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 1-30-2009 

# Anthon y S olomon v

. P hi l a N ewsp ap e rs 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 . 08-2839

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 " Anthon y S o lomon v

. P hi l a N ewsp ape r s Inc " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1964. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/19641

DL D- 7 3 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- 2839

___________ ANT HONY S OL OM ON, A ppel l ant v . P HI L ADE L P HI A NE WS P AP E RS , I NC . ; WARE HOUS E E M P L OYE E S UNI ON, L O C A L N O . 169

____________________________________ 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 . C i vi l N o. 05- 5326) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J ames T. G i l es

____________________________________ S u b mi t t e d f

o rP o s s i b l e Di s mi s s a l P u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B) o r S u m m a ry A c tio n P u rs u a n t to T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6 J anuary15, 2009 B efor e: B A R R Y , A M B R O and SM I T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J anuary30, 2009)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM A nthonySol om on appea l s fr om an or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tfort heO n February12, 2003, Sol om on l earned thatthe PH R C had found no di s cr i m i nat i on 1 in th e in c id e n t w ith G a g lia rd i. 2 E a ste rn D istric t o f

P e n n sy lv a n ia g ra n tin g su m m a ryju d g m e n t to d e f e n d a n t P h ilad e lp h ia Ne ws p a p e r s , LL C ( “ P NL” ) . F o rth e r e a s o n s th a tf o l l o w, we wi l l s u mma r i l ya f f i r m. T h e D istric t C o u rt re c ited th e f a c ts in d e tail, an d w e w ill d isc u ss o n lyth o se f a c ts r el evantt o t he di s pos i t i on of thi s appea l . Sol om on i s an A fr i can- A m er i can man w ho began w or ki ng as a pape r handl eratPN L i n 1980. Sol om on w as tr ans ferr ed t o the Schuyki l l pr i nt i ng pl anti n 1990. W i thi n a y ear , PN L pr om ot ed Sol om on t o contr ol r oom o p era tor. In 1 9 9 3 , P N L aw ard ed S o lom o n an “a d d ed resp o n sibil ity ” a s the sh ift ’s w o rk le a d e r. O n D ec em b er 1 8 , 2 0 0 1 , S o lom o n an d P au l G ag li ard i, an em p loy ee o n S o lom o n ’s s hi ft , engage d i n a verbal al t er cat i on. T he companyr epr es ent at i ves r evi ew i ng the i nci dentconcl uded thatSol om on had es cal at ed the enc ount erw i th G agl i ar di , and ther efor e, he w as notbl amel es s . A s a r es ul t , Sol om on’ s s upervi s ort empora r i l yr emoved S o lo m o n ’s “ a d d e d re sp o n sib ili ty ” f u n c tio n a n d th e p a ya ss o c iate d w ith it. A w h ite empl oy ee w as s el ect ed t o r epl ace Sol om on. Sol om on fi l ed a c om pl ai ntw i th the Penns y l vani a H um an R i ght s C om m i s s i on, al l egi ng r ace di s cr i m i nat i on w i th r es pectt o t he re m o v a l o f

h is a d d e d re sp o n sib ili tyf u n c tio n , an d th e tra n sf

e r o f th a t f u n c tio n to a w h ite empl oy ee. 1 O n J ul y5, 2002, Sol om on w or ked an ove r t i m e s hi ft , buthe di d notr ece i ve3

c o mp e n s a t i o n f

o rth i s s h i f

ti n h i s n e x tp a y c h e c k . I n s t e a d , S o l o mo n r e c e i v e d th e o v e r t i me paya w eek l at er , aft erhe r eport ed the pr obl em t o a s upervi s or . Sol om on s us pect ed that anotherempl oy ee ha d i m pr oper l yacc es s ed hi s payr ol l r ecor ds and del et ed hi s s hi ftus i ng a su p e rv iso r’s p a ss w o rd . O n Ju ly1 8 , 2 0 0 2 , S o lo m o n f iled a re talia tio n c o m p lain t w ith the PH R C agai ns tPN L . PN L ’ s hum an r es our ces depart m entdet erm i ned thatthe pay di s cr epanc yhad bee n r es ol ved, and thatno evi dence exi s t ed t o s uppor tSol om on’ s bel i ef that an o ther e m p loy ee h ad tam p ere d w ith the p ay roll sy stem , as th e su p erv isor’s pa ssw o rd h a d n o t b e e n u se d d u rin g th e re lev a n t p e rio d . S o lo m o n v o lu n tar ilyw ith d re w h is c o m p lain t. O n S e p tem b e r 9 , 2 0 0 2 , P N L ’s in -h o u se c o u n se l re c e iv e d a n a n o n ym o u s p h o n e c a ll s t at i ng thatSol om on had br oughta gun t o the PN L fac i l i ty . W hen conf r ont ed, Sol om on v e h e m e n t l y d e n i e d th e a l l e g a t i o n . S o l o m o n w a s s u s p e n d e d w i th p a y f o rn i n e d a ys pendi ng the out come of t he i nt ernal i nves t i gat i on. G i ven the dea r th of r el i abl e evi dence , P N L m a n a g e rs d e c id e d to p e rm it S o lo m o n to re tu rn to w o rk . O n A ugus t13, 2003, Sol om on t ape- r ecor ded a c onver s at i on betw een hi m s el f and a col l eague , w i thoutthatcol l eague ’ s cons ent . W hen PN L m anage m entl earned of the a lleg a tio n s o f

S o lo m o n ’s m isc o n d u c t, w h ich a m o u n ted to a f e lo n yu n d e r P e n n sy lv a n ia l aw , theys us pended Sol om on w i thoutpayw i th i nt entt o t erm i nat e pendi ng an i nves t i gat i on. PN L ’ s H um an R es our ces per s onnel i nves t i gat ed and s ubs equent l ys ent S o lo m o n a le tte r n o tif

y in g h im th a t h is a c tio n s s u b je c te d h im to im m e d ia te te rm in a tio n .S o lo m o n ’s o th e r c laim s a g a in st P N L a n d th e u n io n w e re e v e n tu a llyv o lu n tar ily 2 d is m is s e d a n d a re n o t b e f o re u s . 4 T h e lett er o ff

ere d S o lom o n an o p p o rtu n ityto p rese n t fac ts th at co u ld af fe ct P N L ’s deci s i on. A tthe gr i evanc e meet i ng, Sol om on admi t t ed t o m aki ng the t ape- r ecor di ng, and defe ndant s t erm i nat ed hi m . Sol om on’ s uni on s ubm i t t ed a r eques tforarbi tr at i on of S o lom o n ’s t erm ination . T h e a rbitrator u p h eld S o lom o n ’s t erm ination b ec au se S o lom o n ’s t ape r ecor di ng of a c onver s at i on w i th a col l eague w i thoutthatcol l eague ’ s cons entw as

“ d is ru p tiv e ” to th e w o rk p la c e e n v ir o n m e n t. O n O ct ober11, 2005, Sol om on fi l ed s ui tagai ns tPN L , al l egi ng thatPN L vi ol at ed 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 1 a n d th e P e n n sy lv a n ia H u m a n R e latio n s A c t (P H R A ), 4 3 P a . C o n s. S tat. § 9 5 1 , e t s e q . A f

te r d is c o v e ry, P N L f

ile d a m o tio n f

o r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t o n a ll c o u n ts . 2 T he D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed the mot i on i n i t s ent i r ety . Sol om on appea l ed and f i l ed a mo t i o n t o p r o c e e d i n f

o r ma p a u p e r i s . T h e Cl e r k g r a n t e d S o l o mo n ’ s mo t i o n , a n d P NL s ubs equent l yfi l ed an oppos i t i on, w hi ch the C l erk cons trued as a mot i on for r econs i der at i on of i t s or dergr ant i ng i n form a paupe r i s s t atus . W e have r evi ew ed the p a r t i e s ’ b r i e f

s o n th e q u e s t i o n o f

I F P s t a tu s a n d S o l o mo n ’ s f i n a n c i a l a f

f i d a v i t s , a n d we det erm i ne thatI FP st atus w as pr oper l ygr ant ed. A ccor di ngl y , w e denyPN L ’ s m ot i on for re c o n sid e ra tio n . N o tw ith sta n d in g , w e w ill su m m a rilya f f irm b e c a u se th e a p p e a l p re se n ts n o s u b s ta n tia l q u e s tio n . Th e Di s tr i c tCo u r ta n a l y z e d t o g e th e rS o l o mo n ’ s r e t a l i a t i o n c l a i ms u n d e rth e P HRAT h e D istri ct C o u rtd eterm ined that v ariou s asp ec ts of S o lom o n ’s P H R A claim s w ere 3 p r o c e d u r a l l yb a r r e d . W e e x p r e s s n o o p i n i o n o n th a ti s s u e b e c a u s e we i n t e rp r e tc l a i ms un der the P H R A and fede ral anti -di scr i m i nati on l aw s i den t i cal l yun der these c ir c u m s ta n c e s , a n d w e d e te rm in e th a t s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t w a s p ro p e r a s to a ll c la im s . S la g le v . C o u n ty o f

C la ri o n , 4 3 5 F .3 d 2 6 2 , 2 6 5 n . 5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). 5 and § 1981, w hi ch w er e pr edi cat ed on hi s t erm i nat i on, hi s s us pens i on w i th pay , and the l at e overt i m e paym ent . See C B O C S W es t , I nc. v. H um phr i es , 128 S. C t . 1951, 1961 ( 2008) ( Sect i on 1981 encompas s es r et al i at i on cl ai m s ) . T o s how a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e of 3 ret al i at i on , S olom on w as r equ i red t o sho w : (1) prot ect ed em ploy ee act i vity ; (2) adv ers e act i on bythe empl oy erei theraft erorcont empora neous w i th the empl oy ee’ s pr ot ect ed a c tiv ity; a n d (3 ) a c a u s a l c o n n e c tio n b e tw e e n th e p ro te c te d a c tiv ity a n d th e a d v e rs e a c tio n . M arr a v. Phi l a. H ous . A uth. , 497 F. 3d 286, 300 ( 3d C i r . 2007) . I f the empl oy ee e sta b lish e s a p rim a f

a c ie c a se , the b u rd e n o f p ro d u c tio n sh if

ts to th e e m p lo y e r to art i cul at e a l egi t i m at e, non- r et al i at oryr eas on forthe adve r s e ac t i on. I d. I f the empl oy er m e e t s th i s b u r d e n , th e b u r d e n o f p r o d u c t i o n s h i f

t s b a c k t o th e e m p l o ye e t o s h o w , b y a pr eponder ance , that“‘ the empl oy er ’ s pr offe r ed expl anat i on w as fal s e, and thatr et al i at i on w as the r eal r eas on forthe adve r s e empl oym entact i on. ’ ” I d. at300- 01 ( quot i ng M oor e v. C i tyof Phi l a. , 461 F. 3d 331, 342 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ) . T he empl oy ee mustpr ove that “r et al i at oryani m us pl ay ed a r ol e i n the empl oy er ’ s deci s i onm aki ng pr oces s and thati thad a det erm i nat i ve ef

fec ton the out come of t he pr oces s . ” Shel l enber gerv. Sum m i tB ancorp, In c ., 3 1 8 F .3 d 1 8 3 , 1 8 7 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ). Th e Di s tr i c tCo u r td e t e r mi n e d th a tS o l o mo n h a d f a i l e d t o d e mo n s tr a t e a p r i maSol om on ar gued i n t he D i s tr i ctC our tthatPN L had no pol i cypr ohi bi t i ng the t ape- 4 re c o rd in g o f

c o n v e rs a tio n s b e tw e e n e m p lo y e e s , s u c h a s a n e m p lo y e e p ri v a c yp o lic y . H ow ever , the conduc tvi ol at ed Penns y l vani a’ s cr i m i nal code, and Sol om on i s pr es um ed to h a v e n o tic e o f

th e c ri m in a l la w s . 6 f a c ie c a se o f

re talia tio n . E v e n a ss u m in g th a t S o lo m o n h a d d e m o n stra ted a p rim a f a c ie c a s e , we wo u l d s t i l l a f

f i r m th e Di s tr i c tCo u r t ’ s r e s o l u t i o n o f th i s c l a i m b e c a u s e P NL art i cul at ed l egi t i m at e, non- r et al i at oryr eas ons foreac h of thes e ac t i ons , and Sol om on fai l ed t o es t abl i s h thatthes e r eas ons w er e pr et extual . Speci fi cal l y , PN L offe r ed evi dence that S o lom o n ’s ov erti m e p ayw as p aid late d u e to a n o v ersigh t, n o t ano ther e m p loy ee ’s i l l i ci tus e of a s upervi s or ’ s pas s w or d; Sol om on w as s us pended w i th paydur i ng an i nves t i gat i on r egar di ng hi s al l eged a ctof br i ngi ng a gun t o the w or kpl ace beca us e the c o n d u c ta l l e g e d v i o l a t e d P N L ’ s p r o h i b i t i o n o n g u n s i n th e w o r k p l a c e o ro n P N L p r o p e r ty; fi nal l y , Sol om on w as t erm i nat ed bec aus e he r ecor ded a c onver s at i on w i th a col l eague w i thouthi s col l eague ’ s cons ent , w hi ch i s a fe l onyunderPenns y l vani a l aw and w as cons i der ed “di s rupt i ve” t o the w or kpl ace . See 18 Pa. C ons . St at . § 5703. 4 T o s how thatr et al i at oryani m us pl ay ed a de t erm i nat i ve r ol e i n the cha l l enged a c tio n s, S o lo m o n w a s re q u ire d to o f f e r “ ‘so m e ’ e v id e n c e f

ro m w h ich a f

a c tf in d e r c o u ld r eas onabl yconcl ude thatthe def endant ’ s pr offe r ed r eas ons w er e fa br i cat ed ( pr et extual ) . ” Fuent es v. Per s ki e, 32 F. 3d 759, 764 ( 3d C i r . 1994) . I n the D i s tr i ctC our t , Sol om on fai l ed t o ident i fyanyrecor d ev i den ce t o sug gestthat the n on -r et al i at oryreas on s for these act i ons w er e fa l s e orpr et extual . H e admi t t ed thathe had no e vi dence thatan empl oy eet amper ed w i th t he payr ol l s y s t em t o del aypaym entof hi s overt i m e w ages , and he

admi t t ed thathe i l l egal l yr ecor ded a c onver s at i on w i th a col l eague w i thoutthat col l eague ’ s cons ent . Sol om on offe r s no evi dence t o contr adi ctthe undi s put ed r ecor d, and ther efor e, the D i s tr i ctC our tcorr ect l ygr ant ed s um m aryj udgm enton thes e r et al i at i on c la im s . Fi nal l y , w e agr ee w i th t he D i s tr i ctC our tthatSol om on’ s cl ai m of di s cr i m i nat i on cannots ucce ed bec aus e, even ha d he demonstr at ed a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e of di s cr i m i nat i on, PN L pr offe r ed l egi t i m at e, non- di s cr i m i nat oryr eas ons forthe cha l l enged a ct i ons , and Sol om on has notdemonstr at ed thatthes e r eas ons w er e pr et ext , as di s cus s ed above . See M c Do n n e l l Do u g l a s Co rp . v . Gr e e n , 4 1 1 U. S . 7 9 2 ( 1 9 7 3 ) . F o rth e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , we wi l l s u mma r i l ya f

f i r m.

7