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 10-2-2009 

# Rob e r t C onnoll

y Jr . v . Pep si B ottling Grp 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 . 08-4249

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 " Ro be r t C onno lly Jr

. v . P epsi Bottl in g Grp " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 521. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/521J udge A l di s ertw as an or i gi nal m emberof the pane l as s i gned t o thi s cas e, butdi d not * part i ci pat e i n t he pane l ' s deci s i on and opi ni on. 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- 4249 R O B E R T C O N N O L L Y , J R .,

A ppel l ant v. THE PEPS I BO TTLI NG GR OU P, LLC 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 W e 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. 06- cv- 1462 (H o n o ra b le J o yF lo w e rs C o n ti) Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

Sept ember8, 2009 B e f o re : S C IR IC A , C hi ef

Judge , R E N D E L L a n d A L D IS E R T , C i r cui tJudges . * ( Fi l ed: O ct ober02, 2009 ) OPI NI ON O F THE COURT S C IR IC A , C hi ef

Judge . I n J une 2006, pl ai nt i ff Rober tC onnol l yw as fi r ed fr om hi s pos i t i on w i th defe ndant B ot t l i ng G r oup, L L C d/b/ a The Pepsi B ot t l i ng G r oup ( “PB G ”) . H e w as 52 y ear s ol d at2

the t i m e. Pl ai nt i ff br oughts ui tunderthe A ge D i s cr i m i nat i on i n E m pl oym entA ct ( A D E A ) , 29 U . S. C . §§ 621–634, al l egi ng he w as fi r ed bec aus e of hi s age. T he D i s tr i ct Co u r tg r a n t e d s u mma r yj u d g me n tf o rd e f e n d a n t , a n d p l a i n t i f

f a p p e a l s . W e wi l l a f

f i r m. A s w e w r i t e pr i m ar i l yforthe part i es , w e nee d notr ecounti n ful l the fa ctual and p ro c e d u ra l h is to ry o f

th is c a s e , w h ic h is s e t f o rt h b yth e c o u rt b e lo w . See Connol l y v. Pe p s iBo t t l i n gGr o u

p , L . L . C. , C iv . A . N o . 0 6 -1 4 6 2 , 2 0 0 8 W L 4 4 1 2 0 9 0 (W .D . P a . S e p t. 2 2 , 2 0 0 8 ). P lain tiff

b e g a n w o rk w ith d e f

e n d a n t in 1 9 7 2 . A s o f

F e b ru a ry2 0 0 4 , h e h e ld th e p o sitio n o f

K e yA c c o u n t M a n a g e r. In th is c a p a c ity , h e w a s a ss ig n e d “ th ird -p a rty oper at or ” cus t om eracc ount s t o m anage , i ncl udi ng thatof the U ni ver s i tyof Pi t t s bur gh M ed ical C en ter (“U P M C ”). O n Ju n e 1 9 , 2 0 0 6 , d ef en d an t t erm inated p lai n ti ff ’s e m p lo ym e n t. S h o rtlyth e re a f ter , d e f e n d a n t ch o se R o b e rt H a ig , the n 4 7 y e a rs o ld , to f ill pl ai nt i ff’ s form erpos i t i on. A cc o rdin g to d ef

en d an t, p lai n ti ff

w as term inated b ec au se h e v iolated d ef en d an t’ s C od e of C on du cti n h i s m anag em ent of the U P M C accou nt— part i cular l y , tho se provis i on s of t he co de p ert ai ning t o b usi ness i ntegr i ty , con fl i ct s of i nter est , and bu si ness gi ft s . I n 2002, pl ai nt i ff a nd B i l l O ’ C onnor , di r ect orof corpor at e pur chas i ng forU PM C at th e t i me , we r e i n v o l v e d i n r e n e g o t i a t i n g th e c o n tr a c tb e twe e n d e f e n d a n ta n d UP M C. As U PM C and def

endantw oul d l at erl earn, pl ai nt i ff a nd O ’ C onnors i gned tw o di ffe r ent ver s i ons of thi s r enegot i at ed contr acton D ece m ber11, 2002, one of w hi ch w as ther eaf t er h eld b yd ef

en d an t and the o ther b yU P M C ; neither U P M C n o r de fe n d an t had the o ther’sU PM C t erm i nat ed O ’ C onnor ’ s empl oym enti n O ct ober2005. 1 3 ver s i on on r ecor d. T hes e tw o ver s i ons cont ai ned mat er i al l ydi ffe r entt erm s — fori ns t ance , th e v e rsio n h e ld b yd e f

e n d a n t co n tain e d a c lau se p ro v id in g f o r $ 1 7 5 ,0 0 0 in y e a rly

“ S p e c i a l Ev e n tS u p p o r t ” ma r k e t i n g f u n d s th a td e f

e n d a n two u l d ma k e a v a i l a b l e t o UPMC, w h ile th e v e rs io n h e ld b yU P M C d id n o t. U PM C beca m e aw ar e of thi s s i tuat i on i n M ay2006, w hen pl ai nt i ff, dur i ng a m eet i ng w i th B ob C ut one ( the i ndi vi dual w ho had as s um ed r es pons i bi l i tyforthe contr act atU PM C ) , t ol d C ut one thatthe ver s i on of the contr acthel d byU PM C w as i ncorr ectand

1 gave hi m the ver s i on hel d bydefe ndant . C ut one i nform ed pl ai nt i ff thatU PM C had no r ecor d of thi s ot herver s i on of the contr act . Subse quent l y , C ut one’ s s upervi s ornot i fi ed defe ndantthatU PM C had s er i ous conce rns r egar di ng i t s r el at i ons hi p w i th defe ndantand thatU PM C w as i nves t i gat i ng cert ai n m arket i ng fund expe ndi tur es m ade bydefe ndanton U PM C ’ s behal f w hi l e O ’ C onnorw as s t i l l w i th U PM C

— expendi tur es w hi ch pl ai nt i ff author i zed a nd w hi ch, as not ed above , w er e notpr ovi ded fori n U PM C ’ s ver s i on of the contr act . T hes e expe ndi tur es i ncl uded the pur chas e of a cr ew boatforthe hi gh s chool ro w in g p ro g ra m o f

w h ich O ’C o n n o r’s so n h a d b e e n a m e m b e r, an d o f se a so n tick e ts to the P ittsbu rgh S teelers. In Ju n e 2 0 0 6 , U P M C arran g ed a m ee ti n g w ith p lai n ti ff ’s s upervi s ort o di s cus s thi s s i tuat i on and as ked thatpl ai nt i ff notatt end. A tthi s m eet i ng, U P M C app ri sed def

end ant of the d i fferences betw een the tw o v ers i on s of t he co ntr act s; p lain tiff h a d n o t n o tifie d d e f

e n d a n t o f

th e e x iste n c e o f

th e d if f e re n t v e rsio n s p rio r to th isA ccor di ng t o pl ai nt i ff, D i l l on ( 1) cal l ed pl ai nt i ff “ the ol d m an i n the gr oup” i n M ar ch 2 2005 dur i ng thei rfi r s tm eet i ng, ( 2) s ai d t o pl ai nt i ff i n N ovemberorD ece m ber2005, “ L i s t e n , o l d m a n , I k n o w yo u ’ r e l yi n g t o m e , ” a n d ( 3 ) c a l l e d p l a i n t i f f a “ l e g a c y l i a b i l i ty” and s ai d thathe “c oul d hi r e tw o orthr ee pe opl e forw hat[pl ai nt i ff] m ade” dur i ng a m e e tin g o n F e b ru a ry3 , 2 0 0 6 ; an d S a rn e so (1 ) to ld p lain tiff d u rin g a m e e tin g so m e tim e in 2005 that“the j ob has pas s ed [y ou] by ” and that“y oungerkeyacc ountm anage r s can w or k r i ngs ar ound y ou, ” and ( 2) t ol d pl ai nt i ff dur i ng a meet i ng on J une 14, 2005 thathe “ d id n o t f

it th e m o ld f

o r a tr a in e r.” A ccor di ng t o Fl ynn, the not at i on w as m ade be caus e pl ai nt i ff’ s age w as r el evantt o t he 3 s ever ance packa ge thatw oul d be off er ed t o pl ai nt i ff; pl ai nt i ff di s put es thi s expl anat i on, co n tend ing k n o w ledg e o f p lai n ti ff ’s ex ac t age w as n o t nec essa ryto d ef en d an t’ s se v e ra n c e -p a c k a g e a ss e ss m e n t. 4 me e t i n g . Wh e n s u b s e q u e n t l ya s k e d b yd e f e n d a n tt o e x p l a i n th e e x i s t e n c e o f th e two v ersion s o f th e c o n tr ac t, p lai n ti ff o ff ere d m u lt iple inco m p let e a n d co n tr ad ict o ry resp o n ses. O n e w ee k af ter i ts m ee ti n g w ith U P M C , d ef en d an t t erm inated p lai n ti ff ’s e m p lo ym e n t. P lain tiff f iled su it ag a in st d e f

e n d a n t, cla im in g it fire d h im b e c a u se o f h is a g e in v io latio n o f

th e A D E A . P lain tiff

p o in ted to th e f

o llo w in g e v id e n c e to su b sta n tiate h is cl ai m of di s cr i m i nat i on: comm ent s m ade ove rthe cour s e of hi s l as ttw o y ear s of empl oym entw i th defe ndantbytw o of hi s s upervi s or s , B i l l D i l l on and Li s a Sarnes o, w ho w er e both i nvol ved i n t he t erm i nat i on deci s i on; a handw r i t t en not at i on i ndi cat i ng 2 pl ai nt i ff’ s bi r th dat e and a ge thatw as m ade on pl ai nt i ff’ s comput er - gener at ed per s onnel p ro f ile b yP a trick F lyn n , an o th e r in d iv id u a l in v o lv e d in th e ter m in a tio n d e c isio n , sh o rtly b e f o re th a t d e c isio n ; D ill o n ’s is su a n c e o f a “ b e lo w tar g e t” p e rf

o rm a n c e e v a lu a tio n to 3 pl ai nt i ff i n O ct ober2005, the fi r s tthatpl ai nt i ff ha d r ece i ved i n hi s t i m e w or ki ng for5

defe ndant , and pl ai nt i ff’ s cons equentpl ace m enton a per form ance i m pr ovementpl an; and the tim ing o f th e h ir ing o f p lai n ti ff ’s rep lace m en t. A cc o rdin g to p lai n ti ff , d ef en d an t’ s re lian c e o n its C o d e o f

C o n d u c t in its ter m in a tio n d e c isio n w a s s im p lya p re tex t f o r its actual , di s cr i m i nat orym ot i vat i on. D efe ndantfi l ed a mot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent . T he D i s tr i ctC our t , appl y i ng t he McD onnel lD ouglas bur den- s hi ft i ng fr amew or k t o anal y ze pl ai nt i ff’ s cl ai m , found that plai nti ff h ad m ade a p ri m a facie s ho w i ng of d i scr i m i nati on : nam el y , that pl ai nti ff w as a m em ber of a clas s prot ect ed u nd er the A D E A , w as quali fi ed, suffered an adv ers e empl oym entact i on, and w as r epl ace d bys om eone s uffi ci ent l yy oungert o r ai s e an i nfer ence of di s cr i m i nat i on. T he courtal s o found def endanthad meti t s bur den of p rod u cing a leg it im ate n o n d iscri m inato ryrea so n fo r i ts t erm ination o f p lai n ti ff

— h is en try “i nt o tw o m at er i al l ydi ffe r entcontr act s w i th the s ame cus t om eron the s ame day , gi vi ng ri se to an ap p ea ran ce o f im p rop ri ety , an d h is m u lt iple, inco m p let e a n d co n tr ad ict o ry e x p lan a tio n s w h e n q u e stio n e d a b o u t th e tw o c o n tra c ts.” T h e c o u rt n o ted th a t “[ n ]o t o n ly d id th is c o n d u c t ar g u a b lyv io late th e c o n f licts o f in ter e st a n d b u sin e ss g if ts a n d p a ym e n ts s ubs ect i ons of the conduc t i ng bus i nes s w i th i nt egr i tys ect i on of def endant ’ s code of conduct , i tal s o puti nt o j eopar dydefe ndant ’ s bus i nes s r el at i ons hi p w i th a maj oracc ount . ” L a stly , the c o u rt d e ter m in e d p lain tiff h a d f a iled to p u t f

o rth e v id e n c e th a t, w h e n v iew e d in the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o hi m , w oul d perm i ta r eas onabl e fa ct fi ndert o concl ude that d e f e n d a n t’s p ro f

f e re d re a so n w a s p re tex tu a l an d th a t p lain tiff h a d b e e n u n law f

u llyT he D i s tr i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1331, and w e have j ur i s di ct i on 4 under28 U . S. C . § 1291. W e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overthe D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm ent , and w e r evi ew the fa ct s i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the n o n -m o v a n t, p la in tif

f in th is c a s e . Ko ss lerv . Cris a n ti , 5 6 4 F .3 d 1 8 1 , 1 8 6 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). “T h e jud g m en t sou g h t sho u ld b e re n d ere d if th e p lead ing s, the d isco v eryan d d iscl o su re m at er i al s on fi l e, and anyaff i davi t s s how thatther e i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o anym at er i al fa c ta nd tha t[d e fe nd a nti s ] e nt i t l e d t o j ud gmen ta s a mat t e rof l a w . ” Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 5 6 (c). “A n actorom i s s i on i s notr egar ded as a ca us e of a n eventi f the part i cul arevent 5 w oul d have oc curr ed w i thouti t . ” G ross , 129 S. C t . at2350 ( quot at i on m arks and ci t at i on o m itted). 6 d iscri m inated ag ains t. A cc o rdin g ly , the c o u rtg ran ted d ef en d an t’ s m o ti o n fo r sum m ary j udgm ent . T hi s t i m el yappea l fol l ow ed. 4 T h e A D E A p ro h ib its e m p lo y e rs f ro m d is c ri m in a tin g a g a in s t “ a n yin d iv id u a l . . . beca us e of s uch i ndi vi dual ’ s age. ” 29 U . S. C . § 623( a) ( 1) . “[A ] pl ai nt i ff br i ngi ng a di s par at e- tr eatm entcl ai m pur s uantt o the A D E A m us tpr ove, bya pr eponder ance of the evi dence , t hatage w as the ‘ but - for ’ caus e of the cha l l enged a dver s e empl oym entact i on. ” G r os s v. F

B L F i n. Ser vs . , I

nc. , 1 2 9 S C t. 2 3 4 3 , 2 3 5 2 (20 0 9 ). 5 O n appea l , pl ai nt i ff doe s notchal l enge the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s fi ndi ng that , undert he McD onnel lD ouglas f

ra m e w o rk , d e f

e n d a n t h a s m e t it s b u rd e n o f p ro d u c in g a leg iti m a te nondi s cr i m i nat oryr eas on fori t s deci s i on t o t erm i nat e hi m . Pl ai nt i ff c l ai m s , how ever , t hat he has putfor th s uffi ci entevi dence t o di s cr edi tdefe ndant ’ s pr offe r ed r eas on as pr et extual and t o defe atdefe ndant ’ s m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent . W e di s agr ee. Fi r s t , w e do not beli eve p l ai nti ff h as “dem on strat e[d] such w eakn esses , i m plausi bil i t i es, i nco nsi st encies , in c o h e re n c ies , o r c o n tra d ictio n s in th e e m p lo y e r’s p ro f f e re d leg iti m a te r e a so n s f o r its7

ac ti o n that a re aso n ab le fa ctfind er c o u ld rati o n all yfin d them ‘un w o rth yo f c red en ce . ’” Kel l erv. O r i

x C r edi tA l l i ance, I

nc. , 130 F. 3d 1101, 1109 ( 3d C i r . 1997) ( en banc ) ( quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) ( quot i ng Fu e n tes v . P e rs k ie , 3 2 F .3 d 7 5 9 , 7 6 5 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 4 )) . A s the D i s tr i ctC our tnot ed, “her e ther e i s s ubs t ant i al undi s put ed evi dence of r ecor d that s uppor t s defe ndant ’ s pr offe r ed r eas on forpl ai nt i ff’ s t erm i nat i on, ” namel y , “1) [pl ai nt i ff] s i gned tw o di ffe r entver s i ons of the PB G /U PM C C ontr acton the s ame day , . . . 2) he nevert ol d hi s s upervi s or s aboutthe tw o di ffe r entver s i ons unt i l aft erU PM C br oughtt he i s s ue t o PB G ’ s att ent i on, 3) U PM C r epr es ent at i ves w er e ups etw i th C onnol l y , and 4) C o n n o llyg a v e P B G re p re se n tativ e s m u lti p le, in c o m p lete a n d c o n tra d icto rya n sw e rs to ques t i ons aboutw hytw o di ffe r entver s i ons exi s t ed. ” Pl ai nt i ff poi nt s t o evi dence , s uch as s t at ement s m ade byO ’ C onnori n hi s 2007 depos i t i on, thatl ends i ns i ghti nt o the ci r cumst ance s s urr oundi ng the tw o contr act s , the mar ket i ng fund expe ndi tur es , and a sp e c ts o f

p lain tiff ’s c o n d u c t w ith re sp e c t to th e m , b u t as th e D istric t C o u rt f o u n d , the re is n o in d ica tio n th a t an yo f th is in f o rm a tio n w a s a v a ilab le to d e f e n d a n t w h e n it m a d e its t erm i nat i on deci s i on. Pl ai nt i ff a l s o cl ai m s defe ndanthas change d i t s pr offe r ed r eas ons forhi s t erm i nat i on, ther ebyunderm i ni ng thei rl egi t i m acy , butw e fa i l t o s ee a nys uch in c o n sis ten c y . N o r d o w e a g re e w ith p lain tiff th a t d e f e n d a n t h a s f

a iled to d e m o n stra te adequa t el yhow pl ai nt i ff’ s entr yi nt o tw o di ffe r entcontr act s , hi s author i zat i on of expendi tur es thatw er e notpr ovi ded fori n U PM C ’ s ver s i on of the contr actand that se e m in g lyin u re d to O ’C o n n o r’s p e rso n a l b e n e f it, a n d h is f

a ilu re to b rin g th is s itu a tio n to8

d ef en d an t’ s att en ti o n an d p rov ide a cre d ible ex p lana ti o n fo r i t, im p li ca te de fe n d an t’ s C ode of Conduct , part i cul ar l yi n l i ghtof the i nform at i on avai l abl e t o defe ndantatthe tim e o f th e te rm in a tio n d e c is io n . W e a lso a g re e w ith th e D istric t C o u rt th a t th e e v id e n c e o f f e re d b yp lain tiff

to s uppor thi s cl ai m of di s cr i m i nat i on “l ack[ s ] pr obat i ve for ce i n l i ghtof the undi s put ed evi dence of r ecor d r el at i ng t o t he s t at ed bas es forthe t erm i nat i on. ” Pl ai nt i ff c l ai m s the D i s tr i ctC our tfai l ed t o acc or d t he comm ent s m ade byD i l l on and Sarnes o, and the age not at i on m ade byFl ynn, s uffi ci entw ei ght . A s the D i s tr i ctC our tr ecogni zed, D i l l on and Sarnes o’ s comm ent s do notal l s ugges tpot ent i al age- r el at ed bi as , and thos e thatm i ght w er e made m onths befor e def endant ’ s deci s i on t o t erm i nat e pl ai nt i ff a nd out s i de the c o n te x t o f

th a t d e c is io n m a k in g p ro c e s s . See Fuent es , 32 F. 3d at767 ( “‘ St r ayr emar ks by n o n -d e c isio n m a k e rs o r b yd e c isio n m a k e rs u n re late d to th e d e c isio n p ro c e ss a re ra re ly gi ven gr eatw ei ght , part i cul ar l yi f theyw er e made t empora l l yr emot e fr om the dat e of deci s i on. ’ ” ( quot i ng Ez old v. W ol f , B l ock, Schor r& Sol is - C ohen , 983 F. 2d 509, 545 ( 3d C ir. 1 9 9 2 ))). T h e a g e n o tatio n o n p lain tiff ’s p e rso n n e l p ro f ile in d ica tes th a t in d iv id u a ls i nvol ved i n t he t erm i nat i on deci s i on w er e aw ar e of pl ai nt i ff’ s age a tthe t i m e of that deci s i on. T he not at i on does not , i n i t s el f, m ani fes tdi s cr i m i nat oryani m us , though i tm ay b e re le v a n t to s u c h a s h o w in g w h e n c o n s id e re d in lig h t o f o th e r e v id e n c e . See, e. g. , A r m br us t erv. U

nis ys C or p. , 32 F. 3d 768, 783 ( 3d C i r . 1994) . W e do notbel i eve, h o w e v e r, th a t th e e v id e n c e p re se n ted in th is c a se , co n sid e re d a s a w h o le, is s u f f icie n tlyI n l i ghtof thi s det erm i nat i on, w e nee d notr eac h defe ndant ’ s cont ent i on thatthe 6 D i s tr i ctC our terr ed i n concl udi ng pl ai nt i ff’ s r epl ace m entw as s uffi ci ent l yy oungerthan pl ai nt i ff t o r ai s e an i nfer ence of di s cr i m i nat i on atthe pr i m a fa ci e s t age of the McD o n n e ll D ouglas fr amew or k. 9 p ro b a tiv e to sa v e p lain tiff ’s A D E A c laim f ro m su m m a ryju d g m e n t. See Anders on v. Li ber t y Lobby, I

nc. , 477 U . S. 242, 249–50 ( 1986) ( “I f the evi dence i s m er el ycol or abl e, or is n o t s ig n if

ic a n tly p ro b a tiv e , s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t m a yb e g ra n te d .” (c ita tio n s o m itte d )) . T hati s , w hen w e vi ew al l of the evi dence i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o pl ai nt i ff, w e do n o t b e liev e a re a so n a b le f a c tf in d e r c o u ld c o n c lu d e th a t p lain tiff , g iv e n h is c o n d u c t w ith r e s p e c tt o th e UPMC c o n tr a c ta n d g i v e n th e i n f o r ma t i o n a v a i l a b l e t o d e f e n d a n ta tth e t i me o f its te rm in a tio n d e c is io n , w o u ld n o t h a v e b e e n te rm in a te d b u t f o r h is a g e . See G ross , 1 2 9 S . C t. at 2 3 5 2 . A c c o rd in g ly , 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