2008 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 10-8-2008 

# Thom a s v . Wheele r 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 . 06-3173

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_2008

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 2008 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
" Thom as v . Whe ele r " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 397. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/3971 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. 06- 3173

___________ CL A U D E TH O M A S, A p p e l l a n t

v. S T E V E N R . W H E E L E R ; PENN SYLV AN I A O FF I CE O F ATTOR NEY GEN ERA L; JA M E S C A G G IA N O ; C H A R L E S W A R N E R ; L AR RY CH E RB A; M I CH AE L AHWE S H,

___________ O n A p p e a l f

ro m th e U n ited S tate s 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 . C . C i vi l N o. 05- cv- 01447) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le L e g ro m e D . D a v is

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

Sept ember11, 2008 B efore: S L O V ITE R , F U E N T E S and A L D ISE R T , C i rcui tJudg es.

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: O ct ober8, 2008)W e hav e app el l at e j uri sdi ct i on pu rs uan tt o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 29 1. W e exerci se 1 pl enaryr evi ew overa di s tr i ctcourt ’ s s um m aryj udgm entrul i ng. T ow ns hi p of Pi s cat aw ay v . D u k e E n erg y , 4 8 8 F . 3 d 2 0 3 , 2 0 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). 2 FU E N T E S, C i r cui tJ udge: C l aude Thom as , an A fr i can A m er i can mal e, appea l s fr om the di s m i s s al of e m p lo ym e n t d isc rim in a tio n c laim s h e b ro u g h t ag a in st h is e m p lo y e r, th e P e n n sy lv a n ia O ffi ce of A t t orneyG ener al , and s ever al i ndi vi dual defe ndant s . I n part i cul ar , T hom as ar gues thatthe D i s tr i ctC our terr ed i n fi ndi ng thatcert ai n of hi s cl ai m s w er e barr ed byt he appl i cabl e s t atut es of l i m i t at i on, and thatT hom as had fa i l ed t o pr es ents uffi ci entevi dence t o sup po rthis rem ai ning cl ai m s. 1 I. B ackgr ound B eca us e w e w r i t e exc l us i vel yforthe part i es , w e onl ydi s cus s the fa ct s and p ro c e e d in g s n e c e ss a ryf o r re so lu tio n o f

th is c a se . In 1 9 9 2 , p u rsu a n t to h is c o n tra c t, T hom as w as pr om ot ed t o t he pos i t i on of N ar cot i cs A gentI I . A y earl at er , T hom as fi l ed a pr o s e fe der al act i on under42 U . S. C . § 1983 and Ti t l e V I I of the C i vi l R i ght s A ct , 42 U . S. C . § 2000e ets eq. ( “Ti t l e V I I ”) . T hatact i on w as s ett l ed and, pur s uantt o the se ttl e m e n t ag re e m e n t, T h o m a s w a s re a ss ig n e d to th e U .S . C u sto m s S e rv ice in Phi l adel phi a. I n 1998, hi s pos i t i on w i th the C us t om s Ser vi ce w as t erm i nat ed and he re tu rn e d to th e O f

f ic e o f A tto rn e yG e n e ra l. I n 2005, T hom as fi l ed thi s act i on al l egi ng vi ol at i ons of Ti t l e V I I , 42 U . S. C . §§3

1981 and 1983, the Fi r s t , T hi r t eenth, and Four t eenth A m endment s t o the U ni t ed St at es C o n s titu tio n , th e P e n n s y lv a n ia H u m a n R e la tio n s A c t ( “ P H R A ” ), 4 3 P a . C o n s . S ta t. A n n . § 951 ets eq. , and var i ous s t at e t or tl aw caus es of ac t i on. T hom as al l eged that , begi nni ng i n 1998, he appl i ed forand w as deni ed ei ghtpr om ot i ons beca us e of r aci al di s cr i m i nat i on and r et al i at i on forhi s pr evi ous s ui t . T hom as al s o as s ert ed thathe r ece i ved exc es s i ve di s ci pl i ne and w as deni ed tr ai ni ng and fa vor abl e w or k- r el at ed as s i gnm ent s beca us e of dis cri m i natoryand ret al i at oryanim us. I n a s er i es of rul i ngs , the D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed al l of Thom as ’ s cl ai m s . T he D i s tr i ctC our tdet erm i ned thatm anyof Thom as ’ s cl ai m s w er e t i m e- barr ed bec aus e he fa il ed to f

il e a ti m elyco m p lai n t w ith the E E O C o r i n fe d era l cou rt . T h e D istri ct C o u rt al so con cl ud ed thatT ho m as fai l ed to m eethis bu rden of produ ci ng evidence to sugg est thatthe empl oym entdeci s i ons conce rni ng hi m w er e pr om pt ed byr aci al di s cr i m i nat i on. II. D i s cus s i on “Sum m aryj udgm enti s appr opr i at e i f ther e ar e no genui ne i s s ues of m at er i al fac t and the movanti s ent i t l ed t o j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . I n r evi ew i ng the D i s tr i ct C our t ’ s gr antof . . . the mot i ons fors um m aryj udgm ent , w e vi ew the fa ct s i n the l i ght m os tfavor abl e t o t he nonmovi ng party . ” K ehm O i l C o. v. T exac o, I nc. , 537 F. 3d 290, 2 9 3 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) (cit ati o n s o m itted). A. Ti me l i n e s s o f

Th o ma s ’ s Cl a i ms4

T hom as ar gues thatthe D i s tr i ctC our ts houl d have appl i ed the “c ont i nui ng vi ol at i on” doctr i ne t o hi s ot herw i s e t i m e- barr ed fa i l ur e t o pr om ot e, exce s s i ve di s ci pl i ne, a n d re a ss ig n m e n t cla im s. W e c o n c u r w ith th e D istric t C o u rt th a t th e se c laim s c o n stitu te di s cr et e i nci dent s t o w hi ch the cont i nui ng vi ol at i on anal y s i s i s i nappl i cabl e. See R us h v. Scot tSpeci al i tyG as es , I nc. , 113 F. 3d 476, 483- 84 ( 3d C i r . 1997) . A ccor di ngl y , w e fi nd thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tpr oper l ydi s m i s s ed al l T i t l e V I I cl ai m s thatoccurr ed more than 300 day s pr i ort o t he fi l i ng of Thom as ’ s E E O C compl ai nt , al l § 1981 cl ai m s thatoccurr ed b e f o re M a rc h 2 9 , 2 0 0 1 , a n d a ll § 1 9 8 3 c la im s th a t o c c u rr e d b e f o re M a rc h 2 9 , 2 0 0 3 . H ow ever , evi dence of di s cr i m i nat oryorr et al i at oryi nt entfr om thi s per i od m ays t i l l be r el evantt o anal y zi ng cl ai m s thatar e nott i m e- barr ed. B. M e r i t s o f

Th o ma s ’ s Re ma i n i n g Cl a i ms 1 . Ti t l e VI I , 4 2 U. S . C. § 1 9 8 1 , F i r s tAme n d me n t , a n d P HRA Cl a i ms T h e D istric t C o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t T h o m a s h a d f a iled to p re se n t ev id e n c e to s uppor thi s cl ai m thathe w as s ubj ect ed t o a hos t i l e w or k envi r onm ent . T hom as al l eges thatO ffi ce of

A t t orneyG ener al s t aff

m ade de r ogat orycomm ent s aboutthe abi l i t i es of A fr i can- A m er i can a nd L at i no offi cer s , butadmi t s thathe i s unabl e t o i dent i fyw ho m ade thes e c o m m en ts an d ca n n o t “sp ec ifi ca ll ystat e w h at co m m en ts w ere m ad e.” (A p p . 1 6 1 . ) W e agr ee w i th t he D i s tr i ctC our tthatthes e vague al l egat i ons ar e nots uffi ci entt o m eet T hom as ’ s bur den atthe s um m aryj udgm ents t age. A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l aff i r m the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm enton T hom as ’ s hos t i l e w or k envi r onm ent5

cl ai m , and w i l l no tdis cuss these al l eged com m ents i n ev al uati ng T ho m as’ s ot her cl ai m s. T he D i s tr i ctC our tappl i ed the fa m i l i arM cD onnel l D ougl as bur den- s hi ft i ng fr amew or k t o anal y ze Thom as ’ s di s par at e tr eatm entcl ai m s . See M cD onnel l D ougl as C o rp . v . G re e n , 4 1 1 U .S . 7 9 2 (1 9 7 3 ). T h e D istric t C o u rt f o u n d th a t T h o m a s h a d f a iled to p r e s e n ta p r i ma f

a c i e c a s e o f

d i s c r i mi n a t i o n a s t o h i s J u l y2 0 0 4 f a i l u r e t o p r o mo t e c l a i ms and hi s unfavor abl e as s i gnm entcl ai m . A s t o the unfa vor abl e as s i gnm entcl ai m , the D i s tr i ctC our tdet erm i ned thatT hom as had pr es ent ed no evi dence thathe w as deni ed favor abl e as s i gnm ent s . T he D i s tr i ctC our tal s o found thatthe def endant s had pr es ent ed e v id e n c e o f

a leg iti m a te n o n -d isc rim in a to ryre a so n f o r n o t p ro m o tin g T h o m a s to N ar cot i cs O ffi cerI I I i n J ul y2004: the open pos i t i on w as r ecl as s i fi ed t o a hi gherr anki ng p o s itio n f

o r w h ic h T h o m a s w a s n o t e lig ib le . T he D i s tr i ctC our tas s um ed thatT hom as had methi s i ni t i al bur den of pr es ent i ng a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e of di s cr i m i nat i on as t o hi s cl ai m of fa i l ur e t o tr ai n and hi s J ul y2002 and M ar ch 2004 fa i l ur e t o pr om ot e cl ai m s . T he D i s tr i ctC our tfound thatT hom as w as deni ed tr ai ni ng beca us e of the appl i cat i on of l egi t i m at e non- di s cr i m i nat oryO ffi ce of A t t orney G ener al pol i ci es . T hom as w as deni ed tr ai ni ng t o become “B cert i fi ed” i n w i r et ap i nves t i gat i ons beca us e the tr ai ni ng w as expens i ve and the O ffi ce of A t t orneyG ener al onl yneede d one B cert i fi ed age nti n eac h r egi onal offi ce. T hom as w as deni ed pol y gr aph tr ai ni ng beca us e hi s di vi s i on of the O ffi ce of A t t orneyG ener al di d notus e pol y gr aph test ing . In su m , T h o m as f ail ed to p rese n t evid en ce that thes e p o li cyjusti fica ti o n s w ere u n tru e o r t h a t th e re a l r e a s o n f o r a p p lyin g th e p o lic ie s to h im w a s d is c ri m in a to ry a n im u s .6

W e con cur w i th the D i stri ctC ou rtand ado pt i t s r easoning as t o these cl ai m s. T he D i s tr i ctC our tal s o det erm i ned thatthe def endant s pr es ent ed evi dence of a l egi t i m at e r eas on fordecl i ni ng t o pr om ot e Thom as i n J ul y2002 and M ar ch 2004: other candi dat es w er e bett erqual i fi ed. T hom as ar gues thatthe D i s tr i ctC our terr ed i n gr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm entas t o t hes e cl ai m s beca us e he w oul d have be en w el l - qual i fi ed butfor the O ffi ce of

A t t orneyG ener al ’ s fai l ur e t o pr ovi de hi m w i th the tr ai ni ng and expe r i ence neede d t o m eeti t s pr om ot i on cr i t er i a. A s not ed above , w e conc urw i th the D i s tr i ct C our t ’ s r eas oni ng thatT hom as di d notpr es entadequa t e evi dence t o s ugges tthathe w as d e n ied tra in in g o r f

a v o ra b le a ss ig n m e n ts b e c a u se o f d isc rim in a tio n . A c c o rd in g ly , w e w ill also af firm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s de cisi o n to g ran t sum m aryjud g m en t as t o T h o m as’s M a r c h 2 0 0 4 f

a i l u r e t o p r o mo t e c l a i m. A s t o T hom as ’ s r et al i at i on cl ai m s , w e agr ee thatT hom as fai l ed t o pr es entevi dence s ugges t i ng a ca us al nexus betw een a nyempl oym entact i ons and hi s ear l i ers ui t . T he D istric t C o u rt f

o u n d th a t T h o m a s h a d f a iled to ra ise a g e n u in e iss u e o f m a ter ial f

a c t as to hi s Fi r s tA m endmentcl ai m forthe s ame r eas on. T hom as ’ s onl yevi dence s ugges t i ng a ca u sal n ex u s is th at i n 1 9 9 8 , Jam es C ag g iano m ad e c o m m en ts i n d icati n g retali atory ani m us . C aggi ano part i ci pat ed i n t he fi nal phas e of the s el ect i on pr oces s forthe M ar ch 2 0 0 4 p ro m o tio n . H o w e v e r, T h o m a s w a s e lim in a ted f ro m c o n sid e ra tio n p rio r to th is phas e, and Thom as has pr es ent ed no evi dence thatC aggi ano i nfl uence d the s el ect i on of candi dat es dur i ng the i ni t i al l evel s of r evi ew . I n l i ghtof the manyy ear s ’ gap betw een T hom as ’ s fi r s tdi s cr i m i nat i on cl ai m , C aggi ano’ s 1998 comm ent s , and the 2004 pr om ot i on7

pr oces s , m or e w as neede d t o s ugges ta ca us al nexus . Fur ther , T hom as has notpr es ent ed e v i d e n c e l i n k i n g Ca g g i a n o t o a n yo th e rn o n - t i me b a rr e d e mp l o yme n ta c t i o n s . T h u s , we w i l l al so affirm the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s decis i on as t o these cl ai m s.

2. F ou rt eenth A m end m ent C l ai m s O n appea l , T hom as cl ai m s thathi s r i ght s t o s ubs t ant i ve and pr ocedur al due pr oces s , and equa l pr ot ect i on w er e vi ol at ed. I n hi s compl ai nt , T hom as cl ai m ed vi ol at i ons of hi s “r i ghtunderthe . . . 14th A m endment. . . t o be gai nful l yempl oy ed and ther eby co n tr ibu te as a taxp ay er a n d su p p o rth im self a n d h is fam il yfre e o f a h o sti le w o rk e n v iro n m e n t in f

licte d u p o n h im b a se d u p o n h is ra c e ” a n d h is “ rig h t u n d e r th e 1 4 th A m endment. . . t o w or k and be e m pl oy ed i n the s tr eam of A m er i can c om m er ce a nd enj oy the bene fi t s and emol um ent s of empl oym ents o thathe ca n part i ci pat e i n s uppor t i ng t he A m er i can na t i on thr ough t he paym entof t axes and t o s uppor thi s fami l yfr ee of unl aw ful di s cr i m i nat i on on acc ountof hi s r ace , nat i onal or i gi n and col or . ” ( C om pl . ¶¶ 13- 14, app. 69. ) T he D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed s um m aryj udgm enton T hom as ’ s Four t eenth A m endment cl ai m not i ng thathe had f ai l ed t o “def

i ne the l egal orfac tual bas i s ” forthi s cl ai m and intr o d u ce d “n o fa ctua l evid en ce o n this pa rt icular c lai m . ” A cc o rdin g ly , the D istri ct C o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t th e d e f

e n d a n ts w e re e n tit led to “ ju d g m e n t o n th e a lleg e d F o u rte e n th A m endmentvi ol at i on as a mat t erof l aw . ” Thom as v. W heel er , 05- cv- 1447, D kt . # 26 at 3 5 (A p r. 1 0 , 2 0 0 5 ). T h o m a s d id n o t ra ise h is p ro c e d u ra l o r su b sta n tiv e d u e p ro c e ss c laim s in h is compl ai nt , orot herw i s e, befor e the D i s tr i ctC our tand maynotamend hi s compl ai ntFur ther , even i f a c l ai m forvi ol at i on of Thom as ’ s s ubs t ant i ve orpr ocedur al due 2 pr oces s r i ght s w er e pr oper l ybefor e thi s C our t , w e w oul d fi nd thatT hom as di d notr ai s e a genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac tthatthes e r i ght s w er e vi ol at ed. 8 throug h h i s ar gu m ents on app eal . A ccordi ng l y , w e w i l l no tcon si der these cl ai m s. 2 W e f ind that the D istri ct C o u rtp rop erlyg ran ted s u m m aryjud g m en t on T h o m as’s equal pr ot ect i on cl ai m forthe s ame r eas ons thathi s s t atut oryempl oym entdi s cr i m i nat i on c laim s f a il. II I. C oncl us i on W e have cons i der ed al l cont ent i ons r ai s ed bythe part i es and conc l ude thatno f u rt h e r d is c u s s io n is n e c e s s a ry. T he j udgm entof the D i s tr i ctC our tw i l l be af fi r m ed.