2010 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 5-20-2010 

# Thom a s E ddy v

. Thom a s C orb ett, Jr

. 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 . 09-4009

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_2010

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 2010 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 E ddy v

. Thom as C or

be tt, Jr . " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1297. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1297NOT 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. 09- 4009

____________ T H O M A S G . E D D Y , A ppel l ant

v. T H O M A S W . C O R B E T T , J R ., A tto rn e yG e n e ra l o f

th e C o m m o n w e a lth o f

P A .; S U S A N H . M A L O N E , C h ief D e p u tyA tto rn e yG e n e ra l o f th e C o m m o n w e a lth o f

P e n n sy lv a n ia

____________ 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 . N o. 07- cv- 00575) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e D avi d St ew artC er cone

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

M ay19, 2010 B e f o re : F U E N T E S , H A R D IM A N a n d N Y G A A R D , C i r cui tJudges .

( Fi l ed: M ay20, 2010)

____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________2

H A R D IM A N , C i r cui tJudge . T hom as E ddyappea l s t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof Th o ma s Co rb e t ta n d S u s a n M a l o n e . W e wi l l a f f i r m. I. B ecause w e w ri t e for t he p art i es, w e recoun ton l ythe essenti al fact s. T hom as E ddyw as a D eputyA t t orneyG ener al ( D A G ) i n t he Pi t t s bur gh offi ce of the ci vi l l i t i gat i on s ect i on of the Penns y l vani a O ffi ce of A t t orneyG ener al . I n O ct ober 2003, he w as pr om ot ed t o D A G I V , the hi ghes tcl as s i fi cat i on fora s t aff at t orney . I n t hat c a p a c i ty , E d d yh a n d l e d c o mp l e x a n d i mp o r t a n tl e g a l i s s u e s wi t h l i mi t e d s u p e r v i s i o n . He r epor t ed t o R odneyT orbi c, t he C hi ef of C i vi l L i t i gat i on, w ho i n turn r epor t ed t o Susa n M alon e, C h ief D A G , w h o rep o rt ed to L o u is R o v ell i, the E x ec u ti v e D A G , w h o in turn re p o rte d d ire c tlyto A tto rn e yG e n e ra l T h o m a s C o rb e tt. A f ter b e c o m in g A tto rn e yG e n e ra l in Ja n u a ry2 0 0 5 , C o rb e tt ex p re ss e d a n in ter e st in im p ro v in g th e P itt sb u rg h o f f ice , w ith sp e c if

ic r e f e re n c e to im p ro v in g c o m p lian c e w ith o f f ice p o licie s a n d p ro c e d u re s. C o n se q u e n tly , M a lo n e a n d R o v e lli h e ld m e e tin g s w ith s t aff at t orney s t o comm uni cat e C orbet t ’ s m es s age. A ta meet i ng on A pr i l 29, 2005, E ddy cl ai m s he expr es s ed conc ern t hatC orbet tw as i m pr oper l ym aki ng empl oym entdeci s i ons based o n ag e and po l i t i cs. O n M a y5 , E d d yd ra f

te d a le tte r t o R o v e lli in w h ic h h e re ite ra te d h is c o m p la in ts . T he nextday , M al one ca l l ed Eddyi nt o heroffi ce a nd t erm i nat ed hi m . E ddythen hande dT h e D istric t C o u rt h a d ju risd ictio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 3 1 a n d w e h a v e a p p e llate 1 j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291. 3 M al one the l ett erand, vi ew i ng t he fa ct s i n a l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o E ddy , exi t ed the r oom w h ile M a lo n e re a d it t o C o rb e tt o v e r th e p h o n e . E d d yw a s th e n a llo w e d to g a th e r h is bel ongi ngs befor e he w as es cort ed outof the bui l di ng. E ddybr oughtt hi s s ui tagai ns tC orbet tand M al one under42 U . S. C . § 1983, cl ai m i ng t heyvi ol at ed hi s Fi r s tA m endmentr i ght s byt erm i nat i ng hi m i n r et al i at i on for sp e a k in g o u t ag a in st c o -w o rk e r te rm in a tio n s th a t E d d yb e liev e d w e re im p ro p e rly m o ti v ated b yag e o r po li ti ca l con side rati o n s. C o rbe ttan d M alon e m o v ed fo r sum m ary j udgm ent , cl ai m i ng E ddyw as a pol i cym akerand, as s uch, coul d nots at i s fythe bal anci ng t es tes t abl i s hed i n P i cke r i ng v. B oar d of E ducat i on , 391 U . S. 563 ( 1968) . T he D i s t r i ct C o u rt a g re e d a n d g ra n ted su m m a ryju d g m e n t f o r C o rb e tt an d M a lo n e . E d d ytim e ly appea l ed. 1 II. O n appea l , E ddycl ai m s i n t he mostcur s oryfas hi on thatthe D i s t r i ctC our terr ed by( 1) ruli n g that h e w as a p o li cy m ak er u n d er E lr od v. B ur ns , 427 U . S. 347 ( 1976) and Fe rr a n te v. F i nkel , 445 U . S. 507 ( 1980) and ( 2) fi ndi ng no genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac tr egar di ng w hetherhe coul d s at i s fyt he P i cke r i ng/ C onni ck b a lan c in g tes t. U ndert he Feder al R ul es of A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e, appel l ant ’ s openi ng br i ef musti ncl ude a rg u m e n ts in su p p o rt o f th e iss u e s ra ise d o n a p p e a l. T h e a rg u m e n t m u st c o n tain4

“appe l l ant ’ s cont ent i ons and the r eas ons forthem, w i t h ci t at i ons t o t he author i t i es and p arts of the re co rd o n w h ich th e a p p ell an t r eli es.” F ed . R . A p p . P . 2 8 (a)(9)(A ); see al so S im m o n s v . C ity o

f P h ila . , 9 4 7 F . 2 d 1 0 4 2 , 1 0 6 5 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 1 ) (“[A ]bse n t extrao rdin ary ci r cumst ance s , br i efs m us tcont ai n s t at ement s of al l i s s ues pr es ent ed forappea l , t ogether w i th s uppor t i ng ar gum ent s and ci t at i ons . ”) . C ur s orytr eatm entof an i s s ue does not s u f f ic e . See Kos tv. Koz aki ew i cz , 1 F. 3d 176, 182 ( 3d C i r . 1993) ( “I ti s al s o w el l - s ett l ed .

. . thatcas ual m ent i on of an i s s ue i n a br i ef i s cur s orytr eatm enti ns uffi ci entt o pr es erve the issu e o n ap p ea l. ”). E d d y ’s brief fa ll s w ell sh o rto f R u le 28 ’s l o w b ar. T h e a r g u me n ts e c t i o n o f h i s b r i e f i s th r e e p a r a g r a p h s l o n g , c o mp r i s i n g l e s s th a n two pages . T he s econd pa r agr aph i s t he cl os es tthi ng t o an ar gum ent , cl ai m i ng the D i s t r i ct C o u rterred in f

ind ing E d d yw as a p o li cy m ak er u n d er Tom al is v. F is her , 45 F. A pp’ x 139, 1 4 5 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 2 ). S ig n if ica n tly , h o w e v e r, E d d yn e ith e r p ro v id e s a n yf a c tu a l b a sis to s u p p o r tt h i s p r o p o s i t i o n n o ra t t e mp t s t o e x p l a i n wh yh i s c a s e d i f f e r s f r o m T o m a lis . T h e re m a in d e r o f

E d d y ’s b rie f

c o n sis ts o f

c o n c lu so rysta tem e n ts a n d a n a ttem p t to i ncorpor at e byr efe r ence ar gum ent s m ade i n t he D i s t r i ctC our t , nei t herof w hi ch s at i s fi es R u le 2 8 . R eynolds v. W agner , 128 F. 3d 166, 178 ( 3d C i r . 1997) ( “[A ] n ar gum ent cons i s t i ng of no m or e than a c oncl us oryas s ert i on . . . ( w i t houteven a ci t at i on t o t he r ecor d) w i l l be dee m ed w ai ved. ”) ; Southw es t er n P a. G r ow th A l l i ance v . B r ow ner , 121 F. 3d 106, 122 ( 3d C i r . 1997) ( expl ai ni ng thati ncorpor at i on byr efe r ence i s onl yal l ow ed w h e n th e a rg u m e n t is f

u llyd e v e lo p e d in a n in ter v e n o r’s b rie f , n o t w ith re f

e re n c e toE v e n if th is iss u e w e re p ro p e rlyp re se n ted , the D istric t C o u rt d id n o t er r in 2 f in d in g th a t E d d yw a s a p o licy m a k e r. H is p o sitio n is s p e c if ica llye x c lu d e d f

ro m th e c iv il s ervi ce l aw s , 71 Pa. St at . A nn. § 741. 3( c) ( 5) , and hi s j ob des cr i pt i on i ncl udes “r ender i ng l egal s ervi ces of gr eatcompl exi t yand i m por t ance ” w hi l e w or ki ng i ndepende nt l yand supervi si ng other s. B ecause w e w ou l d find t hat Ed dyw as a poli cym aker, w e w ou l d als o fi nd thathe coul d nots at i s fyt he P i cke r i ngb a la n c in g te s t. See Curi nga v. C i t y of C lai r t on , 357 F. 3d 305, 312 n. 5 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . T her efor e, w e w oul d aff i r m the D i s t r i ct C our ton the mer i t s even ha d E ddycompl i ed w i t h R ul e 28. 5 argum ents rai sed below ). F or exam ple, the final paragraph argu es that there w as a genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac ti n t he P i cke r i ng/ C onni ck bal anci ng t es tbeca us e Eddyw as nota pol i cym aker . B uti tm akes no eff or tt o expl ai n w hyE ddyw as nota pol i cym aker and fa i l s t o ci t e P i cke r i ng , C onni ck , orthe r ecor d. 2 G iv e n th e p a ten t in a d e q u a c yo f h is a p p e llate b rie f

, w e h o ld th a t E d d yw a iv e d h is ri gh tt o ch al l eng e t he D i stri ctC ou rtj ud gm ent on ap peal. A ccordi ng l y , w e w i l l dis m i ss E d d y ’s a p p e a l.