2006 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 12-7-2006 

# J a cob s v . P hi l a delphi a P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 05-4163

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd 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 l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2006 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" J a c o bs v . P hi l a de lp hi a" (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 122. h tt p://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/122NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED SATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT
N o. 05- 4163
D ER RI CK U
. J A CO BS,

A ppel l ant
v. CI TY O F P HI LAD ELPHI A; CA PTAI N J OSEPH O ’ DO NN ELL

A p p e a l f ro m th e D istric t 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 i s t r i ctC our tN o. 03- cv- 00950 D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e M i chae l M
. B ay l s on
Subm i t t ed underT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

on Sept ember 26, 2006
B efor e: R E N D E L L , C H A G A R E S and R O T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: D ece m ber7, 2006)

OP I NI ON
RO TH , C i r cui tJ udge: D er r i ck J acobs i s a det ect i ve w i t h t he N or t hw es tD et ect i ves di vi s i on of t heT he D i s t r i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed § 1981 and § 1983 c l ai m s agai ns tt he C i t yof 1 Phi l adel phi a. 2 Phi l adel phi a Pol i ce D epar t m ent . O n Februar y19, 2003, J acobs , an A fr i can- A m er i can, fi l ed a compl ai ntagai ns tt he C i t yof Phi l adel phi a and Capt ai n J os eph O ’D o n n el l , al l egi ng
v io latio n s o f

f e d e ra l an d sta te r a c ial d isc rim in a tio n law s. T h e c a se p ro c e e d e d to a ju rytrial, and af t ert he j ur yr etur ned a ve r di cti n favor o f t he def endant s , t he D i s t r i ctC our tent er ed j udgm entfort he defe ndant s on D ece m ber 27, 2004. J acobs fi l ed pos t - t r i al m ot i ons t o amend th e v e rd ict a n d f

o r a n e w trial; th o se m o tio n s w e re d e n ied in A u g u st 2 0 0 5 . Ja c o b s tim e ly
a p p e a led . F o r th e re a so n s s e t f o rth b e lo w , 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. A tt r i al , J acobs s ought t o pr ove ( 1) a cl ai m agai ns tPhi l adel phi a underT i t l e V I I of t he C iv il R ig h ts A c t o f

1 9 6 4 (re ly in g o n m u lti p le th e o rie s o f d isc rim in a tio n , in c lu d in g h o stile
w or k envi r onm entand r et al i at i on) ; ( 2) cl ai m s agai ns t O ’ D onnel l under 42 U
. S. C
. § 1981 and 42 U
. S. C
. § 1983; and ( 3) cl ai m s agai ns t P h il adel phi a and O ’ D onnel l undert he 1 P e n n sy lv a n ia H u m a n R e latio n s A c t. Ja c o b s p re se n ted e v id e n c e in ten d e d to p ro v e , in p a rt, t he fol l ow i ng : t w o i nst ances w hen his supervi sors m ade r aci al l y dis paragi n g c o m m ents , dis ci pli ne an d survei l l ance t o w hich he w as subject ed i n conjunct i on w i t h h i s t aking st res sr e l a t e d s i c k l e a v e , n e g a t i v e p e r f o rm a n c e e v a l u a t i o n s t h a th e r e c e i v e d a f t e rO’ Do n n e l l b e c a me h is s u p e rv iso r, a n d d isp a rities in tre a tm e n t b e tw e e n w h ite a n d b lac k o f f ice rs. P h ilad e lp h ia and O ’ D onnel l deni ed t aki ng anyr aci al l y - m oti v at ed ac t i ons agai ns tJ acobs and off er ed evi dence i nt ended t o pr ove, i n par t , t hat t o t he ext ent J acobs w as s ubj ectto d if fer ent i alI n or dert o es t abl i s h a s ucce s s ful cl ai m , a pl ai nt i ff mustes t abl i s h t hathe s uffe r ed 2 har as s m entcaus ed bya hos t i l e w or k envi r onm ent , w i t h t he fol l ow i ng fac t or s t o be pr oved bya pr eponder ance of t he evi dence : ( 1) t he pl ai nt i ff s uffe r ed i nt ent i onal di s cr i m i nat i on beca us e of hi s orherm ember s hi p i n t he pr ot ect ed cl as s ; ( 2) t he di s cr i m i nat i on w as per vas i ve and r egul ar ; ( 3) t he di s cr i m i nat i on det r i m ent al l yaff ect ed the pl ai nt i ff; ( 4) t he d i s c r i mi n a t i o n wo u l d h a v e d e t r i me n t a l l ya f f e c t e d a r e a s o n a b l e p e r s o n o f t h e s a me pr ot ect ed cl as s i n t hatpos i t i on; and, ( 5) t he exi s t ence of respond eat s up eri or lia b ility. W es tv. Phi l adel phi a El ec. C o. , 45 F. 3d 744, 753 ( 3d C i r . 1995)
. W her e t he def endant has notbeen f

ound t o have t aken a nyadver s e empl oy m entact i ons agai ns tt he pl ai nt i ff, t he def endantm ayat t empt t o es t abl i s h an af fi r m at i ve def

ens e bys how i ng t hatt he empl oy erexer ci s ed r eas onabl e ca r e t o pr eventand corr ectpr om pt l yanyhar as s i ng behavi or , and t he pl ai nt i ff e m pl oy ee unr eas onabl yfai l ed t o t ake a dvant age of any pr event at i ve orcor r ect i ve oppor tuni t i es pr ovi ded byt he empl oy er . Far agherv. C i t yof B oca Rat on, 524 U
. S. 775, 805 ( 1998) ; B ur l i ngt on I ndus
. v. E l l er t h, 524 U
. S. 742, 764- 65 (19 9 8 ). 3 t r eat m ent , i twas b e c a u s e h e was a “ d i f f i c u l te mpl o y e e . ” Acc o r d i n g t o Ph i l a d e l p h i a and O ’ D onnel l , J acobs had a numberof at t endanc e pr obl ems, fai l ed t o document hi s s i ck l eave , and fal si fi ed an i nv est i gati on form rel at i ng t o the e x-boy fri end of h i s t hen -fi ancée
. T his l ast i nci dentr es ul t ed i n J acobs r ece i vi ng a t w ent y - days us pens i on. C ouns el on eac h s i de propos ed j ur y i ns t ruct i ons . O n D ece m ber 21, 2004, t he D i s t r i ct Co u r th e l d a c o n f

e r e n c e wi t h t h e a t t o r n e y s r e g a r d i n g t h e j u r yc h a r g e a n d v e r d i c ts h e e t . At t he cha r ge conf

er ence , J acobs ’ s couns el obj ect ed t o t he l anguage i n t he i ns t ruct i ons fort he harass m ent/ho sti le w ork env i ronm ent cl ai m becau se i ti m pli ed thatan af fi rm at i ve d efen se
e x ists in a ll circ u m sta n c e s, e v e n th o u g h th e d e f e n se is u n a v a ilab le w h e n th e p lain tiff is a b le t o pr ove t hathe s uffe r ed a t angi bl e adve r s e em p loy m en t ac t i on. I n r es pons e, couns el on 2 bot h s i des w or ked w i t h t he C our tt o ref ine t he l anguage i n bot h t he j ur ychar ge and the
ver di cts heett o bet t err efl ectt he corr ectl aw . J acobs ’ s couns el agr ee d to t he amended4

i nst ruct i on s. T he j ur yr etur ned a ve r di cti n favorof t he defenda nt s . A l t hough t he j ur yfound t hat J acobs had bee n t r eat ed di ffe r ent l yfr om ot herdet ect i ves w ho w er e notA fr i can- A m er i can, t hathe had s uffe r ed i nt ent i onal di s cr i m i nat i on beca us e of hi s r ace , and thathe had s at i s fi ed
m os tel ement s of t he hos t i l e w or k envi r onm entcl ai m , i tnonet hel es s found t hathe di d not prove any of h i s federal cl ai m s. T he jur yrepeat edlyfou nd t hat J acob s suffered no adv ers e
e m p lo y m e n t ac tio n s a g a in st h im . T h e ju ry d id f in d th a t Ja c o b s h a d p ro v e d h is s tate law c laim agai ns t O ’ D onnel l , but i t aw ar ded hi m no damages
. T he D i s t r i ctC our tent er ed the ver di ct
w i t houtobj ect i on and deni ed J acobs ’ s pos t - t r i al m ot i ons t o amend t he ver di ctand fora new trial. Th e Di s t r i c t Co u r t h a d s u b j e c tma t t e rj u r i s d i c t i o n o v e rt h i s c a s e p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S
. C. § 1331 and 28 U
. S. C
. § 1367. W e have j ur i s di ct i on overt hi s appea l fr om a fi nal j udgm ent pur s uant t o 28 U
. S. C
. § 1291. W e r evi ew t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s rul i ng on t he mot i on fora new t r ial forabus e of di s cr et i on. B r ennan v. N or t on, 350 F. 3d 399, 430 ( 3d C i r . 2003)
. O ur
r evi ew of t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s rul i ng on t he mot i on t o amend t he j udgm entvar i es w it h t he natur e of the under l y i ng deci s i on. Fed. K emper I ns . C o. v. R aus cher , 807 F. 2d 345, 348- 49 ( 3d C i r . 1986)
. W e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew t o det er m i ne w het herj ur yi ns t ruct i ons m i s s t at ed t he appl i cabl e l aw , but i n t he abse nce of a m i s s t at ement w e re vi ew for abus e of di s cr et i on. See W al den v. G eor gi a- Paci fi c C orp. , 126 F. 3d 506, 513 ( 3d C i r . 1997)
. I f t he part ycl ai m i ng
err or di d not m ake a t i m el y obj ect i on , w e revi ew for pl ai n err or. S ee R y der v. W est i ng ho useB eca us e J acobs has w ai ved hi s ar gum entunderei t herR ul e 49( a) ( s peci al ver di ct s ) or 3 R ul e 49( b) ( gener al ver di ct s ) , w e nee d notdet er m i ne w het hert he ver di cti n t hi s cas e w as g e n e ra l o r sp e c ial. 5 E le c . C o rp ., 1 2 8 F .3 d 1 2 8 , 1 3 6 (3 d C ir .1 9 9 7 ). Al t h o u g h J a c o b s o b

j e c t e d t o t h e i n s t ru c t i o n s f o r t h e h o s t i l e wo r k e n v i r o n me n tc l a i m, t he D i s t r i ctC our tamended the i ns t ruct i ons and J aco b s d id n o t obj ectt o t he amended instruction s. U n d er F ED . R. C IV . P. 51, a par t ym us tr ai s e anyobj ect i ons t o j ur yi ns t ruct i ons pr i ort o t he t i m e t he j ur y begi ns i t s del i ber at i ons . See al s o A l exande rv. R i ga, 208 F. 3d 419, 4 2 6 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 0 ). A lth o u g h w e h av e h eld that a p arty h as n o t w aive d the a rgu m en t w h ere i tw oul d have be en fut i l e for hi m t o obj ect , he mustm ake hi s oppos i t i on t o t he i ns t ruct i ons cl ear t o t he D i s t r i ct C our t . C ooper D i s t r i but i ng C o. , I nc. v. A m ana Refr i ger at i on, I nc. , 180 F. 3d 542, 550 ( 3d C i r . 1999)
. B eca us e J acobs agr eed t o t he amended i ns t ruct i ons , w e do not bel i eve he r ai s ed a t i m el yobj ect i on or i n anyw ayconvey ed hi s oppos i t i on t o t he l anguage h e n o w ch all en g es. A s su ch , w e a re li m it ed to a re v iew fo r plain e rror. Pl ai n er r ori s al s o t he appr opr i at e s t andar d by w hi ch t o r evi ew J acobs ’ s ar gum entt hat the ju ry ’s resp o n ses w ere inco n sist en t. W e ha v e h eld th at un d er F ED . R. C IV . P. 4 9 , a p a rty
w ai ves hi s r i ght t o ar gue t hatj ur yi nt err ogat or i es pr ovoked i ncons i s t entr es pons es i f he doe s notobj ectpr i ort o t he j ur y ’ s di s m i s s al
. I nt er M ed. Suppl i es , L t d. v. E di M ed. Sy s . , 181 F. 3d 4 4 6 , 4 6 3 (3d C ir
. 1 9 9 9 ); H ersk o w it z v . N u tr i/ S y stem , 8 5 7 F
. 2 d 1 7 9 , 1 8 8 -89 (3d C ir
. 1 9 8 8 ). 3 J acobs w ai ved hi s i ncons i s t encyar gum entbeca us e he r ai s ed no s uch obj ect i on befor e t he juryw as e x cu sed
. W e the ref o re li m ito u r rev iew o n this qu esti o n to p lai n erro r.6

U nder pl ai n er r or r evi ew , w e w i l l r ever s e onl yi f t he tr i al cour tcomm i t t ed err ort hat
w as f u n d am en tal an d h igh lyp rejud ici al, su ch that the in stru cti o n s fa il ed to p rov ide th e jury
w ith a d e q u a te g u id a n c e o n a f u n d a m e n tal q u e stio n , an d th e D istric t C o u rt' s re f u sa l to
cons i dert he i s s ue w oul d r es ul ti n a m i s carr i age of j us t i ce. A l exande rv. R i ga, 208 F. 3d 419, 4 2 6 -2 7 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 0 ). N e ith e r th e ju ro r in stru c tio n s n o r th e ju ro r re sp o n se s g a v e rise to
er r orof t hi s natur e. Fi r s t , J acobs ar gues t hatI nt err ogat or y B 3, w hi ch r equi r ed j ur or s t o fi nd t hat r ace w as “the d eterm inative fa ctor fo r the a cti o n s, ” a d d ed an u n n ec essa ryelem en t t o the h o sti le w o rk
env i ron m e nt cl ai m or conf used the j urors regar ding w hen t he rel evan taffirm at i ve d efen se
w a s a v a il a b le . It d id n o t. W e a g re e w ith th e D istric t C o u rt th a t In ter ro g a to ryB 3 m e re ly compre ssed the e lem en t of ca u sati o n w ith the a ff

irm ati v e d ef

en se w h ich th e p arti es d iscu ssed att he cha r gi ng confe r ence . T he D i s t r i ctC our tcor r ect l yexpl ai ned bo th causa t i on and t he aff i r m at i ve def

ens e i n i t s i ns t ruct i ons t o t he j ur y , and t o t he ext ent t hat I nt err ogat or y B 3 w as l i kel yt o caus e anyj ur orconfus i on, w e agr ee w i t h t he D i s t r i ct C our tt hatt he conf us i on – due to th e lac k o f

a n ye x p licit m e n tio n o f th e a f f irm a tiv e d e f

e n se – w o u ld h a v e b e e n to th e lik e ly b e n e f it o f J a c o b s . N ei t herw er e t he j ur or r es pons es s o i ncons i s t ent as t o have ne ces s i t at ed a ne w t r i al or
a n a m e n d e d v e rd ict. Ja c o b s c laim s in c o n sis ten c y b e c a u se th e ju ry f o u n d f o r h im o n th e sta te l aw cl ai m butagai ns thi m on t he §1981 and 1983 ac t i ons agai ns tO ’ D onnel l
. G i ven t he d iffe ren t sho w ing s n ec essa ry u n d er thes e d iffe ren t the o ri es, w e ag ree w ith the D istri ct C o u rt7

th a t th e se f

in d in g s a re n o t n e c e ss a rilyin c o n sis ten t. J acobs al s o chal l enges t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s decisi o n n ott o gr anta new t r i al on t he bas i s of t he j ur y ’ s ver di ct bei ng agai ns tt he w ei ghtof t he evi dence
. W e bel i eve the D i s t r i ct C our tact ed w el l w i t hi n i t s di s cr et i on. A new t r i al beca us e t he ver di cti s agai ns tt he w ei ght of t he evi dence s houl d be gr ant ed onl y “w hen t he r ecor d s how s t hatt he j ur y ' s ver di ctr es ul t ed i n a mi s carr i age of

j us t i ce orw her e t he ver di ct , on t he re cor d, cr i es out t o be over tur ned or
s hocks ourcons ci ence . ” W i l l i amson v. C ons ol i dat ed R ai l C orp. , 926 F. 2d 1344, 1353 ( 3d C i r . 1991)
. A j ur yi s fr ee t o as s es s t he cr edi bi l i t yof w i t nes s es and t o bel i eve ordi s bel i eve t he fa ct s pr es ent ed byeac h s i de. I n t hi s cas e, t he account s pr es ent ed by eac h s i de di ffe r ed
cons i der abl y , and a r eas onabl e j ur yw as ent i t l ed t o m ake f i ndi ngs favor i ng ei t hers i de. F inally , Jac o b s ch all en g es a n ev iden ti aryruli n g , arg u in g that the D istri ct C o u rt
w r ongful l y excl uded as exce s s i vel y pr ej udi ci al t es t i m ony by J acobs r egar di ng n arc o t i cs found on hi s des k atw or k. J acobs does notdeal w i t h n arc o ti cs as p artof hi s j ob, and he
s pecul at es t hats om eone pl ant ed t he drugs out of ra ci al ani m us . J acobs s oughtt o t es t i fyas to th e in c id e n t, e ith e r t o e sta b lish a n a d d iti o n a l in sta n c e o f ra c iallym o tiv a ted b e h a v io r o r to pr ovi de an ex p la nat i on, i n r es pons e t o ques t i oni ng bydefe ndant ’ s couns el , as t o w hyhe
e x p e rie n c e d stre ss e v e n a f ter O ’D o n n e ll h a d b e e n tra n sf e rre d . T h e D istric t C o u rt re f u se d to
a d m it th is te stim o n yf o r e ith e r p u rp o se b e c a u se it w a s b o th sp e c u lativ e a n d h ig h ly i nfl amm at or y , and t hus unfai r l ypr ej udi ci al i n l i ghtof i t s pos s i bl e pr obat i ve val ue w i t hi n t he
m eani ng of F ED . R. E V ID . 403
. W e r evi ew t he D i s t r i ctC our t ' s det er m i nat i ons conce r ni ng8

t he admi s s i bi l i t yof evi dence forabus e of di s cr et i on. K arkka i nen v. K oval chuk, 445 F. 3d 280, 288 ( 3d C i r . 2006)
. W e s har e t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s conce r n r egar di ng t he s pecul at i ve and pr ej udi ci al natur e of thi s evi dence , and w e bel i eve that i tact ed w i t hi n i t s s ound di s cr et i on. F o r th e re a so n s s tate d a b o v e , 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.