2015 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

2-5-2015

James Hollinghead v. City of York

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015

This February is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2015 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"James Hollinghead v. City of York" (2015). 2015 Decisions. Paper 129.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015/129
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 14-2068

_____________

JAMES HOLLINGHEAD; MARK SIMPSON,

 Appellants

v.

CITY OF YORK, PENNSYLVANIA;

YORK SEWER AUTHORITY;

MONACACY VALLEY ELECTRIC, INC. 

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(District Court No. 1-12-cv-00260)

District Judge: Honorable Christopher C. Conner

Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

on January 20, 2015

Before: RENDELL, SMITH, and KRAUSE, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: February 5, 2015) 

O P I N I O N* 

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.
2

RENDELL, Circuit Judge:

Appellants James Hollinghead and Brian Simpson challenge three District Court 

orders dismissing and granting summary judgment in favor of Appellees City of York, 

York Sewer Authority, and Moncacy Valley Electric, Inc. (“Monacacy”) on Appellants’ 

claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”), First Amendment 

retaliation, and civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Title VII of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964, and the Pennsylvania Human Rights Act (“PHRA”). Magistrate 

Judge Martin C. Carlson issued three thorough and well-reasoned reports and 

recommendations, which the District Court adopted after reviewing the parties’ 

objections. For the reasons that Judge Carlson explained, we will affirm.

The City of York employed Appellants, who are both African-American, at a 

wastewater treatment plant. Simpson believed that Monacacy’s employees had dirtied a 

shower located at the plant, and he complained to Monacacy. The shower problems 

continued, and Simpson’s supervisor suggested that he lock the shower door. Simpson 

did so and, the next day, Hollinghead found what he believed was a noose near the 

shower area. Appellants reported this alleged noose to supervisors and union officials. 

Several days later, a second alleged noose was seen on the ground in a separate building 

located some distance away from where the first rope was found. Appellants never saw 

who hung the ropes, but they believed that Monacacy employees hung them. Both the 

City of York and the City of York police department promptly investigated the nooses, 

were unable to determine who hung the nooses, and concluded that what appeared to be 
3

nooses may have simply been ropes hung to move construction materials. Eleven months 

after the noose incident, Hollinghead was tasked with supervising the pouring of chlorine 

into a sand filter and monitoring it. The two employees who actually added the chlorine 

and had the most chlorine exposure were Caucasian and did not become sick. 

Hollinghead became sick from this assignment, obtained medical treatment, and missed 

five paid workdays. 

The District Court dismissed the Title VII and PHRA claims against Monacacy 

because Appellants did not allege that Monacacy was their employer or that Monacacy 

supervised Appellants. It dismissed the § 1983 claims against Monacacy because 

Monacacy is a private company, not a state actor. Appellants amended their complaint to 

show that Monacacy violated the PHRA by aiding and abetting the discriminatory 

practices, but the District Court dismissed the aiding and abetting claim for failure to 

show that Monacacy supervised Appellants. The District Court also dismissed the 

amended IIED claim against Monacacy because Appellants failed to allege a physical 

injury connected to viewing the nooses. 

The District Court granted summary judgment for the York Sewer Authority 

because undisputed evidence showed that the Authority never employed Appellants and 

had no connection with the nooses or the dangerous work assignments. It granted 

summary judgment for the City of York because there was no evidence that the City had 

any involvement in the nooses or retaliated and because City officials promptly 

investigated Appellants’ claims. 
4

Appellants argue that the District Court erred, but their arguments lack merit. 

They contend that the City of York and the Sewer Authority sanctioned the nooses by not 

terminating Monacacy’s contract, but they do not identify any evidence that Monacacy 

hung the nooses. Absent evidentiary support, summary judgment is proper. See Celotex 

Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986) (“One of the principal purposes of the 

summary judgment rule is to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims . . . .”). 

Appellants argue that the Sewer Authority was their employer, but they do not adduce 

any evidence that the Sewer Authority controlled their conditions of employment or 

supervised them. See Clackamas Gastroenterology Assocs., P. C. v. Wells, 538 U.S. 440, 

450 (2003) (an employer “can hire and fire employees, can assign tasks to employees and 

supervise their performance”). Furthermore, Hollinghead did not show that his sand filter 

assignment1 was causally connected to the discrimination complaints because the noose 

incident and the filter assignment were temporally separate and because there was no 

other evidence of antagonism or retaliation. See Lauren W. ex rel. Jean W. v. 

DeFlaminis, 480 F.3d 259, 267 (3d Cir. 2007).

We can add nothing to the District Court’s reasoned analysis, and we will affirm.

 

1 Simpson settled his claims against the City.