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

12-22-2009 

# Thom a s S mith v

. C ity of Alle nt own
P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-1998

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 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

" Thom as S mith v

. C ity of Alle nt own" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 6. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/6P 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. 09- 1998

_____________ T H O M A S A . S M IT H , A ppel l ant

v. C IT Y O F A L L E N T O W N ; E D P AWLO WS KI

_______________ 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

. N o. 07- cv- 4317) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le M it ch ell S

. G o ldb erg

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

N ovember5, 2009
Be f o r e : S CI RI CA , Ch i e f

J u d g e , J OR DAN a n d CO WEN, C i r cui tJudges

. ( Fi l ed D ece m ber22, 2009)

_______________2 R ich a rd J. O rlo sk i T h e O rl o sk i l aw F irm 111 N

. C edarC r es tB l vd. A l l ent ow n, PA 18104
E d w a rd J. E a ste rly G eor ge C

. H l avac St even E. H offman T al l m an, H udder s & Sor r ent i no 1611 Pond R d. - St e. 300 A l l ent ow n, PA 18104

_______________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_______________ J O R D A N , C i r cui tJudge

. T hom as S m it h appea l s an or derof the 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 gr ant i ng su m m a ryju d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f th e C ityo f

A llen to w n a n d its M ay o r, E d Paw l ow s ki , on Sm i t h’ s cl ai m s fordi s cr i m i nat i on bas ed upon hi s age a nd pol i t i cal aff i l i at i on. Forthe r eas ons that f o llo w , w e w ill a f

f ir m . I. Backg r ound A

. Fa c t

s Un d e r l y i n gSmi th ’s Cla i ms A tt he t i m e of Sm i t h’ s t erm i nat i on on O ct ober19, 2006, he w as fi fty - fi ve y ear s ol d and a r egi s t er ed mem berof the3 R e p u b lica n p a rty . H e w o rk e d a s th e S u p e rin ten d e n t o f th e C ity of A l l ent ow n R ecr eat i on B ur eau, a pos t to w hi ch he w as a p p o in ted in 2 0 0 0 b y f

o rm e r M a y o r W ill iam H e y d t, w h o a lso is a R epubl i can. A s Super i nt endent , Sm i t h w as r es pons i bl e for over al l m anage m entof the R ecr eat i on B ur eau, i ncl udi ng s even ful l

- t i m e st af

f m ember s and betw een 150 a nd 200 par t

- t i m e, s eas onal empl oy ees . H e pre par ed budget s , devel oped new recr eat i on program s, ran the C i t y ’s organized sport s program s, and as s i s t ed w i t h t he pl anni ng of “Spor t s Fes t , ” an a n n u al comm uni t y fes t i val of athl et i c eve nt s . A s Super i nt endent , he s et gr een f ees att he muni ci pal gol f cour s e and a dm i ni s t er ed the c o u rse ’s a n n u a l m a r k e tin g b u d g e t. H e w a s a lso re sp o n sib le , al ong w i t h t he hea ds of tw o otherC i t ydepart m ent s , for m a n a g in g th e C ity’s s w im m in g p o o ls

. I n N ovember2001, D emocr atR oyA ffl erbach s ucce eded H ey dtas M ay or . Sm i th cont i nued t o s erve as Super i nt endentof t he R ecr eat i on B ur e a u th r o u g h o u tth e Aff l e rb a c h a d mi n i s tr at i on, w ea thering a fu n d ing crisi s an d p rese rvin g m an y o f t h e C ity ’s r ecr eat i on pr ogr ams. I n ear l y2002, A ffl erbach appoi nt ed appel l ee Ed Paw low sk i as D i r ect orof C om m uni t yand E co n o m ic D ev elop m en t. P aw low sk i thu s b ec am e S m ith ’s im m e d iate su p e rv iso r in th e C ityg o v e rn m e n t. A c c o rd in g to P aw lo w sk i, there w ere a n u m b er o f p rob lem s w ith S m ith ’s p e rf o rm a n c e a s S u p e rin ten d e n t. P a w lo w sk i sa id th a t S m ith n e g lec ted to c re a te n e w re c re a tio n a l p ro g r a m s o r to p ro m o te exi st i ng r ecr eat i on offe r i ngs . Sm i t h acknow l edges that Paw l ow s ki chas t i s ed hi m , and t he other depart m ent heads w ho o p era ted the sw im m ing p o o ls, fo r f ail ing to p erf

o rm n ec essa ry p o o l u p k e e p .Itis un clea r w h e th er this co n v ersa ti o n o cc u rred b ef o re 1 oraft ert he N ovember2005 el ect i on. Sm i th r eca l l s s peaki ng w i t h Spang i n t he s pr i ng of 2006. Spang, on t he otherhand, t es t i fi ed that he spoke w i t h Sm i t h appr oxi m at el yone y ear ear l i er , befor e the el ect i on. C o n stru ing the fa ct s i n t he l i ght m o st fav o ra b le t o S m ith as th e p artyo p p o sing su m m ary 4 In late 2 0 0 4 , P a w lo w sk i re sig n e d in p ro tes t o v e r c e rta in p o licie s im p lem e n ted b yth e A f f ler b a c h a d m in istra tio n . H is s ucce s s or , and henc e Sm i t h’ s new s upervi s or , w as L aur en G i guer e. She devel oped a per form ance pl an thates t abl i s hed a s er i es of goal s fort he R ec rea t i on B ur eau. T he pl an r equi r ed Sm i t h t o es t abl i s h bur eau- w i de financi al pr ocedur es , cr eat e a m as t erpl an forcooper at i on betw een t he R ecr eat i on B ur eau a nd t he Par ks B ur eau, expl or e opt i ons for cons t ruct i ng n ew re c re a tio n c e n ter s, a n d im p lem e n t n e w so f tw a re p ro g ra m s to in c re a s e B u re a u e f

f ic ie n c y . I n ear l y2005, Paw l ow s ki announce d hi s candi dacyfor M ay orof A l l ent ow n on t he D emocr at i c t i cket

. T he N ovember 2 0 0 5 g e n e ra l ele c tio n p itt e d P a w lo w sk i as th e D e m o c ra tic c a n d id a te a g a in st f

o rm e r M a y o r H e y d t o n th e R e p u b lica n tick e t. Sm i t h s uppor t ed H ey dt ’ s r enew ed bi d foroff ice and pl ace d a pr o- H ey dtcampai gn s i gn i n hi s y ar d appr oxi m at el yt hr ee w eeks befor e the el ect i on. Paw l ow s ki ul t i m at el y emer ged vi ct or i ous in th e e le c tio n . S o m e tim e d u rin g th e f

irst h a lf o f 2 0 0 6 , S m ith a lleg e d ly had a c onver s at i on w i t h hi s fri end J ames Spang, a D emocr at w h o h a d w o rk e d o n P a w lo w sk i’ s c a m p a ig n . A c c o rd in g to 1ju d g m e n t, w e c re d it h is re c o llec tio n o f th e tim in g o f

th is conver s at i on. 5 S m i t h, S pan g st at ed thatP aw lo w sk i “view ed [S m i t h] as a pol i t i cal enemy [] of s or t s ” and be l i eved that S m it h had im p rop erlyatt em p ted to inf luen ce tw o m em b ers o f th e C ity ’s r ecr eat i on comm i s s i on t o s uppor t H ey dt ’ s bi d forM ay or . ( A pp. a t 3 5 a .) In c o n tra st, S p a n g tes tifie d th a t h e a p p ro a c h e d S m ith to expr es s conce r n t hatH ey dthad r ece i ved pre fer ent i al i nvi t at i ons t o event s atSpor t s Fes t, w h il e Paw l ow s ki had not

. Spang recal l ed the con versat i on l ast i ng app rox i m at el yt w o m i nu t es, dur i ng w hi ch he e ncour aged Smi t h t o r efr ai n fr om pol i t i ci zi ng e v e n ts a n d re c o m m e n d e d th a t f u tu re in v itatio n s b e e x ten d e d in a more neutr al fas hi on. Spang, w ho does not r eca l l ut t er i ng t he p h ra se “ p o litic a l en e m y ,” e x p lain e d th a t h e a p p ro a c h e d S m ith beca us e he b eli ev ed t hatSm i t h had a f utur e as a ca ndi dat e for l ocal offi ce a nd t hat Sm i t h’ s pol i t i cal pr os pect s w oul d be pl ace d i n j eopar dyi f he w ere per cei ved as us i ng C i t yevent s for par t i s an purposes. Spang t es t i fi ed thathe neve ri nform ed Paw l ow s ki of hi s conver s at i on w i t h Sm i t h, and Sm i t h pos s es s es no know l edge reg ard ing w h yS p an g w o u ld h av e re p rese n ted th at P a w lo w s k i c o n s id e re d S m ith a p o litic a l f o e . In M a y 2 0 0 6 , th e n -M a y o r P a w lo w sk i ap p o in ted F ra n c is D o u g h e rty , w h o u n til th a t ti m e h a d w o rk e d in P h ilad e lp h ia, to re p lac e G ig u e re a s D ir e c to r o f C o m m u n itya n d E c o n o m ic D evel opm entfor A l l ent ow n. D ougher t y conduct ed a r evi ew of Sm i t h’ s fi l e and de t erm i ned thatSm i t h had fa i l ed t o achi eve a ny o f t he goal s s etfor t h i n G ui ger e’ s per form ance pl an. Sm i t h’s vi ew i s t hathe had made pr ogr es s on t he goal s , buthe conc edesSm i t h has s ubm i t t ed an a ffi davi tthatat t empt s t o sh if t 2 r es pons i bi l i t yfort hes e s hor t fal l s butcontr adi ct s hi s depos i t i on t es t i m onyacknow l edgi ng acc ount abi l i t yfors om e of the pr obl ems i dent i fi ed by appel l ees . W e cr edi tSm i t h’ s depos i t i on test im o n yto the ex clus ion o f h is aff idav it inso fa r a s the tw o are i n c o n f lic t. See J

i m i nezv. A l lA m . R aths kel l er, I nc. , 5 0 3 F. 3d 247, 253 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( s t at i ng t hata part ym aynotr el yupon an af fi davi t t hati s i ncons i s t entw i t h t he part y ’ s pr i ordepos i t i on t esti m onyt o cr eat e a ge nui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac tatt he s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t s ta g e ). A c c o rd in g to S m ith , E v e ritt B ick f o rd v o lu n tee re d to 3 c o o rd in a te a n d ra ise f u n d s f o r th e p a ra d e w h e n th e C ity w i t hd rew fi nan ci al supp ortfor i t

. T he C i t ycon t i nu ed to ass i st B i ckfor d’ s ef

for t s and pr ovi ded or gani zat i onal s uppor tfort he p a ra d e . In e a rly2 0 0 6 , P a w lo w sk i as sig n e d S m ith to w o rk w ith Bi c k f o r d t o c o o r d i n a t e th a ty e a r ’ s p a r a d e . Bi c k f o r d be c a me unw i l l i ng t o cooper at e w i t h C i t yper s onnel an d announce d a date for the p arade t hat w as ea rl i er than usual, w i t ho ut fi rs t i nform i ng or r ece i vi ng appr oval fr om t he C i t y . Sm i t h t es t i fi ed that in resp o n se h e “ d id n o thing , o th er tha n m ayb e se n [d ing ] a m e m o d o w n to th e M a y o r’s o f f ice , sa y in g th a t th is w a s th e d a te [ B ic k f o rd ] h a d p ic k e d .” (A p p . a t 6 3 a .) 6 t hathe di d notful fi l l them w it hi n t he t i m e al l ot t ed under G u igere ’s plan

. D o u g h ertyd isco v ere d that d u ri n g S m ith ’s 2 t enu re, t he n um ber of roun ds play ed at t he m un i ci pal gol f cou rs e ha d d e c l i n e d a n d c o n t r o l o f t h e Ci t y ’ s Hal l o wee n p a r a d e had been cede d t o a pr i vat e ci t i zen w ho w as runni ng i tw i t h m i ni m al over s i g h tf

r o m the R ecr eat i on B ur eau. A fter rev iew ing S m ith ’s 37 per form ance D ougher t yconcl uded t hat “Sm i t h di d nothave the s ki l l s et s ” t o i m pl ementt he C i t y ’ s vi s i on fori t s r ecr eat i on p rog ram m ing

. (A p p . at 20 1 a.)
D ougher t yr ecomm ended t o Paw l ow s ki t hatSm i t h be di s char ged. Pa wl o w s ki r evi ew ed D ougher t y ’ s r ecomm endat i on a n d so o n a g re e d w ith D o u g h e rty ’ s a ss e ss m e n t. In a d d iti o n to th e p ro b lem s id e n tifie d b yD o u g h e rty , P a w lo w sk i k n e w h is o f f ice h a d re c e iv e d c o m p lain ts th a t th e g o lf c o u rse w a s p o o rly m a n a g e d a n d th a t S m ith h a d n o t d e v e lo p e d n e w g o lf pr ogr amm i ng t o pr om ot e t he cour s e. D ougher t yt es t i fi ed thathe m et w ith P aw low sk i i n lat e Ju n e 2 0 0 6 to d iscu ss S m ith ’s empl oym ent s t atus and t hat , at t he cl os e of thatm eet i ng, P a w lo w s k i in stru c ted h im to ter m in a te S m ith ’s e m p lo ym e n t. P rio r to f o rm a llyter m in a tin g S m ith , P a w lo w sk i an d D o u g h e rty cons ul t ed the C i t ySol i ci t orand A s s i s t antSol i ci t oras w el l as Sony a St ephens , a r epr es ent at i ve fr om t he C i t y ’ s H um an R es our ces D epart m ent( “H R ”)

. A l l thr ee i ndi vi dual s advi s ed againstt he t erm i nati on . P aw l ow ski and D ou gh ertynev ertheles s d e c id e d to p ro c e e d w ith th e f ir in g . D ur i ng a one- on- one meet i ng w i t h Sm i t h on J ul y24, 2 0 0 6 , D o u g h e rtyin f

o rm e d h im th a t h e lac k e d th e sk ill s nece s s aryt o per form hi s empl oym entdut i es eff ect i vel yand that h e w a s b e in g g iv e n th e o p tio n to re sig n o r retire . A c c o rd in g to Sm i t h, D ougher t yobs erved that Sm i t h’ s fi fty - fi fth bi r t hdayand hi s empl oym entanni ver s ary , w hich occ urr ed r es pect i vel yon A ugus t 2 and O ct ober2, w er e appr oachi ng and thatPaw l ow s ki w ant ed t o r ece i ve Sm i t h’ s r es i gnat i on bythatbirt hdaybutno la te r t h a n th e a n n iv e rs a ry d a te

.8 Fol l ow ing t hatconver s at i on, Sm i t h pr epar ed a l ett er des cr i bi ng hi s acc om pl i s hm ent s as Super i nt endentof the R ecr eat i on B ur eau, s t at i ng t hat he w as not a pol i t i cal enemyof P a w lo w sk i, an d re q u e stin g th a t P a w lo w sk i re c o n sid e r h is ter m in a ti o n . P a w lo w sk i re v iew e d th e lette r b u t d e c lin e d to r econs i der

. Sm i t h t ender ed hi s r es i gnat i on , eff ect i ve O ct ober 19, 2006. T he C i t ys ubs equent l yhi r ed C ar l B runo, w ho atthe t i m e w as t hi r t y - s i x y ear s of age , t o r epl ace Sm i t h. B runo s erved as Super i nt endentof the R ecr eat i on B ur eau for s i x m onths , aft er w h ich he w as rep lace d b yK ev in E asterli n g , then fo rty -tw o y ea rs o f a g e . H R r epr es ent at i ve St ephens t es t i fi ed t hat s he w as never form al l yap p r i s e d o f

Smi th’ s t erm i nat i on and thats he di s cover ed it th ro u g h h a p p e n s ta n c e , tho u g h sh e c o u ld n o t re c a ll p re c ise ly how s he l earned of i t

. She fur t herexpl ai ned that , i n heropi ni on, t he fi r i ng w as unw arr ant ed and thatconduct i ng a t erm ina t i on m eet i ng w i t houtt h e i nvol vementof an H R r epr es ent at i ve w as u n u s u a l.
B

. P rocedu ralHist ory O n O ct ober 16, 2007, Sm i t h comm ence d t h e p rese nt law su it. S m ith c o m p lain e d th a t, w h e n ter m in a tin g h is e mp l o yme n t , P a wl o ws k i a n d t h e Ci t yo f Al l e n t o wn di s cr i m i nat ed aga i ns thi m on t he bas i s of hi s age, i n vi ol at i on of the 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 . § § 6 2 1 -3 4 , an d o n th e b a sis o f h is p o lit ica l af

f ili a tio n , in vi ol at i on of hi s Fi r s tA m end m entr i ght s . Sm i t h cl ai m ed that D ougher t y ’ s r efe r ence t o hi s bi r thd aydur i ng t he t erm i nat i on m eet i ng r evea l ed age- bas ed ani m us , and he c ont ended that9 St ephens ’ s char act er i zat i on of hi s di s char ge as unus ual and u n w a rra n ted su p p o rte d h is c la im . H e f u rth e r a ss e rte d th a t h is havi ng a pro- H ey dtcampai gn s i gn i n hi s y ar d dur i ng t he N ovember2005 el ect i on t oget herw i t h Spang’ s “pol i t i cal e n e m y ” c o m m e n t p ro v id e d e v id e n c e th a t h e w a s fire d d u e to h is aff i l i at i on w i t h t he R epubl i can pa r t y . M ay orPaw l ow s ki and the C i t y r es ponded t hatSm i t h w as t erm i nat ed notbeca us e of hi s age or pol i t i cal aff

i l i at i on but beca us e he l acke d t he ski l l s t o l ead the R e c re a tio n B u re a u e f

f e c tiv e ly.
W i t h r es pectt o the age di s cr i m i nat i on cl ai m , the D i s t r i ct C our t found t hat Sm i t h fai l ed t o pr offe r evi dence fr om w hi ch a r eas onabl e j ur ycoul d concl ude thatdefe ndant s ’ pr offe r ed r at i onal e fort erm i nat i ng hi m w as a p r et extforage di s cr i m i nat i on. A ddr es s i ng t he pol i t i cal aff i l i at i on cl ai m , the C our tfound thatSm i t h’ s t es t i m onyr egar di ng Spang’ s “pol i t i cal e n e m y ” c o m m e n t co n stitu ted in a d m iss ib le h e a rsa yth a t co u ld n o t b e c o n sid e re d o n su m m a ry ju d g m e n t. B e c a u se S m ith c o u ld noti dent i fyan al t ernat e sour ce of Paw l ow s ki ’ s al l eged pol i t i cal enmi t y tow ar d hi m , the C our tconcl uded thatSm i t h l acke d admi s s i bl e evi dence t ha tPa wl o ws k i c o n s i d e r e d Sm i t h a pol i t i cal ad v e r s a r y . I t t h e r e f

o r e e n t e r e d s u mma r y j u d g me n tfor Paw l ow s ki and the C it yon al l cl ai m s . T hi s t i m el yappea l f o llo w e d

.

### The Di s tri c t Court e xe r c i s e d fe de r a lque s t i on 4 

### juri sdic ti onov er

Sm it h’s c laim s und er

28 U.S.C. § 1 3 3 1

. We have appell at e juris diction over the final deci si on of the Dis tric t Court unde r 28 U. S. C. § 1291.

10 I I . D i s cus s i on 4
S m ith ap p ea ls th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s gra n t of su m m ary j u d g m e n to n b o t h h i s A D E A a n d F i r s tA m e n d m e n tc l a i m s . We ex erc ise p lena ryrev iew o v er an ap p ea l fro m a g ran t of su m m ary ju d g m e n t. Jacobs C ons tr uctors , I nc. v. N P S E ner gy Ser vs . , I

nc. , 2 6 4 F .3 d 3 6 5 , 3 6 9 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 1 ). S u m m a ryju d g m e n t is appr opr i at e i f ther e i s no genui ne i s s ue of m at er i al fac tand the m o v in g p a rt yis e n title d to ju d g m e n t a s a m a tte r o f l a w . I d. ( ci t i ng F ED
. R. C IV
. P

. 5 6 ( c ) )

. “ I n ma k i n g t h i s d e t e r mi n a t i o n , we m ustcon si de r the ev i den ce i n the r ecord i n the l i gh tm ost favor abl e t o t he nonmovi ng par t y . ” I d.
A

. A ge D is cr i m i nat i on T he D i str ictC o u rtd ispo sed o f S m i th’ s age di s cr i m i nat i on cl ai m undert h e b u r den- s hi ft i ng fr amew or k of McD o n n e ll D ougl as C or

p. v. G r een , 411 U

. S. 742 (19 7 3 ), w hi ch w e have a p p lie d t o A D E A c la im s . See Kel l erv. O r i x C r edi tA l l i ance, I nc. , 1 3 0 F

. 3 d 1 1 0 1 , 1 1 0 8 ( 3 d Ci r . 1 9 9 7 ) ( d e s c r i b i n g t h e p r i ma fa cie sh o w ing that a p la in ti ff m u st m ak e u n d er McD o n n e ll D ougl as , as a p p li ed to an A D E A claim ). U n d er McD o n n e ll Dou g l as , the p l ai nt i ff be ar s the bur den of pr oof and the i ni t i al bu rden of produ ct i on , hav i ng t o d em on strat e a pri m a facie cas e o f d isc rim in a tio n b ysh o w in g f ir st, th a t th e p lain tiff

is f o rty11 y ears of ag e or ol der; second , t hat the d efen dan tt oo k an adv ers e empl oym entact i on agai ns tt he pl ai nt i ff; t hi r d, t hatt he pl ai nt i ff w as quali fied fort he pos i t i on i n ques t i on; and fourt h, t hatt he pl ai nt i ff w as ul t i m at el yr epl ace d byanotherempl oy ee w ho w as su ff ici en tl yy o u n g er to su p p o rtan inf e re n ce o f d iscri m inato ry a n im u s . P o ten c e v . H

a zle to n A re a Sc h . D ist. , 357 F. 3d 366, 370 ( 3d C i r . 2004)

. O nce the p lai nt i ff s at i s fi es thes e el ement s , the b u r d e n o f

p r o d u c t i o n s h i f

t s t o t h e e m p l o y e rt o i d e n t i f y a l egit i m at e no n-di scr i m i nat ory r e a s on fo r t he ad verse e m p lo ym e n t a c tio n . Kel l er , 130 F. 3d at1108. I f the empl oy er d o e s s o , th e b u rd e n o f p ro d u c tio n re tu rn s to th e p lain tiff to dem on strat e t hat the em ploy er’ s proffered rat i on al e w as a p re te x t f o r a g e d is c ri m in a tio n . Star ces kiv. W es t i nghous e El ec. C or p. , 54 F

. 3d 10 89 , 10 95 n .4 (3 d C i r. 19 95 ). A tal l t i m es, h o w e v e r, t h e b u rd e n o f p e rs u a s io n re s ts w ith th e p la in tif f

. I d.
B efor e t he D i s t r i ct C our t i n t hi s m att er , t he part i es st i pu l at ed thatS m i t h possess ed suffi ci ent evidence to est abli sh a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e and thatSm i t h’ s al l egedl ys ub stan d ard j ob per for m ance pr ovi ded a p p e l l e e s wi t h a l egi t i m at e, nondi s cr i m i nat or yr at i onal e forhi s t erm i nat i on. T hus , the D i s t r i ctC our taddr essed onl yw hetherSm i t h had adduc ed evi dence fr om w hi ch a r eas onabl e j urycoul d concl ude that appel l ees r el i ed upon hi s j ob per form ance as a pr et ext forage di s cr i m i nat i on. Sm i t h pr edi cat ed hi s al l egat i ons of age di s cr i m i nat i on upon s ever al t hi ngs : fi r s t , D ougher t y ’ s r efe r ence t o Sm i t h’ s bi r t hdayand anni ver s ary dat e dur i ng t he meet i ng at w hi ch theydi s cus s ed Sm ith’ s t erm i nat i on; s econd, t he r ecomm endat i ons of St ephens , the C i t yS o li ci t or , and the A s s i s t ant Sol i ci t or t hat Sm i t h notbe di s char ged; and, t hi r d, t he C ity ’s p ro g re ss iv e d isc ip lin e p o licy , w h ich a p p e llee s a lleg e d ly12 fai l ed to u ti li ze pr i ort o di s char gi ng hi m . H e al s o ar gued that D ougher t y , as a r ece ntpol i t i cal appoi nt ee f r om out s i de the A l l ent ow n ar ea, l acke d s uffi ci entknow l edge a boutSm i t h’ s j ob p e rf o rm a n c e to re a c h a n in f o rm e d d e c isio n a b o u t w h e th e r to r ecomm end t erm i nat i on. T he C our tconcl uded that s uch evi dence di d notcas tdoubtupon t he per form ance - r el at ed r eas ons t hatappel l ees pr offe r ed forSm i t h’ s di s char ge. T he C our tt her efor e gr ant ed s um m aryj udgm ent to appel l ees on S m ith ’s A D E A c la im

. Af t e rt h e Di s t r i c t Co u r t r e n d e r e d i t s ru l i n g , th e S u p r e me C our tdeci ded G r os s v. F B L F i nanci alSer vi ces , 129 S. C t

. 2343 ( 2009) , w hi ch cons i der ed w hethert h e bur den- s hi ft i ng f r a m e w o r k e s t a b l i s h e d b y P r i ce W at er hous e v. H

opki ns , 490 U

. S. 228 ( 1989) , i s avai l abl e t o pl ai nt i ffs i n age di s cr i m i nat i on c a s e s . G ross , 1 2 9 S . C t. a t 2 3 4 8 -4 9

. P ri ce W ater ho use , deci ded u n d e r T itl e V II o f th e C iv il R ig h ts A c t o f 1 9 6 4 , d e ter m in e d th a t, i f the def

endanti ni t i at ed an a l l egedl y adver s e empl oym ent a c tio n a s th e re su lt o f b o th p e rm iss ib le a n d im p e rm is s ib le m o tiv e s, th e b u r d e n o f p e rsu a sio n sh if

ts to th e d e f

e n d a n t to dem o n str at e thati tw oul d have t aken the adve r s e ac t i on not w it h standi ng t he i m pr operm ot i ve. 490 U

. S. at244- 25; W at s on v. Se. P a. Trans

. A uth. , 2 0 7 F

. 3 d 2 0 7 , 2 1 5 (3d C ir

. 2000)

. T hi s bur den- s hi ft i ng fr amew ork has become kno w n as th e m ix e d -m o tiv e d o c tr in e . G ross r e f u s e d t o a p p l y P r i ce W ater ho use to A D E A claim s fo r tw o rea so n s. F ir st, the C o u rt fou n d t h a ts h i f

t i n g t h e b u r d e n o f

p e r s u a s i o n t o a n a ge di s cr i m i nat i on defe ndanti s i m pr operb e c a u s e th e pl ai n l anguage of the A D E A req u i r es the pl ai nt i ff t o pr ove thatthe def endant t oo k the a dv ers e em ploym ent acti on “beca use of [ t he p l ai nti ff’s] age. ” G ross , 129 S. C t

. at 2 3 5 0 -51 ( quot i ng 2 9 U. S

. C.13 § 6 2 3( a) ( 1) )

. T he C our tcons t rued thi s l anguage as r equi r i ng t hatt h e p lai n t i ff pr ove but

- forcaus at i on fr om t he out s etof an A D E A c a s e . I

d. at2351. Second— and more gener al l y

— t he C our te x p r e s s e d a mbi v al ence aboutthe ut i l i t yof bur den- s hi ft i ng i n age di s cr i m i nat i on cl ai m s . T he C our tnot ed thati thad neve r defi ni t i vel yappl i ed McD o n n e ll D ougl as t o A D E A cl ai m s, G ross , 129 S. C t

. at2 349 n. 2, and s ugges t ed thatbur dens hi ft i ng, atl eas tof the Pr i c e Wat e r h ous e v ari ety , has been di ffi cul tt o appl yi n pr act i ce a nd t hat i t s cumber s om e natur e has “e li m inated an y p erc eiva b le be n ef itto ex tend ing it s fra m ew o rk t o A D E A cl ai m s . ” I

d. at2352. A p p e llee s a rg u e th a t G ross r e nders McD o n n e ll D o u g las’s b u rd e n -sh if

tin g in a p p lica b le to A D E A c a se s a n d th a t w e sh o u ld d isp o se o f th e in sta n t a p p e a l so lelyb yin q u irin g w h e th e r S m ith w oul d have r et ai ned hi s j ob butforthe all eged age di s cr i m i nat i on. H ow ever , w e m aynotdepartfr om ourpr i or deci s i ons appl y i ng McD on nell D ou glas t o ag e di s cr i m i nat i on cas es unl es s t hos e dec i s i ons ar e i r r econc i l abl e w i t h G ross . See Mennen C o. v. A t l

. Mut

. I ns . C o. , 1 4 7 F

. 3 d 2 8 7 , 2 9 4 n . 9 (3d C ir

. 1998) ( not i ng t hata pan el o f the courtm aynotoverrul e the d e c isio n s o f a p rio r p a n e l u n les s th e e a rlier d isp o sitio n “ is in confl i ctw i t h Supr eme C our tpr ece dent ”)

. W hi l e w e r ecogni ze th a t G ross e x p r e s s e d s i g n i f i c antdoubtaboutanybur den- s hi ft i ng undert he A D E A , w e conc l ude thatthe but

- forcaus at i on s t a n d a r d r e q u i r e d b y G ross does notconfl i ctw i t h ourcont i nued appl i cat i on of the McD onnel lD ougl as par adi gm i n age d is c ri m in a tio n c a s e s . G ross sta n d s f

o r th e p ro p o sitio n th a t itis im p ro p e r to s hi ftt he bur den o f per s uas i on t o t he def endanti n an age14 d is c ri m in a tio n c a s e . McD onnel lD ougl as , how ever , i m pos es no s h if t in th a t p a rt ic u la r b u rd e n . McD on nell D ou glas pr ovi des t hat , once the empl oy ee e s t abl i s hes a pr i m a fa cie c as e, the bur den of pr oduct i on ( i

. e. , of goi ng forw ar d) s hi ft s t o the empl oy ert o ar t i cul at e a l e g i t i m at e, nondi s cr i m i nat oryr eas on for th e e m p lo y e r’ s a d v e rs e e m p lo ym e n t d e c is io n . McD o n n e ll D ougl as , 411 U

. S. at 802. I f t he empl oy er m akes thats how i ng, th e b u rd e n o f

p ro d u c tio n sh if

ts o n c e a g a in to th e e m p lo y e e to es t abl i s h t hatt he empl oy er ’ s pr offe r ed j us t i fi cat ion f orthe a d v e rs e a c tio n is p re te x tu a l. Tex. D ep’ t of C om m . A f f airs v

. B ur di ne , 450 U

. S. 248, 254- 55 ( 1981)

. T hr oughoutt hi s bur dens hi ft i ng exer ci s e, t he bur den of pe r s uas i on, “i ncl udi ng the b u rd e n o f

p ro v in g ‘b u t f

o r’ c a u s a tio n o r c a u sa tio n in f a c t, r e ma i n s o n t h e e mpl oy ee. ” S tar ces ki , 54 F. 3d at1095 n. 4 ( 3d C ir

. 1 9 9 5 ) ( ci t i ng B ur di ne , 4 5 0 U .S . a t 2 5 3 ). H e n c e , G ross , whi c h p r o h i b i t s s h i f

t i n g t h e b u r d e n o f

p e r s u a s i o n t o a n AD EA d e f e n d a n t, does notforbi d ouradher ence t o pr ece dentappl y i ng McD on nell

D ou glas t o age di s cr i m i nat i on cl ai m s . D eci s i ons of o u r si s te r c ir c u its a re in a c c o rd

. See, e. g. , L ieb o w itz v . C o rn e ll U ni v. , --- F .3 d ----, 2 0 0 9 W L 3 4 0 3 1 4 7 , at * 8 n .2 (2 d C ir. O c t. 23, 2009) ( appl y i ng McD onnel lD ougl as w hi l e r ecogni zi ng that G ross r equi r es t he pl ai nt i ff t o pr ove thatage w as the but

- for c a u se o f th e d e f

e n d a n t’s ad v e rse e m p lo ym e n t ac tio n ); G ei gerv. Tow erA ut o. , 5 7 9 F .3 d 6 1 4 , 6 2 2 (6 th C ir. 2 0 0 9 ) (h o ld in g th a t, fol l ow i ng G ross , “the McD on nell D ou glas f

ra m e w o rk c a n still be us ed t o anal y ze A D E A cl ai m s base d on ci r cumst ant i al evi dence”)

. W e have t her efor e eva l uat ed Sm i t h’ s age di s cr i m i nat i on cl ai m pur s uantt o McD onnel lD ougl as t o s ee w hetherhe pr oduced s uffi ci entevi dence t o est abl i s h that appel l ees ’ pr offe r ed ra t i onal e for t erm i nat i ng hi m w as a pr et ext f o r a g e -b a s e d d is c ri m in a tio n .15 W e conc l ude thatSm i t h has fa il ed t o carr ythatbur den. H e e x h i b i t e d p e r f

o r ma n c e p r o b l e ms a s e a r l ya s 2 0 0 2 , when P a w lo w sk i, th e n d ire c to r o f c o m m u n itya n d e c o n o m ic devel opm ent , not ed compl aint s t hatSm i t h and tw o other dir ect ors had n eglect ed to m ai ntai n the C i t y ’s sw i m m i ng po ols

. In l at e 20 04 , G uiger e gav e S m i t h a ser i es of p erform ance g oals , w hi ch i ti s undi s put ed S m it h fai l ed t o acc om pl i s h. W hen D ougher t yr evi ew ed Sm i t h’ s per form ance i n ear l y 2006, he w as c o n c erned w i t h p robl em s i nv olvi ng t he g olf course, y ou th s p o rt s , a n d th e a n n u a l H a llo w e e n p a ra d e . S m ith n e v e rth e les s c laim s th a t P a w lo w sk i u n law f u lly di s cr i m i nat ed aga i ns thi m beca us e of hi s age and t hatt he pr oof o f d isc rim in a tio n is, f

irst, th a t P a w lo w sk i w a n ted S m ith to r e s i g n b yS mi t h ’ s b i r t h d a y ; s e c o n d , t h a tn o o n e f r o m H R p a rticip a ted in h is te rm in a tio n m e e tin g ; an d th ird , tha t th e C ity d id n o t p ro g re s siv e lyd isc ip lin e h im b e f o re e n d in g h is empl oym ent

. N one o f thes e pi ece s of evi dence w oul d caus e a rea so n ab le ju ry to fin d that ap p ell ee s ac ted w ith d iscri m inato ry in te n t w h e n th e yte rm in a te d S m ith

. S m ith h a s p ro d u c e d n o e v id e n c e th a t D o u g h e rty r efe r ence d Sm i t h’ s fi fty - fi fth bi r t hday for any r eas on ot herthan p ro v id in g a tim e tab le f o r his re sig n a tio n . In f a c t, S m ith c o n c e d e d th a t D o u g h e rtyc o u ld h a v e re f e re n c e d h is b irth d a yto ensure t hat he r ecei ved an incr ea se i n h i s r et i rem ent benefit s, w hi ch bec ame ful l yacc es s i bl e t o Sm i t h onl yw hen he turned fifty -five

. S m ith a c k n o w ledg ed that, asid e f rom D o u g h erty ’s comm ent , he had no r eas on t o bel i eve thatPaw l ow s ki c o n sid e re d h is a g e w h e n d e c id in g to ter m in a te h is e m p lo ym e n t. D ougher t y ’ s l ack of per s onal know l edge a boutSm i t h’ s j obS mi t h ’ s o p e n i n g b r i e f a s s e r t s t h a t Ci t yo f

Al l e n t o wn 5 R egulat i on N o. 6- 4- 01 i m pos es a mandat orypr ogr es s i ve d is c ip lin a rystru c tu re , b u t n o n e o f th e m a ter ials h e c ites in su p p o rto f th is av erm en t con tai n the tex t of th e p o li cyo r a descri pti on of the di sci pli nary fram ew ork i t al l eged l yi m po ses. A b sen ts uch evi dence , Sm i t h’ s cont ent i on t hathe s houl d have been di s ci pl i ned i ns t ead of t erm i nat ed ca nnots t and. 16 per form anc e is l i kew i s e i m m at er i al

. I ti s undi s put ed that D o u g h ertyp eru sed S m ith ’s pe rson n el f il e, discu ssed S m ith ’s p e rf o rm a n c e w ith G u ig e r e , an d c o n su lted w ith P a w lo w sk i in form ul at i ng hi s r ecomm endat i on t hatSm i t h be t erm i nat ed. T hus , i tappea r s t hatD ougher t yi s s ued hi s r ecomm end ati on b ase d u p o n a tho ro u g h rev iew o f S m ith ’s pe rfo rm an ce h ist o ry w ith the C ity o f A ll en tow n . M o reo v er, w h il e th e C ityS o li cit o r, A ssist an t So li cit o r, an d S teph en s rec o m m en d ed ag ains t Sm ith ’s t erm i nat i on, t hatr ecomm endat i on w as notbi ndi ng on P a w lo w sk i, w h o p o ss e ss e d f in a l d e c isio n -m a k in g a u th o rityto r et ai n ordi s char ge at

- w i l l empl oy ees . L as t l y , Sm i t h has pr oduced no e vi dence thatt he C i t y had a mandat orypr ogr es s i ve di s ci pl i narypol i cyort hatthe defenda nt s devi at ed fr om anys uch p o l i c y. 5
Sm i t h clea r l yr ece i ved not i ce of hi s defi ci ent per form ance w hen G ui ger e est ab li s hed per form ance goal s for hi s B ur eau, i f not s ooner . Sm i t h fur t her acknow l edged thathe w a s a n a t-w ill e m p lo y e e a n d th a t h e u n d e rsto o d th e C ityc o u ld t erm i nate hi s em ploym ent atanyt i m e . U nd er these ci r cumst ance s , no r eas o n abl e j urycoul d agr ee thatappel l ees t erm i nat ed Sm i t h on t he bas i s of age di s cr im inat i on.Th e s h i f to f t h a tb u r d e n de r i v e s f

r o m Mt. H

e a lth y C ity 6 Sc h o o l D istric t B o a rdo f E d u c a tio n v . D o

y le , 429 U

. S. 274 ( 1977) , i n w hi ch the Supr eme C o ur ti m pos ed a s hi fti n t he bur den of pe r s uas i on t o the def endanti n cas es w her e a pl ai nt i ff demonstr at es t hathe has engage d i n pr ot ect ed conductand that hi s exer ci s e of f

r ee s peec h r i ght s w as a mot i vat i ng fac t ori n an a d v e rs e a c tio n b y th e d e f e n d a n t a g a in s t h im

. I

d. a t2 8 7

. We h a v e a p p lied th e sa m e b u rd e n -sh if t in c a se s th a t i m p lica te 17 A cc o rdin g ly , the D istri ct C o u rtp rop erly gran ted s u m m ary ju d g m e n t in a p p e lle e s ’ f a v o r o n h is A D E A c la im

. B

. D is cr i m i nat i on B as ed on Pol i t i cal A f f i l i at i on T o s ucce ed on a di s cr i m i nat i on cl ai m bas ed on pol i t i cal aff i l i at i on, a publ i c empl oy ee m us t m ake a pr i m a fac i e s how i ng t hat“( 1) t hatt he empl oy ee w or ks fora publ i c empl oy eri n a pos i t i on t hatdoes notr equi r e a pol i t i cal aff i l i at i on, ( 2) thatthe empl oy ee m ai nt ai ned a pol i t i cal aff i l i at i on, and ( 3) t hat t he empl oy ee’ s pol i t i cal aff i l i at i on w as a s ubs t ant i al orm ot i vat i ng fac t or i n t he adver s e empl oym entdeci s i on. ” Hi l lv. B or ough of Ku t z t o wn , 455 F. 3d 225, 243 ( 3d C i r . 2006)

. O nce the pl ai nt i ff es t abl i s hes a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e, the def endantm ay“avoi d a fi ndi ng of l i abi l i t y b y p r ovi ng bya pr eponder ance of the evi d e n c e t h a tt h e s a me e mpl o yme n ta c t i o n wou l d h a v e b e en t aken e ven i n the abs ence of the pr ot ect ed ac t i vi t y . ” G al l i v. N

. J. Mea d o w lan d

s C o m m ’n , 490 F. 3d 265, 271 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( quot i ng St ephens v. Ker r igan , 1 2 2 F

. 3 d 1 7 1 , 1 7 6 (3d C ir

. 1997) )

. T her e i s , i n ot herw or ds , a shi fti n the bur den of per s uas i on. 6re ta lia tio n o r d is c ri m in a tio n b a s e d o n p o lit i c a l a f f ilia tio n . See Laskar is v. Thornbur

gh , 733 F. 2d 260, 265 ( 3d C i r . 1984) ( appl y i ng t he Mt

. Heal thy b u rd e n - s h if tin g f ra m e w o rk to d is c ri m in a tio n c la im s b a s e d o n p o litic a l a f f ilia tio n ). 18 I n t h e p r e s e n tma t t e r , S mi t h h a s e s t a b l i s h e d t h e f i r s tt wo elem en ts of

h is prim a f

ac ie ca se. W ith re g ard to the thir d el ement , he ci t ed the fol l ow i ng evi dence as pr oof that hi s fi r i ng w as m ot i vat ed byhi s pol i t ical af fi l i at i on: fi r s t , t he pr o- H ey dt campai gn s i gn t hat he pl ace d on hi s y ar d dur i ng the N ovember 2005 el ec ti o n; s econd, hi s al l eged r eput at i on as a H ey dt s uppor t er ; t hi r d, Spang’ s stat ementt hatSm i t h r an the 2005 Spor t s Fes ti n a mannert hatfavor ed H ey dt ’ s campai gn; and four t h, Spang’ s al l eged c om m entthatPaw l ow s ki consid er ed S m ith a p o litic a l e n e m y . T he ava i l abl e fa ct s , how ever , do nots uppor tan i nfer ence t hatPaw l o wski orD ougher t ydi s cr i m i nat ed aga i ns tSm i t h on t he bas i s o f pol i t i cal aff

i l i at i on. A s t o hi s y ar d- s i gn and al l eged r eput at i on as a H ey dts uppor t er , Sm i t h has notadduce d evi dence th a t P a w lo w sk i o r D o u g h e rtyk n e w a b o u t eith e r. D o u g h e rtyd id noteven r es i de i n t he A l l ent ow n ar ea a tthe t i m e of the 2005 m ay or al el ect i on, and P aw l ow s ki t es t i fi ed t hat he di d notknow w her e Sm i t h l i ved. A s t o Sm i t h’ s handl i ng of the 2005 S p o rtsF e st, it i s u n d isp u ted th a t S p a n g n e v e r m e n tio n e d h is conce r ns i n t hat r egar d t o any one other t han Sm i t h, and nothi ng in the rec o rd su g g ests that P a w lo w s k i w as a w are o f S p an g ’s c o n c e rn o r s h a re d h is o p in io n s .19 F inally , the D istri ct C o u rt re f u sed to co n side r S m ith ’s t es t i m onyaboutSpang’ s “pol i t i cal enemy ” com m enton hear s ay gr ounds

. H ear s ays t at ement s that w oul d be i nadmi s s i bl e attr i al m a yn o t b e c o n s id e re d f o r p u rp o s e s o f s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. C f. Shel t on v. U

ni v. of Med. & D ent is tr

y of N

. J. , 223 F. 3d 220, 223 atn. 2 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ( “I n t hi s ci r cui t , hear s ays t at ement s can be co n side red o n a m o ti o n fo r s u m m a ryjud g m en t i f th eyare c a p a b le o f

a d m iss io n a t trial.”) . S m ith ’s te stim o n y i s d o u b le h e a rsa yb e c a u se it d e sc rib e s a sta tem e n t th a t S p a n g m a d e to S m ith a b o u t a c o n v e rsa tio n th a t P a w lo w sk i a lleg e d ly h a d w ith Spang. T hus , fort h e “p ol i t i cal enemy ” comm entt o be cons i der ed on s um m aryj udgm ent , Sm i t h m us t demonstr at e that b o th la y e rs o f

h e a rs a yw o u ld b e a d m is s ib le a t tr ia l. See F ED
. R. E V ID
. 805 ( “H ear s ayi ncl uded w i t hi n h ea r s ayi s notexcl uded u n d e r th e h e a rsa y ru le if e a c h p a rt o f

th e c o m b in e d sta tem e n ts conform s w i t h an exc ept i on t o t he hea r s ayrul e . . . . ”)

. I f, as Sm i t h al l eges , P aw l ow s ki i nform ed Spang thatPaw l ow s ki c o n si dered S m i t h a p oli t i cal adv ers ary , that s t at em ent w ou ld qual i fyas an admi s s i on bya part yopponentand w o u l d be admi ssible unde rR ul e 801( d) ( 2) ( A ) of the Feder al R ul es of E vi dence

. H ow ever , Sm i t h offe r s Spang’ s r epet i ti on of that al l eged s t at ementfort he truth of the mat ter a ssert ed ( i

. e. , t hat P aw low sk i con side red h im a p o li ti ca l th rea t)

. S p an g ’s r epet i t i on i s i t s el f ther efor e hea r s ay , and i tappea r s t o be bey ond the r eac h of any excep t i on t o t he h ears ayrul e. D espi t e agg res si ve crossexami nat i on, Sp a n g d i s a v o wed a n y r e c o l l ect i on of charact eri zi ng S m i t h as a po l i t i cal enem y of P aw l ow ski

. T hu s, Sm i t h has fai l ed t o demonstr at e thatSpang coul d t es t i fyabout t he s ubs t ance of t he “pol i t i cal enemy ” comm entattr i al , l eavi ng Smi t h wi t h o u ta d mi s s i b l e e v i d e n c e o f Pa wl o ws k i ’ s a l l e g ed se n tim e n t. W ith o u t s u c h e v id e n c e , the D istric t C o u rt p ro p e rly20 ref u sed to co n side r th e “p o li ti ca l en em y ” co m m en t fo r sum m ary j ud gm ent purposes. T o s um up, t he onl yadmi s s i bl e evi dence Sm i t h pos s es s es t hatapp ell ee s di s char ged hi m bas ed on hi s pol i t i cal aff i l i at i on in v o lv e s s p e c u latio n a b o u t a yar d sig n a n d S p o rtsF e st. S m ith has pr oduced no e vi dence t hatPaw l ow s ki knew of the y ar d s i gn orof Spang’ s Spor t s Fes t conce r ns . A bs ents uch know l edge, no r eas onabl e j ur ycoul d concl ude thatdi s cr i m i nat ory an im us l ay b eh ind S m ith ’s term ination

. T h e D istri ct C o u rtthu s d id n o t err b yen teri n g su m m aryjud g m en t i n d ef en d an ts’ fa v o r on S m ith ’s F ir s t A m e n d m e n t d is c ri m in a tio n c la im

. I I I . C oncl usi on S m ith h a s f

a iled to p r o d u c e e v id e n c e th a t h is a lleg e d ly i nadequa t e j ob per form ance w as a pr et extfor unl aw ful di s cr i m i nat i on of any ki nd. A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l aff i r m the ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.