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 1-18-2006 

# C onne r v . M obi le Mini Inc 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 . 05-2748

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_2006

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 2006 D e c i sion s b y an author i 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 " C onne r v . M o b i le Mini Inc " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1742. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/1742NOT 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 . 05- 2748

________________ 

### Mandrake Co nn er ,

Appe l l ant v s. Mo bileMini Inc.

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m 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 v. N o. 04- cv- 01926) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e C l i ffor d Scot tG r een

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

J anuary11, 2006 BEFORE: FI SHER, ALD I SERT AN D W EI S, CI RCU I T J UD GES

( Fi l ed J anuary18, 2006)

_______________________

OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C U R I A M.

A ppel l ant , M andr ake Conner , form er l yempl oy ed byappel l ee M obi l e M i ni In c . (“ M M I” ), a p p e a ls th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s g ra n t o f s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t in f a v o r o f M M I. T h e D istric t C o u rt th o ro u g h lyre c ited th e f a c tu a l circ u m sta n c e s le a d in g to th e d e c isio n to t erm i nate C on ner from his B ranch M anag er posi t i on i n M M I’ s M i l w auk ee of fi ce bec ause2

o f h is in a b ility to c o n tr o l h is a n g e r i n th e w o rk p la c e . W e n e e d n o t r e p e a t th e d e ta ils h e re . I tw i l l s uffi ce f

orourpurpos es t o not e thatdur i ng the t i m e per i od begi nni ng appr oxi m at el yt hr ee mont hs aft erhi s pr om ot i on t o B r anch M anage ri n J une 2002 and endi ng w i t h hi s t erm i nat i on on M ar ch 27, 2003, C onnerexhi bi t ed pr obl ems i n t he w o rk p lac e w ith a n g e r m a n a g e m e n t – e n g a g in g in b e h a v io r th a t w a s, a t ti m e s, v e rb a lly abus i ve and di s r es pect ful of s ubor di nat es and other s ( i ncl udi ng a companyvendor ) – d e sp ite h a v in g re c e iv e d n u m e ro u s w a rn in g s a b o u t su c h b e h a v io r a s w e ll as c o u n se lin g in t hi s ar ea. G i ven the compl ai nt s l odged aga i ns tC onnerand hi s appar enti nabi l i t yor u n w illin g n e s s to c o n tr o l h is a n g e r w h ile s e rv in g in th e p o s itio n o f B ra n c h M a n a g e r, M M I offe r ed C onnera pos i t i on as a s al es r epr es ent at i ve i n i t s C hi cago of fi ce a ta s al aryhi gher t han thatof hi s pr evi ous s al es pos i t i on. C onnerfai l ed t o acc eptthi s offe rbythe s t at ed deadl i ne and hi s empl oym entw i t h M M I w as t erm i nat ed.

Fol l ow i ng hi s t erm i nat i on, C onner , w ho i s A fr i can- A m er i can, fi l ed an admi ni s t r at i ve cha r ge w i t h t he W i s cons i n E qual R i ght s D i vi s i on al l egi ng r aci al di s cr i m i nat i on. A ft erexhaus t i ng hi s admi ni s t r at i ve r emedi es , C onnerfi l ed s ui ti n t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a al l egi ng thathe had been unl aw ful l yt erm i nat ed fr om hi s j ob on acc ountof hi s r ace i n vi ol at i on of Ti t l e V I I of t he C i vi l R i ght s A ctof 1964, 42 U . S. C . § 2000e, ets eq. W hi l e notdeny i ng that c o m p lain ts w e re lo d g e d a g a in st h im w h e n h e se rv e d a s a B ra n c h M a n a g e r a n d th a t h is angryoutbur s t s had t o be addr es s ed on s ever al occa s i ons , C onners i m pl yas s ert ed that3

w hi t e M M I empl oy ees i n m anage m entpos i t i ons w er e tr eat ed more favor abl ythan he ha d been . In further supp ortof h i s r aci al dis cri m i nati on charge, C on ner st at ed thata raci st comm entw as m ade i n hi s pr es ence bya form erM M I m anage rback i n J ul y2000, thathe w a s n o t p e rm itt e d to d isc h a rg e a p a rticu lar e m p lo y e e w h e n h e w a n ted to , an d th a t h e d id n o t r e c e iv e th e s a m e c o m p u te r t ra in in g a s s o m e o f th e C h ic a g o -b a s e d e m p lo y e e s . A ddi t i onal l y , C onneral l eged thatper s onnel fr om the M i l w aukee and C hi cago br anch o f f ice s h a d f

o rm e d a n “ e v il ca b a l” to h a v e h im re m o v e d a s B ra n c h M a n a g e r. F in a lly , in hi s br i efs i n oppos i t i on t o M M I ’ s m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent , C onnerat t empt ed t o add a c la im u n d e r t h e A m e ri c a n s w ith D is a b iliti e s A c t ( “ A D A ” ), 2 9 U .S .C . § 6 2 1 , e t. s e q ., and s oughtt o enl ar ge the di s coveryper i od. I n an or derent er ed on A pr i l 29, 2005, the D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed M M I ’ s s um m aryj udgm entm ot i on and deni ed C onner ’ s m ot i on for enl ar gementof the di s coveryper i od.

W e h av e jurisdicti o n p u rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 , an d w il l aff irm s u b s t a n t i a l l yf

o rt h e r e a s o n s g i v e n b yth e Di s t r i c tCo u r t . W e a r e d o u b t f u l th a ta p r i ma fac i e ca s e of di s cr i m i nat i on has been made out( t her e w as no di r ectevi dence of di s cr i m i nat i on) , beca us e C onner , al though ar guabl yqual i fi ed and a m emberof a pr ot ect ed cl as s , m ade no s how i ng t hatot herM M I m anage m entempl oy ees w ho ar e not m ember s of a pr ot ect ed cl as s w er e tr eat ed pr efe r ent i al l y . See M cD onnel l D ougl as C orp. v. G r een, 411 U . S. 792, 802 ( 1973) . H e w as not , forexampl e, the onl yempl oy ee w ho re c e iv e d c o m p u te r t ra in in g v ia v id e o ta p e s in s te a d o f in -p e rs o n b yc o m p u te r s p e c ia lis ts .4

I n fac t , Pat r i ck J ohns on, t he R egi onal M anage rw ho w as r es pons i bl e forover s eei ng M M I’s M ilw a u k e e o f

f ice a n d o f

f e re d C o n n e r th e C h ica g o sa les p o sitio n u p o n h is t erm i nat i on as B r anch M anage r , r ece i ved the s ame for m of tr ai ni ng. M or eover , al t hough C onnerw as couns el ed w i t h r es pectt o t he appr opr i at e manneri n w hi ch t o documentand di s ci pl i ne an e m pl oy ee w ho w as notw or ki ng up t o companys t andar ds , ther e w as no evi dence t hat , unl i ke otherB r anch M anage r s , he w as deni ed the author i t yt o t erm i nat e an empl oy ee de s ervi ng of s uch ac t i on.

Li k e t h e Di s t r i c tCo u r t , h o we v e r , e v e n a s s u mi n g a r g u e n d o th a ta p r i ma fac i e ca s e of di s cr i m i nat i on has been made out , ther e ca n be no doubtthatther e w as not hi ng pr et extual aboutM M I ’ s r eas on fort erm i nat i ng C onner . See St . M ary ’ s H onor C ent erv. H i cks , 509 U . S. 502, 509 ( 1993) . T o s ur vi ve a mot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent in a d iscri m ination ca se, a p lai n ti ff m ayp rev ail eith er b yd iscred it ing the e m p loy er’s p ro f f e re d re a so n s f

o r th e ter m in a tio n o r b ysh o w in g th a t d isc rim in a tio n w a s m o re lik e ly t han nota mot i vat i ng ordet erm i nat i ve ca us e of the adve r s e empl oym entact i on. See Fuent es v. Per s ki e, 32 F. 3d 759, 764 ( 3d C i r . 1994) . T her e i s s i m pl yno evi dence i n the r ecor d, i ncl udi ng ci r cumst ant i al evi dence , thatC onner ’ s t erm i nat i on w as m ot i vat ed i n any p art byrac ial an im u s. S ee S t. M ary ’s H o n o r C en ter v. H icks , 5 0 9 U . S . at 42 4 . M M I’s R egi onal D i r ect ori dent i fi ed a pr obl em w i t h C onner ’ s m anage m ents t y l e and arg u m en tat ive n ature ea rl yo n in h is t en u re, an d step s w ere take n to ad d ress it . C o n n er’s r epea t ed angryoutbur s t s and others hor t comi ngs w er e w el l - document ed. H e w as5

couns el ed and gi ven genui ne oppor tuni t i es t o i m pr ove, buthe fa i l ed t o do s o. Fi nal l y , he w as w arned thatanyfur t herdi s r es pect ful behavi orcoul d r es ul ti n hi s di s char ge, and ul t i m at el yhe w as t erm i nat ed. M or eover , w e agr ee w i t h t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s concl us i on t hatone r aci s tcomm entm ade thr ee y ear s ear l i erbya form erempl oy ee doe s not underm i ne M M I ’ s pr offe r ed r eas on forC onner ’ s t erm i nat i on.

W e have car eful l yr evi ew ed C onner ’ s ot hercont ent i ons on appea l and fi nd t hem t o be mer i t l es s . A s corr ect l ynot ed byappel l ee, the D i s t r i ctC our tcomm i t t ed no e rro r in f a ili n g to c o n sid e r C o n n e r’s a ttem p t to a m e n d h is c o m p lain t to a d d a n A D A c laim w her e di s coveryw as cl os ed af t erhavi ng been ope ned fornear l ya y earand a mot i on for s um m aryj udgm enthad al r eadybeen f i l ed byM M I . M or eover , C onnerdi d nots at i s fyt he p re re q u is ite s f

o r b ri n g in g s u c h a c la im . T h e A D A re q u ir e s th a t, b e f o re b ri n g in g s u it, a pl ai nt i ff mustexhaus thi s admi ni s t r at i ve r emedi es byfi l i ng a cha r ge. 42 U . S. C . § 2000e5( e) ( 1) ; 42 U . S. C . § 12117( a) ( adopt i ng T i t l e V I I enfor cements cheme and r emedi es for A D A ) . C onnerdi d notr ai s e hi s cl ai m of di s cr i m i nat i on on t he bas i s of di s abi l i t yw i t h t he W isc o n sin E q u a l R ig h ts D iv isio n . L ik e w ise , the D istric t C o u rt d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n in f

a ili n g to e x ten d th e d isc o v e ryp e rio d in lig h t o f C o n n e r’s f

a ilu re to e x p lain h o w su c h a n e x ten sio n w o u ld b e p ro d u c tiv e a n d g iv e n h is f a ilu re to p re v io u slym o v e to compel gr eat erdi s cl os ur es fr om M M I . Fi nal l y , i ti s al l t oo obvi ous thatthe entr yof appea r ance of one of

M M I ’ s at t or ney s on behal f of Connerw as nothi ng m or e than the r es ul tof a typogr aphi cal err ori n M M I couns el ’ s m ot i on foradmi t t ance fi l ed i n D ece m ber6

2004. T he D i s t r i ctC our tw as cl ear l yoper at i ng, as w er e al l part i es , underthe bel i ef that C onnerw as pr ocee di ng i n a pr o s e manner . I n fac t , the D eputyC l erk of the Em pl oym ent D i s cr i m i nat i on Panel at t empt ed t o s ecur e pr o bono r epr es ent at i on forC onnerunt i l the D i s t r i ctC our tent er ed an or deron M ar ch 3, 2005, di s cont i nui ng s uch att empt s and di r ect i ng C onnert o cont i nue t o pr ocee d pr o s e orr et ai n couns el hi m s el f. T her e i s thus no m er i tt o appel l ant ’ s cont ent i on t hats uch a mi norerr ornece s s i t at es a r ever s al of the D istri ct C o u rt ’s en tryo f su m m aryjud g m en t i n fa v o r of M M I. Ac c o r d i n g l y , f

o re s s e n t i a l l yth e r e a s o n s s e tf o r t h b yth e Di s t r i c tCo u r t , we w il l aff irm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s j u d g m en t entere d A p ri l 29 , 2 0 0 5 an d d en yC o n n er’s m o tio n to re v e rse th e su m m a ryju d g m e n t o f th e D istric t C o u rt.