2009 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 4-14-2009 

# M ark Lewi s v

. B ell Atl V e ri zon 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 . 08-3601

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_2009

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 2009 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 " M ark L ewi s v

. Be ll Atl V e ri z on" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1545. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1545NOT 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- 3601

___________ M A R K A N T H O N Y L E W IS , A ppel l ant v. B E L L A T L A N T I C / V E R I Z O N ; B E L L A T L A N T I C / V E R I Z O N , A ffi l i at e C om pany ' C o re' ; SU E P E T R A N ; A B B Y E L T Z ; R O N S M IT H ; C H R IS B E R G Y ; D E B B IE DI VA NTA NTO NI O; M I CH ELLE DI VA NTA NTO NI O; M AR K M ON SO; PETE R TUR K; J OY GR OO DY ; BO B G RO OD Y; DA N K ELLY; CA RL; LI ND A O ' BRI AN T; D A V E P A S K O W L S K I; D E N N IS G R E E N E Y ; JO E G IM A L A IR O ; JO H N N A T O L I; J AM I E M UR RA Y; GE OR GE KE E F E ; DANI E L J . WHEL L AN; VE RI Z ON DI REC TORY GRAP HI CS , I NC. ; I DEARC M EDI A SE RVI CES - EAS T, I NC.

____________________________________ 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 vi l A ct i on N o. 02- C V - 01016) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e R . B ar cl aySur r i ck

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A pr i l 14, 2009 B efor e: B A R R Y , SM I T H and G A R T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: A pr i l 14, 2009)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________T he compl ai ntw as di s m i s s ed as t o the i ndi vi dual defe ndant s named t her ei n bas ed on 1 i ns uffi ci encyof s ervi ce of pr oces s . D i s t . C t . O r der , ent er ed D ec. 20, 2002, dkt . #23. B oth part i es t o t he conf r ont at i on w er e s enthom e forthe day , w i th pay , pendi ng 2 inv esti g ati o n . W itn esse s to the co n fro n tat ion lat er ind icated that L ew is w as th e a g g resso r. T h e in c id e n t w ith th e c o w o rk e r t ri g g e re d a n in v e s tig a tio n in to L e w is ’s a p p lic a tio n . 3 I n i t s l ett eroffe r i ng empl oym ent , the empl oy eri nform ed Lew i s thathi s empl oym entw as c o n tin g e n t o n a su c c e ss f u l b a c k g ro u n d c h e c k , w h ich c o u ld a lso tak e p lac e a f ter h is e mp l o yme n tb e g a n , a n d th a tth e e mp l o y e rr e s e r v e d th e r i g h tt o t e r mi n a t e h i m a ta n yt i me 2 P E R C UR I AM M ark A nthonyL ew i s appea l s fr om an or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tfor the E astern D istri ct of

P en n sy lvan ia gra n ti n g the d ef en d an t’ s m o ti o n fo r sum m ary

1 j u d g me n ti n h i s c i v i l a c t i o n . W e wi l l a f f i r m. B ecause the part i es ar e fam i l i ar w i th the hi st oryand fact s of t he case, and becau se the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s m emora ndum cont ai ns a det ai l ed ac count , w e w i l l r ecountthe backgr ound i n s um m aryfas hi on. L ew i s , an A fr i can A m er i can mal e, had bee n empl oy ed byB el l A t l ant i c D i r ect oryG r aphi cs ( now “I dear c M edi a Servi ces , ” her ei naft er“the E m pl oy er ”) as an adve r t i s ementcomposi t or . L ew i s ’ s l aw s ui tal l eged di s cr i m i nat i on bas ed es s ent i al l yon thr ee i nci dent s . Fi r s t , he not ed thathe w as s us pended i n 1998 for m i s us i ng companyt i m e. H ow ever , the s us pens i on w as w i thdr aw n, the i nci dentw as pur ged fr om hi s per s onnel fi l e, and he w as r ei ns t at ed w i th back pa y . Second, L ew i s w as s us pended i n February1999 forhavi ng a verbal confr ont at i on w i th a cow or ker , and for 2 fal s i fy i ng hi s empl oym entappl i cat i on t o i ndi cat e thathe had gr aduat ed fr om hi gh s chool w hen he ha d not . A l though t he Em pl oy eri nt ended t o t erm i nat e Lew i s , hi s uni on 3bas ed on the bac kgr ound chec k.

I n J ul yof 1999, L ew i s fi l ed an i nt ernal compl ai nts t at i ng thathi s 1998 and 1999 4 s us pens i ons w er e the r es ul tof di s par at e tr eatm entbas ed on hi s r ace . T he Em pl oy erhi r ed an out s i de fi r m t o i nves t i gat e hi s cl ai m s . T he fi r m found no evi dence of r aci al di s cr i m i nat i on ordi s par at e tr eatm ent , and not ed, i nt eral i a, thatbetw een 1997 a nd 1998, the Em pl oy erhad t erm i nat ed fourw hi t e empl oy ees forl y i ng on thei rempl oym ent appl i cat i ons , w hi l e Lew i s had bee n al l ow ed t o keep hi s j ob. L ew i s had i nform ed the Em pl oy er ’ s s hor t - t erm di s abi l i typr ovi derthathe had be en 5 abs entfr om w or k fr om J anuary24, 2000 unt i l February4, 2000. T he di s abi l i typr ovi der pai d s hor t - t erm di s abi l i typaym ent s bas ed on i nform at i on pr ovi ded byL ew i s , even though, i n actual i ty , he w as notabs entand w as r ece i vi ng r egul arpayfr om the Em pl oy er forthatper i od. T he Em pl oy eral s o found thatL ew i s had s ubm i t t ed a t i m e s heets how i ng thathe w or ked overs even hour s on M ar ch 14, 2000, w hen he ha d onl yw or ked about one- hal f houron t hatdat e. A m anage rcorr ect ed the t i m e s heett o r efl ectthe amountof t i m e Lew i s w as actual l yatw or k befor e i tw as s ubm i t t ed. 3 n eg o ti ated a “ lastch an ce ag ree m en t” i n li eu o f term ination , an d L ew is r eturn ed to w o rk i n M ar ch 1999. T he thi r d i nci dentL ew i s ’ s compl ai ntr el i es on i s hi s t erm i nat i on on 4 M arc h 2 7 , 2 0 0 0 fo r fa lse rep o rt ing o f ti m e re co rds a n d fra u d u lent rec eipt o f sh o rt -t erm dis abil i tyfun ds. 5 L ew i s fi l ed a gr i evanc e w i th hi s uni on r egar di ng hi s t erm i nat i on. Fol l ow i ng p ro c e e d in g s, a B o a rd o f A rb itratio n f

o u n d th a t th e E m p lo y e r h a d ju st c a u se to ter m in a te L ew i s . L ew i s fi l ed a c har ge of di s cr i m i nat i on agai ns tthe Em pl oy erw i th the U ni t ed St at es E qual E m pl oym entO ppor tuni tyC om m i s s i on, and r ece i ved a r i ghtt o s ue l ett eron N ovember30, 2001. L ew i s fi l ed the compl ai nts ub j udi ce i n February2002. Fol l ow i ng d isc o v e ry , the D istric t C o u rt g ra n ted th e E m p lo y e r’s m o tio n f o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t, fi ndi ng thatL ew i s had fa i l ed t o es t abl i s h a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e of e m pl oym entdi s cr i m i nat i on4

b a se d o n th e th re e in c id e n ts n o ted a b o v e . L e w is f iled a tim e lyn o tice o f

a p p e a l o f

th is deci s i on. H e al s o chal l enges the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on nott o r ecus e upon hi s m ot i on, and the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s rul i ng s on h i s ot her m oti on s. W e h av e jurisdicti o n o v er the ap p ea l un d er 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 an d ex erc ise p lena ry r evi ew overthe D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on t o gr ants um m aryj udgm ent . M cG r eevyv. St oup, 413 F. 3d 359, 363 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . Sum m aryj udgm enti s appr opr i at e w hen the “pl eadi ngs , the di s coveryand di s cl os ur e mat er i al s on fi l e, and anyaff i davi t s s how that th e re is n o g e n u in e iss u e a s to a n ym a ter ial f a c t an d th a t th e m o v a n t is e n tit led to jud g m en t as a m att er o f law . ” F ed . R . C iv. P. 56 (c). A co u rtrev iew ing a su m m ary j udgm entm ot i on m us teval uat e the evi dence i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the nonmovi ng p a rtya n d d ra w a ll rea so n a b le in f e re n c e s in th a t p a rty ’s f a v o r. B re w e r v . Q u a k e r S tate O il R ef. C o rp., 7 2 F . 3 d 3 2 6 , 3 3 0 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 5 ). H o w ev er, a p artyo p p o sing su m m ary j udgm ent“mustpr es entm or e than j us t‘ bar e as s ert i ons , concl us oryal l egat i ons or s us pi ci ons ’ t o s how the exi s t ence of a ge nui ne i s s ue. ” Podobni k v. U . S. Post al Ser v. , 409 F. 3d 584, 594 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( quot i ng C el ot ex C orp. v. C atr ett , 477 U . S. 317, 325 (19 8 6 )). A s L ew i s di d nots ubm i tdi r ectevi dence of di s cr i m i nat orybehavi or , the D i s tr i ct C our tappr opr i at el yanal y zed hi s di s cr i m i nat i on cl ai m s underthe fa m i l i arbur den- s hi ft i ng fr amew or k es t abl i s hed byM cD onnel l D ougl as v. G r een, 411 U . S. 792 ( 1973) . U ndert hat fr amew or k, a pl ai nt i ff c hal l engi ng an adve r s e empl oym entdeci s i on has the i ni t i al bur den5

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 M cD onnel l D ougl as , 411 U . S. at 802. T o s etfor th a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e of di s par at e tr eatm enta pl ai nt i ff musts how that : “( 1) s/h e is a m e m b e r o f

a p ro tec ted c las s; (2 ) s/h e w a s q u a lifie d f o r th e p o sitio n s/h e so u g h t to att ai n orr et ai n; ( 3) s /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 akkyv. C hert off, 541 F. 3d 205, 214 ( 3d C i r . 2008) . T he bur den then shi ft s t o the em ploy er t o p roffer a l egit i m at e, no nd i scr i m i natoryreas on for the ad verse act i on . M cD on nell D ou glas , 41 1 U . S . at80 2. O nce thatbu rden i s m et , the p l ai nti ff m ust es t abl i s h bya pr eponder ance of the evi dence thatthe nondi s cr i m i nat oryr eas ons art i cul at ed bythe empl oy erar e pr et extual . See J ones v. School D i s t . of Phi l adel phi a, 198 F .3 d 4 0 3 , 4 1 0 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 9 ). T o d e f e a t su m m a ryju d g m e n t, “th e p lain tiff m u st p o in t to s om e evi dence , di r ectorci r cumst ant i al , fr om w hi ch a f act fi ndercoul d r eas onabl yei ther ( 1) di s bel i eve the empl oy er ’ s art i cul at ed l egi t i m at e r eas ons ; or( 2) bel i eve thatan i nvi di ous di s cr i m i nat oryr eas on w as m or e l i kel ythan nota mot i vat i ng ordet erm i nat i ve c a u s e o f th e e m p lo y e r’ s a c tio n .” F u e n te s v . P e rs k ie , 3 2 F .3 d 7 5 9 , 7 6 4 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). W e conc l ude thatthe D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s anal y s i s and entryof s um m aryj udgm enton L ew i s ’ s di s cr i m i nat i on cl ai m i s ful l ys uppor t ed bythe r ecor d. W e agr ee w i th the D i s tr i ct C o u rt th a t L e w is d id n o t m e e t h is p rim a f a c ie c a se o f

sh o w in g d isc rim in a tio n a g a in st h im on acc ountof hi s r ace , and, even a s s um i ng he di d m eetthatbur den, the Em pl oy er t erm i nat ed hi m forl egi t i m at e, non- di s cr i m i nat oryr eas ons . See Fuent es , 32 F. 3d at7636

(n o tin g th a t th e e m p lo y e r’s b u rd e n to a rticu late a leg iti m a te, n o n d isc rim in a to ryre a so n is “re lat ivelyli g h t”). W e agr ee w i th t he D i s tr i ctC our tthatL ew i s ’ s s us pens i on i n 1998 w as notan adver s e empl oym entact i on, as he w as r ei ns t at ed w i th back pa yand the i nci dentw as expunged f

r om hi s r ecor d. W e furtheragr ee thatL ew i s has notpoi nt ed t o anyevi dence i n the r ecor d t hatw oul d al l ow a fa ct fi ndert o i nferthathi s 1999 s us pens i on had anythi ng to d o w ith h is r ac e. T o the c o n tr ary , the re co rd sh o w s tha t sev era l w h it e e m p loy ee s w ere fi r ed forl y i ng on thei rempl oym entappl i cat i ons , w hi l e Lew i s w as gi ven anotherchanc e o n th e jo b . F in a lly , w e a g re e th a t L e w is p re se n ted n o e v id e n c e to sh o w th a t h is ter m in a tio n w a s ra c iallym o tiv a ted . T h e D istric t C o u rt a lso p ro p e rlyf o u n d th a t ev e n if L ew i s had es t abl i s hed a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e, the Em pl oy erpr es ent ed l egi t i m at e, nond isc rim in a to ryre a so n s f o r te rm in a tin g h im ; i. e ., a ttem p tin g to su b m it a f a lse tim e sh e e t, a n d c o llec tin g sh o rt-te rm d isa b ili tyb e n e f its a n d w a g e s a t th e sa m e tim e . A f ter th o ro u g h ly re v iew in g th e re c o rd , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e D istric t C o u rt p ro p e rlyd e ter m in e d th a t L e w is d id n o t d e m o n stra te th e e x iste n c e o f a g e n u in e iss u e o f

m a ter ial f

a c t w ith re g a rd to h is d is c ri m in a tio n c la im . L ew i s cont ends thatthe D i s tr i ctC our terr ed i n fai l i ng t o r ecus e upon hi s m ot i on. W e r evi ew a j udge’ s deci s i on nott o r ecus e, underei ther28 U . S. C . § 144 or§ 455, foran ab u se o f d iscreti o n . S ee Jo n es v . P ittsbu rgh N at’l C o rp., 8 9 9 F . 2 d 1 3 5 0 , 1 3 5 6 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 0 ). U n d e r se c tio n 1 4 4 , a ju d g e m u st re c u se if a p a rtyf iles a “ su f

f icie n t af f id a v it”7

es t abl i s hi ng thatthe j udge has a per s onal bi as orpr ej udi ce a gai ns tthe partys eeki ng r ecus al , ori n favorof the adve r s e party . 28 U . S. C . § 144. U nders ect i on 455, a j udge m u s t r e c u s e w h e re th e ju d g e ’s im p a rt ia lity “ m ig h t r e a s o n a b ly b e q u e s tio n e d .” 2 8 U .S .C . § 455( a) . L ew i s ci t es var i ous rul i ngs of the D i s tr i ctC our tthatw er e unfa vor abl e t o hi m as evi dence thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tharbor ed a pr econc ei ved unfa vor abl e j udgm entabout h i m. Un f

a v o r a b l e ru l i n g s d o n o tf o r m a n a d e q u a t e b a s i s f o rr e c u s a l . S e e S e c u r a Co mm C ons ul t i ng, I nc. v. Secur acom I nc. , 224 F. 3d 273, 278 ( 3d C i r . 2000) . M or eover , w e fi nd nothi ng i n t he r ecor d t hats ugges t s “a de ep- s eat ed fa vor i t i s m orant agoni s m ” bythe D i s tr i ctC our tthatw oul d pr ecl ude fa i rj udgm ent . L i t ekyv. U ni t ed St at es , 510 U . S. 540, 5 5 5 (1 9 9 4 ). N o r d o w e p e rc e iv e a n yf a c ts f ro m w h ich a re a so n a b le p e rso n w o u ld concl ude thatthe i m part i al i tyof the D i s tr i ctC our tm i ghtr eas onabl ybe ques t i oned. See 2 8 U . S . C . § 4 5 5 (a); E d elst ein v . W il en tz, 8 1 2 F . 2 d 1 2 8 , 1 3 1 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 7 ). W e d iscern n o a b u s e o f

th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s d is c re tio n in th e d e n ia l o f L e w is ’s re c u s a l m o tio n . W e furtherfi nd no evi dence of bi as and no abus e of di s cr et i on i n the D i s tr i ct C our t ’ s rul i ngs on L ew i s ’ s ot herm ot i ons , i ncl udi ng hi s di s coverym ot i ons . See Ll oy d v. H o v en sa, L L C , 3 6 9 F . 3 d 2 6 3 , 2 7 4 -75 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) (sco p e a n d co n d u ct of d isco v ery w ith in s o u n d d is c re tio n o f tr ia l c o u rt ; a p p e a ls c o u rt re v ie w s o n ly f o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n ). W e fi nd no r ecor d s uppor tforL ew i s ’ s cl ai m thatthe Em pl oy erperpetr at ed a f r aud on the C o u rt.L e w is’s m o tio n to f ile a ttac h m e n ts a s e v id e n c e a n d d isk c o n tain in g a ttac h m e n ts is 6 g ran ted to the e x tent the d o cu m en ts w ere a p art of the D istri ct C o u rtrec o rd. T h is C o u rt “ c a n n o t c o n s id e r m a te ri a l o n a p p e a l th a t is o u ts id e o f th e d is tr ic t c o u rt re c o rd .” I n r e C api t al C i t i es / A B C , I nc. ' s A ppl i cat i on forA cce s s t o Seal ed Tra ns cr i pt s , 913 F. 2d 8 9 , 9 6 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 0 ). 8 F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, w e w ill a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt. 6