comm entabout h is c h u r ch att endanc e i nt er fer i ng w i th hi s j ob,4

part i cul ar l yi n l i ghtof R obert s ’ r epea t ed r eques t s thatR i s k r emove h is c ross - pi n, w as evi dence of r el i gi ous di s cr i m i nat i on. R i s k s oughtl egal couns el , and on D ece m ber7, 2004, R i s k’ s att orneydr aft ed a l ett er , addr es s ed t o C hi ef R obert s and copy i ng al l m ember s of the B or ough C ounci l , r eques t i ng t hatR i s k be perm i t t ed t o w earthe cr os s - pi n on hi s uni form , and
a ss e rtin g th a t f

irin g R isk f

o r th e re a so n s a rticu late d b yR o b e rts in h is c o n v e rsa tio n w ith Pr evos tw oul d cons t i tut e unl aw ful r el i gi ous di s cr i m i nat i on. R isk’s at t orneyatt ache d a
w ri t t en st at em ent by P revost ou t l i ning the con t ents of h er conv ers at i on w i th C hief R ob ert s. N o n e o f th e le tte r’ s re c ip ie n ts e v e r r e s p o n d e d to R is k ’s c o n c e rn s . O n J anuary 9, 2005, B or ough r emoved R i s k fr om the pol i ce of fi cer ’ s dutys chedul e. O n February16, 2005, B or ough w r ot e t o al l pol i ce of fi cer s announci ng thati tw ou ld be
m aking cu t s t o the force based u po n p e rfo rm ance a nd avail abil i ty . A tthat t i m e, R i sk i nfo rm ed co un ci l m an an d poli ce l i ai son Johnson that he w as “veryavail able” t o w ork. R i sk
a ls o w ro te a le tte r t o C h ie f R o b e rt s s ta tin g th a t h e w a s a v a ila b le to w o rk e v e ry d a y . O n J une 23, 2005, B or ough offi ci al l ynot i fi ed R i s k of hi s t erm i nat i on. I n acc or dance
w ith th e re c o m m e n d a tio n o f th e c o s t- s tu d y , B o ro u g h e le c te d to re ta in th re e p a rt -t im e o f f ic e rs o n th e f o r c e . I n a d d i t i o n t o r e t a i n i n g Lt . M u rr a y , Bo r o u g h a l s o r e t a i n e d two o th e rp a r t - t i me offi cer s : Pr i ce a nd N i chol s . Si gni fi cant l y , B or ough had hi r ed N i chol s i n Sept ember2004, near l ytw o y ear s aft eri thad hi r ed R i s k. W hen R i s k had i ni t i al l ybegun w or ki ng as a B or ough pol i ce of fi ceri n 2002, he had appl i ed fora w ai verof the otherw i s e- m andat orytr ai ni ng pr ogr am, beca us e he had a l r eady5

under gone a s i m i l artr ai ni ng pr ogr am i n pr epar at i on forhi s empl oym entas a pol i ce of fi cer i n A m s t er dam, O hi o. A tthe t i m e thatR i s k compl et ed hi s w ai verappl i cat i on, he w as under the i m pr es s i on thathi s tr ai ni ng and ex p erien ce i n O hi o qual i fi ed hi m t o w ai ve outof the B or ough’ s m andat ory tr ai ni ng pr ogr am. R i s k’ s w ai verappl i cat i on w as acc ept ed, and he w as c e r t i f i e d t o wo r k a s a Bo r o u g h p o l i c e o f f i c e rwi th o u th a v i n g t o a t t e n d th e tr a i n i n g p r o g r a m. I n M ay20 0 6 , m or e than a y earaft erB or ough had fi r ed R i s k, a B or ough att or ney comm uni cat ed w i th the Penns y l vani a M uni ci pal Pol i ce O ffi cer s ’ E ducat i on and Tra i ni ng C o m m iss io n (“ M P O E T C ” ) w ith q u e stio ns regardin g th e v a lid ityo f R isk ’s c e rtific a tio n . T h is l ed t o an i nqui r yi nt o w hetherR i s k’ s pr i orexper i ence as a pol i ce of fi cer in O hi o had bee n s uffi ci en t t o perm i ta w ai verof tr ai ni ng i n Penns y l vani a. T he i nves t i gat i on concl uded on Septem b er 1 3 , 2 0 0 7 , w h en the M P O E T C d eterm ined that R isk’s ce rt ifi ca ti o n h ad b een i s s ued i n err or , s i nce hi s O hi o po li ce w or k w as i n fac tnots uffi ci entt o ent i t l e hi m t o a w ai verof tr ai ni ng r equi rem en t p ri o rt o hi s w or k forB or ough. N ot abl y , R i s k w as notfound t o be at faul tforthe err oneous i s s uance of ce r t i fi cat i on. B. O n A ugus t2, 2005, R i s k fi l ed a c om pl ai nt agai ns t B or ough as s ert i ng fourcaus es of
a c t i o n a l l e g i n g v i o l a t i o n s o f v a r i o u s c o n s t i tu t i o n a l r i g h t s , a s we l l a s v i o l a t i o n o f 4 2 U. S . C. §1983. R i s k l at erfi l ed an a m ended c om pl ai nt , w hi ch i ncl uded Ti t l e V I I count s of di s cr i m i nat i on and r et al i at i on bas ed upon r el igion . R is k al s o fi l ed a s econd a m ended compl ai n t ass ert i ng a ca us e of a ct i on underthe Penns y l vani a H um an R el at i ons A ct6

( “PH R A ”) , 43 P. C . S. A . §955( a) , ets eq. In re sp o n se, B o rou g h fil ed a m o ti o n fo r sum m aryjud g m en t, w h ich th e D istri ct C o u rt gr ant ed i n partand deni ed i n part . T he D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed s um m aryj udgm enti n favor of B or ough w i th r es pect t o R i s k’ s cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s , but deni ed the m ot i on w i th r es pect t o R i sk’s T i t l e V II and P H R A cl ai m s. T he ac t i on pr ocee ded t o t r i al , w hi ch w as h eld from M ar ch 24- 27, 2008. A tt he concl us i on of the tr i al , the j ury found i n favorof R i s k, concl udi ng thatR i s k’ s r el i gi on w as a d eterm i nat i ve fa ct ori n B or ough’ s deci s i on t o t erm i nat e R i s k’ s empl oym ent . T he j ury enter ed a v erdi cti n fav or of R i sk i n the am ou nt of $1 00 , 00 0 in com pen sat orydam ages. O n M ay29, 2008, B or ough fi l ed a m ot i on for j udgm ent as a m att erof l aw pur s uant t o Fed. R . C i v. P. 50( b) , or for a new tr i al pur s uant t o Fed. R . C i v. P. 59. B or ough ar gued thati tw as ent i t l ed t o j udgm ent as a m att er of l aw or , al t ernat i vel y , a new tr i al , beca us e the D i s tr i ctC our thad comm i t t ed r ever s i bl e err ori n: ( 1) pr ohi bi t i ng B or ough fr om us i ng the fa ct o f R is k ’s d ec erti fica ti o n to co n testh is establishm en t of a p ri m a f

ac ie ca se o f T it le V II di s cr i m i nat i on; ( 2) admi t t i ng cert ai n evi dence dur i ng the tr i al ; and ( 3) pr ovi di ng err oneous i n s tru c t i o n s t o th e j u r y. T he D i s tr i ctC our tent er ed a mem or andum and or deron N ovember14, 2008, d e n y in g in w h o le B o ro u g h ’s m o tio n f o r j u d g m e n t a s a m a tte r o f la w o r f o r a n e w tr ia l.T he D i s tr i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . §§ 1331 & 1343 and 42 1 U . S. C . §1983. W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . §1291. 7 B o ro u g h tim e lya p p e a led . In a sm u c h a s th e p a rties a re f a m ili a r w ith a ll th e d e tails o f th is 1
cas e and tr i al , w e nee d notdw el l atl ength on the var i ous ar gum ent s as s ert ed byB or ough and R i s k. II. B or ough ar gues thatthe D i s tr i ctC our terr ed i n pr ohi bi t i ng B or ough fr om us i ng evidence o f R i sk’s ex pos tf acto d e c e rtific a tio n to c h a llen g e th e v iab ili tyo f R isk ’s T itl e V I I cl ai m . B or ough s ubm i t s thati f i thad bee n perm i t t ed t o us e evi dence of the d e c e rtific a tio n to c h a llen g e R isk ’s T itl e V II c laim , R isk w o u ld n o t h a v e b e e n a b le to
ma k e o u ta p r i ma f

a c i e c a s e , a n d th e r e f

o r e i ti s e n t i t l e d t o j u d g me n ta s a ma t t e ro f l a w.

“ We r e v i e w a d e n i a l o f

j u d g me n ta s a ma t t e ro f l a w de novo , vi ew i ng the evi dence i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he pr evai l i ng party . ” A cumed L L C v. A dvance d Sur gi cal Svcs . , I nc. , 561 F. 3d 199, 210 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( quot i ng M ont ei r o v. C i tyof El i zabe th, 436 F . 3 d 3 9 7 , 4 0 4 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 )) ( alt era ti o n s an d q u o tat ion m ark s o m itted). A. R isk a d v a n c e d h is T itl e V II c laim u n d e r th e “ p re tex t” th e o ryse t f o rth in M c D o n n e ll D o u g las C o rp . v . G re e n , 4 1 1 U .S . 7 9 2 (1 9 7 3 ). U n d e r th e M c D o n n e ll D o u g las f

ra m e w o rk , in o rd e r to a ss e rt a p rim a f a c ie T itl e V II c laim , R isk w a s o b lig a ted to pr oduce e vi dence that : ( 1) he i s a mem berof a pr ot ect ed cl as s ; ( 2) he w as qual i fi ed for8

the pos i t i on he s oughtt o att ai n orr et ai n; ( 3) he s uffe r ed an a dver s e empl oym entact i on; and ( 4) the ac t i on occurr ed underci r cumst ance s thatcoul d gi ve r i s e t o an i nfer ence of i nt ent i onal di s cr i m i nat i on. M cD onnel l , 411 U . S. at802; acc or d Sher i dan v. E . I . D uPont d e N em o u rs & C o . , 1 0 0 F . 3 d 1 0 6 1 , 1 0 6 6 n . 5 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). B o rou g h ac k n o w ledg es th at R isk sa ti sfied h is bu rde n w ith resp ec t t o elem en ts ( 1 ), (3 ), an d (4 ), b u t co n ten d s th a t R isk f a iled to e sta b lish e lem e n t (2 ), th e re b yd o o m in g h is c laim . T o w it, B o ro u g h a ss e rts th a t R isk c a n n o t, as a m a tter o f law , sa tisf

yth is
r e q u i r e me n t

— n a me l y , t o p r o v e th a th e wa s q u a l i f i e d f o rth e p o s i t i o n o f

Bu r g e t t s t o wn m uni ci pal pol i ce of

fi ceratthe t i m e of the adve r s e ac t i on— beca us e i n 2007 the M PO E T C r evoked Ri s k’ s cert i fi cat i on as a pol i ce of fi cerupon r eac hi ng a det erm i nat i on that h is i n it ial ce rt ifi ca ti o n w as issu ed in erro r. B o rou g h arg u es th at si n ce R isk’s cert i fi cat i on w as i s s ued i n err or , the M PO E T C ’ s det erm i nat i on eff ect ed a r etr oact i ve revocati on of R i sk’s cert i fi cat i on . A s such, R i sk w as neve r actuall yqu al i fi ed to w ork as a p o lice o f f ice r in B u rg e ttsto w n , an d th e re f o re c a n n o t sa tisf

ye lem e n t (2 ) o f

th e M c D o n n e ll D ougl as rubr i c. B or ough’ s ar gum entfai l s pur s uantt o ourhol di ng i n B ow er s v. N C A A , 475 F. 3d 5 2 4 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). In B o w ers, w e re li ed u p o n the S u p rem e C o u rt ’s discu ssion o f a fteracqui r ed evi dence i n M cK ennon v. N as hvi l l e B annerPubl i s hi ng C o. , 513 U . S. 352 (19 9 5 ), in h o lding that af ter-acq u ir ed ev iden ce ca n n o t be u sed to co n testa p lai n ti ff ’sT hough B ow er s addr es s es a cl ai m underthe A m er i cans w i th D i s abi l i t i es A ctof 2 1 9 9 0 , 4 2 U . S . C . § § 1 2 1 3 2 , 1 2 1 8 2 (“A D A ”), B o w ers’ d iscu ssion o f th e u se o f a ftera c q u ire d e v id e n c e to re b u t th e “ q u a lific a tio n ” e lem e n t o f a n A D A c laim is e q u a lly appl i cabl e t o t he i ns t antcas e, w hi ch i nvol ves a Ti t l e V I I cl ai m , s i nce the pr ohi bi t i on of us i ng aft er - acqui r ed evi dence appl i es t o both cl ai m s underthe A D A and Ti t l e V I I . See B o w e rs v . N C A A , 4 7 5 F .3 d 5 2 4 , 5 3 7 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 7 ) (c iti n g to M a rd e ll v . H a rle y sv ill e L i fe I ns . C o. , 65 F. 3d 1072 ( 3d C i r . 1995) , a ca s e i nvol vi ng a Ti t l e V I I cl ai m , w hen di s cus s i ng the pr ohi bi t i on of us i ng aft er - acqui r ed evi dence t o di s put e the “qua l i fi cat i on” elem en t of

a d iscri m ination claim ). 9 qual i fi cat i ons forpurpos es of es t abl i s hi ng a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e of di s cr i m i nat i on. See 2 B ow er s , 475 F. 3d at536- 37 ( quot i ng M cK ennon, 513 U . S. at360) ( “I ti s cl earthatthe D e f e n d a n ts w e re c o m p lete lyu n a w a re o f B o w e rs’ [ d isq u a lifie rs] a t th e tim e th e a lleg e d ly unl aw ful di s cr i m i nat i on t ook pl ace . . . . I n turn, the D efe ndant s coul d nothave be en m ot i vat ed byknow l edge theydi d nothave, and thus cannotnow cl ai m thatB ow er s w as deem ed a n on qu al i fi er because of his [after -di scovered d i squali fi ers ]. ”) ( qu otat i on m arks,
a lte ra tio n s , a n d c ita tio n s o m itte d ). B or ough onl ybeca m e aw ar e of the pr obl em w i th R i s k’ s cert i fi cat i on m or e than tw o yea rs af

ter i t had take n the a d v erse em p loym en t acti o n u p o n w h ich R isk’s T it le V II cl ai m i s founded, ther ebyr ender i ng the fa ctof hi s faul tycert i fi cat i on “af t er - acqui r ed ev iden ce . ” T h u s, u n d er B o w ers, B o rou g h w as p roh ibit ed fro m u sing the f ac t of R isk’s d e c e rt if ic a tio n to u n d e rm in e h is p ri m a f a c ie c la im . B. B or ough ar gues thatB ow er s s houl d notcontr ol thi s i s s ue bec aus e: ( 1) appl y i ng B ow er s t o t hi s cas e w oul d confl i ctw i th ourpr ece dent ; ( 2) ourj ur i s prudence i ndi cat es t hat10

B ow er s w as i n fac tan i ncorr ecti nt erpr et at i on of M cK ennon; and ( 3) var i ous noncontr ol l i ng deci s i ons byot hercourt s di ct at e thatw e s houl d overrul e B ow er s as an in c o rr e c t a p p lic a tio n o f M c K e n n o n . W e fi nd thes e ar gum ent s unavai l i ng. T he D i s tr i ctC our tcorr ect l yhel d that , under B ow ers , such af

t er- acqu i red evi den ce can no tbe u sed byB oroug h as a m eans t o co ntes t R isk ’s q u a lific a tio n s a s a p o lice o f f ice r f o r th e p u rp o se s o f

e sta b lish in g R isk ’s p rim a f a c ie di s cr i m i nat i on cl ai m . W e ther efor e hol d thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tw as corr ecti n pr ohi bi t i ng B o ro u g h f

ro m c h a llen g in g R isk ’s p rim a f a c ie T itl e V II c laim w ith th e f a c t o f h is dece r t i fi cat i on. I I I . B or ough cont ends thatthe D i s tr i ctC our terr ed i n admi t t i ng cert ai n pi ece s of evi dence , and thatw i thouts uch evi dence , the j ury ’ s ver di cti n favorof R i s k coul d not h av e b ee n su stai n ed , there b yen ti tl ing B o rou g h to jud g m en t as a m att er o f law o r, al t ernat i vel y , a new tr i al . W e hol d thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tdi d noterri n admi t t i ng anyof the evi dence cont es t ed byB or ough. A. B oroug h argue s that the D i stri ctC ou rtcom m i t t ed an err or of l aw i n all ow i ng R i sk to o f f e r t e s tim o n yc o n c e rn in g h is d e c e rt if ic a tio n f ro m th e B u rg e tts to w n p o lic e f o rc e . H ow ever , as evi dence d bythe tr i al r ecor d, R i s k’ s t es t i m onyr egar di ng hi s dece r t i fi cat i onIn d e e d , R isk a d m itt e d in o p e n c o u rt th a t h e h a d b e e n d e c e rtifie d su b se q u e n t to h is 3 te rm in a tio n . S e e A p p . a t 1 4 0 -4 1 . T h e P o lice T e n u re A c t p ro v id e s, in p e rtin e n t p a rt: 4 I f, forr eas ons of ec onom yorotherr eas ons , i ts hal l be dee m ed nec es s arybyany to w n sh ip o f

th e se c o n d c las s, o r a n yb o ro u g h o r to w n sh ip o f th e f irst c las s w ith in the s cope of

thi s act , t o r educe the numberof pai d empl oy ees of the pol i ce depart m ent , then s uch pol i t i cal s ubdi vi s i on s hal l appl ythe fol l ow i ng pr ocedur e: [ .. .] If th e n u m b e r o f

p a id e m p lo y e e s in th e p o lice f o rc e e lig ib le to re tirem e n t is s uffi ci entt o eff

ectthe nec es s aryr educt i on i n num ber , ori f ther e ar e no per s ons el i gi bl e forr et i r ement , ori f no r et i r ementorpens i on fund exi s t s , then the reduct i on shal l be ef

fect ed b yfurl ou gh i ng the m an o r m en, i ncludi ng probati on ers , l as tappoi nt ed t o s ai d pol i ce f or ce. Such r emoval s hal l be ac compl i s hed by 11 wa s n o to f

f e r e d f o rth e p u rp o s e o f

c o n t e s t i n g th e v a l i d i tyo f th e d e c i s i o n t o d e c e r t i f yh i m. 3 See A pp. at505- 11. I ns t ead, R i s k’ s t es t i m onyw as offe r ed t o but tr es s hi s cr edi bi l i tyby cl ar i fy i ng thathe di d noti nt ent i onal l yorknow i ngl ym i s l ead the M PO E T C w hen appl y i ng forcert i fi cat i on i n Penns y l vani a, and thathe w as notatfaul tforthe conf us i on r egar di ng h is c e rt if ic a tio n . I ti s w el l
- es t abl i s hed thatthe doctr i nes of i s s ue pr ecl us i on and col l at er al es t oppel oper at e t o pr ecl ude r el i t i gat i on of an i s s ue thathas been pr evi ous l ydeci ded. N ew H a m p sh ire v . M a in e , 5 3 2 U .S . 7 4 2 , 7 4 8 -4 9 (2 0 0 1 ). S in c e R isk d id n o t atte m p t to r el i t i gat e anyof the i s s ues s urr oundi ng hi s dece r t i fi cat i on, hi s t es t i m onyon thatt opi c w as n o t p re c lu d e d , an d th e D istric t C o u rt c o rre c tlya d m itt e d it. B. Pur s uantt o a r eques tbyR i s k, the D i s tr i ctC our tt ook j udi ci al not i ce of T he Penns y l vani a Pol i ce Tenur e A ct , 53 Pa. C ons . St at . A nn. § § 8 1 1 -1 5 (“ P T A ” ), “ so lely 4f

u rlo u g h in g in n u m e ric a l o rd e r, co m m e n c in g w ith th e m a n las t ap p o in ted , u n til s uch r educt i on s hal l have be en ac compl i s hed. 53 Pa. C ons . St at . A nn. § 8 1 3 . T h e B o ro u g h C o d e p ro v id e s, in p e rtin e n t p a rt: 5 I f forr eas ons of ec onom yorotherr eas ons i ts hal l be dee m ed nec es s arybyany bor ough t o r educe the numberof pai d empl oy ees of the pol i ce orfi r e for ce, then su c h b o ro u g h sh a ll ap p lyth e f o llo w in g p ro c e d u re : [ .. .] if th e n u m b e r o f p a id 12 b e c a u se its se n io rityp ro v isio n s w e re re lev a n t to p re tex t; th a t is, lay o f f s m u st o c c u r in
r ever s e or derof s eni or i ty , and R i s k had bee n hi r ed bef or e other s w ho w er e not fur l oughed. ” A pp. at7. T he PT A , byi t s t erm s , appl i es onl yt o bor oughs w i th a pol i ce f or ce of few erthan three m em b ers. 53 P a. C o n s. S tat . A n n . § 8 1 1 . B u rge tt stow n h ad a total of ten m em b ers on i t s pol i ce f

or ce a tthe t i m e of Ri s k’ s t erm i nat i on. B or ough ar gues thati n t aki ng jud ici al no ti ce o f th e P T A , an d in ch arg ing the ju rythat itco u ld f ind that B o rou g h ’s expl anat i on fort erm i nat i ng R i s k w as pr et exti f i tfound thatthe s eni or i typr ot ocol
ma n d a t e d b yth e P T A wa s n o tf o l l o we d , th e Di s tr i c tCo u r tc o mm i t t e d a n e rr o ro f l a w. W hi l e B or ough i s corr ecti n thatthe PT A does notgovern the empl oym ent pr ocedur es of B ur gett s t ow n’ s pol i ce f or ce, w e not e thats uch pr ocedur es ar e i ns t ead governed bythe Penns y l vani a B or ough C ode, 53 Pa. C ons . St at . A nn. §§ 46171 ets eq. ( “B or ough C ode”) , w hi ch appl i es t o bor oughs w i th pol i ce de part m ent s compri s ed of thr ee o r m o re m e m b e rs. Id . at § 4 6 1 7 1 . S ig n if ica n tly , the B o ro u g h C o d e m a n d a tes p re c ise ly the s am e se n iori typ roto co l as th e P T A . S ee id. at§ 4 6 1 9 0 . T h u s, the D istri ct C o u rt ’s 5e m p lo y e e s in th e p o lice f o rc e o r f ire f o rc e e lig ib le to re tirem e n t is in su f f icie n t to eff ectthe nec es s aryr educt i on i n num ber s , ori f ther e ar e no per s ons el i gi bl e for r et i r ement , ori f no r et i r ementorpens i on fund exi s t s , then the r educt i on s hal l be effected byfurl ou gh i ng the p ers on or pers on s, i ncludi ng probati on ers , l ast appoi nt ed t o t he r es pect i ve for ce. Such r emoval s hal l be ac compl i s hed by f u rlo u g h in g in n u m e ric a l o rd e r c o m m e n c in g w ith th e p e rso n las t ap p o in ted u n til s uch r educt i on s hal l have be en ac compl i s hed. 5 3 P a . C o n s . S ta t. A n n . § 4 6 1 9 0 . 13 j uryi ns truct i on r egar di ng the PT A w as i n fac tharm l es s , s i nce r egar dl es s of w hethert he PT A orthe B or ough C ode appl i es , the s ubs t ance of the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s i ns truct i on w as corr ect

— namel y , thatas a mat t erof l aw , R i s k w as pr ot ect ed bythe s eni or i tyfur l ough p ro v is io n s th a t w e re ig n o re d b yB o ro u g h in te rm in a tin g R is k . A c c o rd in g ly , w e h o ld th a t th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t co m m it rev e rsib le e rro r in t aki ng j udi ci al not i ce of the PT A r atherthan the B or ough C ode. See A br ams v. L i ght ol i erI nc. , 50 F. 3d 1204, 1213 ( 3d C i r . 1995) ( “err or s i n the admi s s i on. . . of evi dence ca n n o t be g rou n d s fo r rev ersa l or a n ew tr ial if th eyco n sti tute h arm less erro r”). C . C ro ss -P in D ur i ng pr e- tr i al m ot i on pr act i ce, the D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed B or ough’ s m ot i on for s um m aryj udgm enton R i s k’ s cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s , rul i ng thatR i s k coul d “pr emi s e no c laim o f c o n stitu tio n a l v io latio n o n a re stric tio n o f h is rig h t to w e a r a sy m b o l o f h is C hr i s t i an bel i efs on the l apel of hi s pol i ce uni form w hi l e per form i ng hi s dut i es i n the c o m m u n ity w ith th e s ig n if ic a n t g o v e rn m e n t a u th o ri ty in v e s te d b yh is o f f ic e .” A p p . a t 9 8 . N evertheles s, the D i stri ctC ou rtperm i t t ed R i sk t o introduce evidence regardi ng the cross-14

pi n and C hi ef Rober t s ’ r eques tthati tbe r emoved. T he D i s tr i ctC our tal s o i ns truct ed the ju ryth a t itc o u ld “ c o n sid e r th e f a c t th a t th e C h ief

o f P o lice a sk e d M r. R isk to re m o v e h is c ro s s p in a s e v id e n c e o f d is c ri m in a to ry a n im u s .” T he mer e fa ctthatC hi ef Rober t s ’ r eques tthatR i s k r emove hi s cr os s - pi n w as cons t i tut i onal l yperm i s s i bl e does notpr ecl ude R i s k fr om poi nt i ng t o thatact i on as e v id e n c e o f

d isc rim in a to rya n im u s in su p p o rt o f h is T itl e V II c laim . C f. D a n iels v . C ity of A r l i ngt on, T exas , 246 F. 3d 500, 506 ( 5th C i r . 2001) ( hol di ng, i n the fa ce of the pol i ce dep artm ent’ s const i tuti on al l yperm i t t ed regu l at i on prohibi t i ng the w eari ng of cross- pins, that the p o li ce o ff

icer ass erted su ff

ici en t evid en ce to es tablish a p ri m a f ac ie T it le V II cl ai m agai ns tthe depa r t m ent ) . A ccor di ngl y , the D i s tr i ctC our tdi d noterri n admi t t i ng evi dence r egar di ng R i s k’ s cr os s - pi n and C hi ef Rober t s ’ r eac t i on t o thatpi n. D. Bo r o u g h a r g u e s th a tth e Di s tr i c tCo u r te rr e d i n a d mi t t i n g th e t e s t i mo n yo f Amy P rev o st, a c lerk a t a l o ca l m ini- m art, reg ard ing : ( 1 ) a c o n v ersa ti o n P rev o st ov erh ea rd
w her ei n L i eut enantM urr ays poke di s par agi ngl yof R i s k’ s r el i gi ous bel i efs ; ( 2) and a c o n v e rsa tio n th a t P re v o st h a d w ith C h ief R o b e rts w h e re in R o b e rts m a d e sta tem e n ts re latin g to R isk ’s w o rk p e rf o rm a n c e . A c c o rd in g to B o ro u g h , the sta tem e n ts a ttribu ted to M urr ayand R obert s ar e i nadmi s s i bl e hea r s ay , and ther efor e s houl d nothave be en al l ow ed b yth e D istric t C o u rt. B or ough i s i ncorr ect . “H ear s ayi s a s t at ement , otherthan one made bythe15

d e c la ra n t w h ile te s tif

y in g a t th e tr ia l o r h e a ri n g , of f er ed i nt o evi dence t o pr ove the tr uth of the m at t eras s er t ed .” F e d . R . E v id . 8 0 1 (c ) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). S in c e th e sta tem e n ts attr i but ed t o M urr ayand R obert s w er e notoffe r ed t o pr ove the truth of the mat t eras s er t ed byeac h r es pect i ve s t at ement , theyar e nothear s ay . See A br ams, 50 F. 3d at1218 n. 16 (“ [ W ]e a re p e rsu a d e d th a t [ th e w itn e ss ’] te stim o n yth a t h e h e a rd o f th e d e c isio n to ter m in a te [ th e p lain tiff

] f ro m so m e o n e e lse c o u ld h a v e b e e n a d m itt e d a s n o n h e a rsa ya s it
w as notoffe r ed forthe truth of the mat t eras s ert ed ( [i . e. , ] that[the pl ai nt i ff] w as bei ng t erm i nat ed) but[r ather ] as evi dence that[a thi r d party ] , and not[the w i tnes s ] , had made th e te rm in a tio n d e c is io n . . .” ). Pr evos t ’ s t es t i m onyr egar di ng the s t at ement s m ade byM urr ayand R obert s w as not h e a rs a y . T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt th e re f o re d id n o t e rr in a d m ittin g th e te s tim o n y .

I V. B or ough as s ert s thatthe D i s tr i ctC our terr ed i n i t s j uryi ns truct i ons r egar di ng: ( 1) the Pol i ce Tenur e A ct ; ( 2) the cr os s - pi n; ( 3) B or ough’ s w or kpl ace cul tur e; and ( 4) the no n-produ ct i on of recordi ng s of B oroug h C ou ncil m eet i ng s, and as a r esul tof those e rro rs, B o ro u g h is e n tit led to a n e w trial. “W h ere the c h all en g e to a juryinstruction is a ch all en g e to th e ins tru cti o n ’s s t at ementof a l egal s t andar d, w e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew . ” U ni t ed St at es v. U rban, 404 F. 3d 754, 779 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( quot i ng U ni t ed St at es v. Z ehrbach, 47 F. 3d 1252, 1260, 1264 ( 3d C i r . 1995) ) ( quot at i on m arks and ci t at i on om i t t ed) . W e have car eful l yexami ned16

al l of the j uryi ns truct i ons and B or ough’ s obj ect i ons t o thos e i ns truct i ons , and conc l ude thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tdi d notcomm i tr ever s i bl e err orr egar di ng i t s i ns truct i ons t o the j u ry. V. B as ed on the for egoi ng, w e hol d thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tdi d noterri n deny i ng B o rou g h ’s m o ti o n fo r j u d g m en t as a m att er o f law o r fo r a n ew tr ial , an d w e w il l aff irm i t s j udgm entdat ed N ovember14, 2008.