2007 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
8-21-2007 

# Nune z v . T e mple P rof As so c P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 06-1082

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd 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 l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2007 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" Nunez v . T e mp le P r of As s oc " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 564. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/564NOT 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- 1082
L U IS E . N U N E Z , M .D ., A ppel l ant

v. TEM PLE PR O FESSI O N A L A SSO CI A TES; T E M P L E U N IV E R S IT Y H E A L T H S Y S T E M , IN C .;

TE M P LE P HYSI CI ANS, I NC.

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. 03- cv- 06226) D i stri ctJudg e: H on . L egrom e D
. D avis
Subm i t t ed underT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

on M ar ch 30, 2007
B efor e: FI SH E R , J O R D A N and R O T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed A ugus t21, 2007 )

O P I N I O N2

R O T H , C i r cui tJ udge: O n N ovember 13, 2003, L ui s N unez, M
. D
. , br ought s ui t agai ns tT empl e Pr ofes s i onal A ssoci at es ( T P A ), T em ple U niver si t y H eal t h S y st em s, Inc. (TU H S ), and T em ple Phy si ci ans, I nc. ( T P) ( col l ect i vel y“Tem pl e”) , al l egi ng t hatT empl e had vi ol at ed the A ge D i s cr i m i nat i on and Em pl o y m en t A ct ( A D E A ) , 29 U
. S. C
. §§ 621- 634, vi ol at ed the Penns y l vani a H um an R el at i ons A ct( PH R A ) , 43 P. S. § 955, br eac hed an e m pl oy m entagr eement , and vi ol at ed the E m plo y e e Ret i r e mentI nc ome Se c ur i t yA c t( ER I SA ) , 29 U
. S. C. §§ 10 01
- 14 61 bym i sc la s s if y in g N u n e z in o rd e r t o a v o id p a y in g h im e m p lo y e e b e n e f its
. In O c to b e r 2 0 0 1 , D r. L u is N u n e z , the n 6 5 y e a rs o f a g e , h a d b e e n h ire d b yT e m p le to pr ov i d e t e mpo r a r ys e r v i c e s a tt h e i rComp r e h e n s i v e Hea l t h Cl i n i c ( CH C) a tt h e Ep i s c opal C am p us of Tem pl e U ni ver s i t yH os pi t al
. D r . N unez w as hi r ed bec aus e one of t he cl inic’s phy s i ci ans , D r . D avi d St r i ckl an, w ho w as r es pons i bl e for s uper vi s i ng r es i dent s i n t he i nt ernal
m edi ci ne r es i dencypr ogr am at C H C , had j us t t ender ed hi s r es i gnat i on, eff ect i ve J anuary1, 2002. D r . St r i ckl an had be en as ked t o r es i gn by T empl e becaus e he w as notboar d- cert i fi ed. A ccor di ngl y , T empl e hi r ed D r . N unez t o coverforD r . St r i ckl an w ho w as fr equent l yabs ent d u ri n g the tim e l ea d ing u p to his d ep arture da te. In D ec em b er 2 0 0 1 , in an ti cipa ti o n o f D r. St r i ckl an’ s departur e, D r . N unez and T empl e ent er ed i nt o a for m al empl oy m entagr eement f o r a p e rio d o f

o n e y e a r, ef

f e c tiv e Ja n u a ry2 , 2 0 0 2 , w h ich c o u ld b e ter m in a ted b ye ith e r p a rty upon 30- daynot i ce. D r . N unez, how ever , w as not cons i der ed as a ful l
- t i m e r epl ace m entfor D r . St r i ckl an, as D r . N unez, t oo, w as notboar d- ce rt ifi ed , w hi ch w as a r equi r ement fort heD r . H ernandez w as notboar d- cert i fi ed w hen he w as hi r ed, buthe w as boar d- el i gi bl e and 1 p la n n in g to ta k e th e b o a rd -c e rt if ic a tio n te s t. H e h a s s in c e b e c o m e b o a rd -c e rt if ie d
. D r . N unez c l ai m s , i n hi s appel l at e br i efs , t hat t he D i s t r i ct C our ti m pr oper l ydi s m i s s ed 2 t he ER I SA count on s um m aryj udgm ent . H ow ever , i n hi s not i ce of appea l , N unez doe s not appea l t he di s m i s s al of t hi s count . B eca us e hi s appea l is li m it ed t o hi s t hr ee pos t - t r i al 3 p o s itio n v a c a te d b yD r. S tr ic k la n . I n M ar ch 2002, T empl e hi r ed D r . G l ady s Fi on, w ho w as appr oxi m at el y 30 y ear s ol d, t o t ake t he pos i t i on vaca t ed by D r . St r i ckl an. D r . Fi on i s boar d- cert i fi ed i n bot h i nfec t i ous di s eas e and i nt ernal m edi ci ne. I ns t ead of t er m i nat i ng D r . N unez’ s empl oy m entatt hi s t i m e, T empl e tr ans ferr ed hi m t o t he Tem pl e C om m uni t y M edi cal C ent er w her e anotherpos i t i on had op ened up du e t o a p hy si ci a n ’s r et i rem ent. A gain, D r. N un ez w as not consi dered as a fu ll -t i m e r epl ace m entbeca us e he w as notboar d- cert i fi ed and di d nothave the r equi r ed backgr ound. D r . N unez f i l l ed t hi s pos i t i on unt i l J ul y 1, 2002, atw hi ch t i m e Tem pl e not i fi ed hi m t hathi s l as tdayof empl oym entw oul d be Ju ly 2 , 2 0 0 2
. T empl e had hi r ed D r . D ani el H e r n a n d e z , w h o h a d re c e n tlyc o m p lete d re sid e n c yin f a m ilyp ra c tice , as a f u ll-ti m e
re p lac e m e n t f

o r th e p o sitio n . T e m p le n o tifie d D r. N u n e z , n o w 6 6 y e a rs o ld , tha t h e w o u ld 1 be pai d unt i l A ugus t 24, 2002, i n l i ght of t he 30- day not i ce r equi r emen t i n the D ec ember 2001 empl oym entagr eement . T empl e i nt erpr et ed thi s pr ovi s i on as r equi r i ng 30- daynot i ce b e f o re e n d in g D r. N u n e z ’s p a y . A ft erD r . N unez br oughts uit ag ains tT empl e, bot h par t i es fi l ed cr os s - m ot i ons for
s um m ar y j u d g me n t . Su mma r y j u d g me n t was g r a n t e d i n f a v o r o f Te mpl e o n t h e b r e a c h of contr act and E R I SA count s . B ot h par t i es w er e deni ed s um m aryj udgm enton t he A D E A and 2m ot i ons , w e w i l l notdi s turb t he di s m i s s al of the ER I SA countbyt he D i s t r i ctC ou r ton

s um m aryj udgm ent . N onethel es s , even i f w e w er e t o r evi ew t he gr antof s um m aryj udgm ent o n th is c o u n t, w e w o u ld a f f irm it. 4 P H R A cou nts . In p rep ara ti o n fo r t ri al on the re m ainin g co u n ts, D r. N u n e z fil ed p rop o sed jury instruction s w h ich, i n p art, inclu d ed ref ere n ce s to a d ispa rate im p ac t the o ryo f li ab il ity . In
r es pons e, T empl e fi l ed a mot i on i n l i m i ne as ki ng thatD r . N unez be pr ecl uded fr om offe r i ng evi dence undera di s par at e i m pactt heory . T he D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed Tem pl e’ s m ot i on. A four
- dayt r i al w as hel d on t he A D E A and PH R A count s . T he j ur yr etur ned a ve r di ct i n favorof Tem pl e on both count s . O n J ul y15, 2005, D r . N unez f i l ed a Rul e 60 mot i on for j udgm ent , or , i n t he al t ernat i ve, a R ul e 59 mot i on fora new t r i al
. Fur t her , on N ovember 22, 2005, D r . N unez f

i l ed a Rul e 50 mot i on forj udgm ent . A l l t hr ee mot i ons w er e deni ed byt he D i s t r i ct C our t . D r . N unez’ s not i ce of appe al s t at ed thathe appe al ed fr om t he “O r der s of t he

. . . D i stri ctC ou rt. . . dated D ecem ber 13 , 20 05 , den y i ng P l ai nti ff’s R ule 59 and R ule 60 P ost T r i al M ot i on ent er ed i n t hi s act i on of t he 13 dayof D ece m ber205, and the or derdeny i ng th Pl ai nt i ff’ s R ul e 50 M ot i on, dat ed D ece m ber20, 2005, ent er ed i n t hi s act i on on t he 21 day st
o f D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 5 .” I . DI S CU S S I ON T h e D istri ct C o u rt h ad juri sd ict ion o v er th e fe d era l claim s p u rsua n t to 29 U
. S .C . § 626( c) , 29 U
. S. C
. § 1132, and 29 U
. S. C
. § 1331. T he D i s t r i ctC our t al s o exer ci s ed
s uppl ement al j ur i s di ct i on overt he st at e l aw cl ai m s pur s uant t o 28 U
. S. C
. § 1367. W e have5

appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U
. S. C
. § 1291. A . R ul e 59 M ot i on F or A N ew T ri al W e r evi ew D r . N unez’ s R ul e 59 mot i on fora new tr ial to d et er m i ne w hethert he D i s t r i ctC our tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n pr ecl udi ng D r . N unez fr om m aki ng a cl ai m for d isp a ra te im p a c t. See I n r e Mer r i t tLogan, I

nc. , 9 0 1 F
. 2 d 3 4 9 , 3 5 9 ( 3 d Ci r . 1 9 9 0 )
. We
e x e r c i s e p l e n a r y r e v i e w t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e D i s t r i c tC o u r te r r e d i n i t s c h a r g e t o t h e j u r y. See S ava rese v. A gress , 8 8 3 F .2 d 1 1 9 4 , 1 2 0 2 (1 9 8 9 ). D r . N unez c ont ends t hathi s R ul e 59 mot i on w as i m pr oper l yd eni ed bec aus e the D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n char gi ng t he j ur yand err ed i n gr ant i n g T empl e’ s m ot i on i n l i m i ne p re c lu d in g D r. N u n e z f ro m o f f e ri n g e v id e n c e in s u p p o rt o f a d is p a ra te im p a c t th e o ry. Speci fi cal l y , D r . N unez al l eges t hat t he j ur y i ns t ruct i ons di d not i nfor m t he j ur or s t hatt hey
c o u ld i nfer dis cri m i nati on based on a dis beli ef of T em ple’ s reas on for t erm i nati n g h is empl oy m ent . D r . N unez a s s er t s t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d n o t sa t i s fac t or i l yi ns t ructt he juro rs t h at t h eyw ere en ti tl ed to inf er d iscri m ination if t h e juro rs disb eli ev ed T em p le’s expl anat i on fori t s act i ons and found thatt he pl ai nt i ff h ad establ i s hed the fa ct s neede d for
a p rim a f

a c ie c a se o f

d isc rim in a tio n p u rsu a n t to th e b u rd e n -sh if tin g p a ra d ig m f

o u n d in McD onnel lD ougl as C or p. v. G r een , 411 U
. S. 792. H o w ev er, a j ur or ’ s m er e di s bel i ef of defe ndant s ’ expl anat i on coupl ed w i t h a pri m a faci e ca s e of di s cr i m i nat i on does notcompel
a f in d in g o f u n la w f u l d is c ri m in a tio n . See St

. M ar y’s H onor C tr . v. Hi cks , 509 U
. S. 502, 507 ( 1993)
. T he ul t i m at e bur den of pr oof l i es w i t h a pl ai nt i ff i n per s uadi ng t he j ur y t o fi nd t hatIncl ud ed i n ou r revi ew of t he j ury i nst ruct i on s an d D r. N un ez’s proferr ed instruct i on s, 3 w a s D r. N u n e z ’s r e q u e ste d in stru c tio n f o r e m p lo y e e b e n e f

its a s h e h a d d e m a n d e d in h is E R I SA count . B eca us e D r . N unez di d notr eques tt hes e bene fi t s i n hi s A D E A count– t he countt hatw entt o t he j ur y , t he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d noterri n noti ncl udi ng t hi s demand i n t he j uryi nst ruct i on s. A l t hough D r . N unez doe s nots peci fyw hether hi s m ot i on i s m ade under R ul e 60 ( a) or 4 (b ), sin c e it is no t a R u le 6 0 (a ) m o tio n f o r c o rre c tio n o f

a c ler ica l m ista k e , w e p re su m e it i s 6 t he def endant s i nt ent i onal l ydi s cr i m i nat ed aga i ns tt he pl ai nt i ff. I f t h e j ur or s ar e not convi nced byt he def

endant s ’ pr offe r ed r eas on fort er m i nat i ng empl oy m entbuts t i l l do not bel i eve thatt her e w as i nt ent i onal di s cr i m i nat i on, then the pl ai nt i ff fai l s t o m eet hi s bur den
o f p ro o f
. S e e id
. O urr evi ew of t he j ur y i ns t ruct i ons demonst r at es t hat , vi ew ed as a w hol e and i n l i ght
o f th e e v id e n c e , th e y“ f

a ir ly an d a d e q u a te ly su b m it[ te d ] t h e is s u e s in t h e c a s e t o th e ju ry,” L i n k v . Me r c e d e s - B e n z o

f N. A m. , 7 8 8 F
. 2 d 9 1 8 -22 (3d C ir
. 1 9 8 6 ). 3 A s fort he di s par at e i m pactt heory , a di s cr i m i nat i on cl ai m bas ed on di s par at e i m pact
a n d o n e b a s e d o n d is p a ra te tr e a tm e n t a re tw o d is tin c t c a u s e s o f a c tio n . See Sm i th v. C i t y of Jackso n, Miss. , 5 4 4 U .S . 2 2 8 , 2 3 1 -3 2 (2 0 0 5 ); R aytheon C o. v. Her nandez , 540 U
. S. 44, 52 (2 0 03 ). A l l ow i ng D r. N un ez t o ad van ce a dis parat e i m pact theo ryw ou l d h ave u nfair ly p re ju d ic e d T e m p le b yin tr o d u c in g a n e w c a u s e o f a c tio n v e ry c lo s e to th e tr ia l d a te . B. R ul e 60 M ot i on For R e l i e f Fro m Judg m e nt W e r evi ew t he D i s tr ict C our t ’ s deni al of D r . N unez’ s R ul e 60 mot i on forabus e of d is c re tio n . L o re n zo v . G riffith , 1 2 F .3 d 2 3 , 2 6 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). D r . N unez c ont ends t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n deny i ng hi s R u le 6 0 (b) m ot i on 4a R ul e 60( b) m ot i on.

N onethel es s , even i f w e w er e t o cons i der w hether s um m ary j udgm ent for t he br eac h of 5 c o n tra c t co u n t w a s p ro p e rlyg ra n ted , w e w o u ld still af f irm th e o rd e r o f

th e D istric t C o u rt. U n d e r P e n n s y lv a n ia la w , s ee Schec t erv. W atki ns , 577 A
. 2d 585, 587 ( Pa. Super
. 1990) ei t her th e e m p lo y e r o r th e e m p lo y e e m a yter m in a te a n e m p lo ym e n t ag reem e n t, co n tain in g a d e f in ite per i od of empl oym ent , w i t hout a s how i ng of ca us e s o l ong as t he contr actal s o cont ai ns an expl i ci t ear l y t er m i nat i on pr ovi s i on. Si nce t he empl oy m entagr eementbetw een D r . N unez and Tem pl e cont ai ned an ear l y t er m i nat i on agr eement , w e w oul d decl i ne t o i m pos e a good c a u se re q u ire m e n t f

o r te rm in a tin g D r. N u n e z ’s e m p lo ym e n t. 7 b ec au se th e c o u rt im p rop erly g ran ted s u m m aryjud g m en t i n fa v o r of T em p le on D r. N u n ez ’s b re a c h o f c o n tra c t c laim
. A R u le 6 0 (b ) m o tio n c a n n o t, h o w e v e r, b e e m p lo y e d a s a su b stitu te fo r an ap p ea l. If D r. N u n ez w an ted to co n testthe p ro p ri e tyo f th e a w ard o f su m m ary j udgm enton t he ER I SA and br each o f co n tr actcount s , he s houl d have done s o byappea l
a f ter a f in a l o rd e r in th e c a se w a s e n ter e d
. W e c a n n o t g ra n t re lief u n d e r R u le 6 0 (b ) if a p a rty 5

c o u l d h a v e re a s o n a b ly so u g h t th e s a m e re lie f b ym e a n s o f

a n a p p e a l. S e e , e .g ., M art i nezMcBean v. G ov’ tof

the Vi r gi n I s l ands , 5 6 2 F
. 2 d 9 0 8 9 , 9 1 2 (3d C ir
. 1 9 7 7 ). C . R ul e 50 M ot i on F or Judgm ent A s A M at t er O f L aw F i nall y , D r. N un ez cont end s t hat hi s R ule 50 m oti on w as denied i m properl ybecau se th e D istric t C o u rt a llo w e d T e m p le to u se b o a rd -c e rtific a tio n a s an e m p lo ym e n t c riter io n to j us t i fyhi s empl oym entt er m i nat i on. Speci fi cal l y , D r . N unez al l eges t hatT empl e s houl d have been pr ecl uded, as a mat t erof l aw , fr om us i ng boar d- cert i fi cat i on as a cr i t er i on for empl oy m entbas ed on 29 C
. F. R
. Par t1607, w hi ch es t abl i s hes a s etof uni form gui del i nes des ign ed to as sistem p loy ers in c o m p ly ing w ith fe d era l l aw p roh ibit ing em p loy m entpr act i ces th a t d is c ri m in a te o n g ro u n d s o f ra c e , c o lo r, r e li g i o n , s e x , a n d n a tio n a l o ri g in . 2 9 C .F .R . §8

1 6 0 7
. 1
. Th e s e g u i d e l i n e s we r e ma d e a p p l i c a b l e t o a g e d i s c r i mi n a t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 2 9 C. F
. R. § 1 6 2 5 .7 , b u t th e ya p p ly in a d is p a ra te im p a c t c o n te x t. See W a tson v. F o rt W

o r th B ank & T rust , 487 U
. S. 977, 955 n. 3 ( 1988)
. D r . N unez al l eges t hat T empl e vi ol at ed t hes e gui del i nes in u sin g b o a rd -c e rtific a tio n a s a c riter io n f o r e m p lo ym e n t. S in c e h e f a iled to ra ise a d isp a ra te i m pactcl ai m i n a t i m el ym anner , D r . N unez w as for ecl os ed fro m ass er t i ng a theoryof di s par at e l i abi l i t yatt r i al
. C ons equent l y , D r . N unez’ s ar gum en t tha tT empl e be pr ecl uded fr om as s er t i ng boar d- cert i fi cat i on as an empl oy m entcr i t er i on i s i nappl i cabl e. I I . CO NC L US I ON For t he r e a s o n s s e t f

o r t h a b o v e , we wi l l a f

f i r m th e Dec e mbe r 1 3 , 2 0 0 5 , a nd t he D ece m ber20, 2005, or der s of t he D i s t r i ct C our t deny i ng D r . N unez’ s R ul e 60, R ul e 59, and R u le 5 0 m o tio n s .