NO T PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

________ No. 12

- 3531

_

________ ROBERT SMITH , Appellant v. PHILADELPHIA HOUSING AUTHORITY; CITY OF PHILADELPHIA; CARL R. GREENE, PHA Executive Director; UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENT ERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA; EDWARD CORYELL, Executive Secretary Treasurer and Business Manager

________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 2

- 12

- cv - 00329) District Judge: Honorable Mary A. McLaughlin

_______ Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) July 9 , 2013
Before: GREENAWAY , JR. , SLOVITER, and BARRY , Circuit Judges (Filed : July 23, 2013 )

___ ____________ O P I N I O N

_______________2 SLOVITER, Circuit Judge.

Robert Smith a ppeals the District Court’s dismissal of his claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1986 against the Philadelphia Housing Authority (“PHA”) and Carl
Greene. 1 We will affirm. 2
I.
Smith worked for PHA from March 2009 until January 2010. Smith alleges i n the First Amended Complaint that while working at PHA’s Hill Creek facility, he
encountered what he believed to be friable asbestos and/or other harmful substances. H e further alleges that h is skin came into contact with the substances and he breathed i n the substances. Smith made numerous oral and written complaints to PHA regarding these substances, but his complaints were never addressed. He began to suffer from severe respiratory problems. These problems necessitated continuing medical care and ca used him to leave his job. Smith alleges that PHA and Greene were aware of the dangers posed by the work ing conditions at the Hill Creek facility, chose not to remove workers from that facility, and agreed to conceal the facts related to asbestos exposure . PHA and

1 Greene was at all relevant times the Executive Director of the PHA. Smith does not appeal the dismissal of his claims against defendants United Brotherhood of Carpente rs and Joiners of America Local 8 and Edward Coryell. 2 The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district c ourt’s grant of a motion to dismiss for failur e to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Jordan v. Fox, Rothschild, O’Brien & Frankel , 20 F.3d 1250, 1261 (3d Cir. 1994). W e “are required to accept as true all allegations in the complaint and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from them after construing them in the light most favorable to the non

- movant.” Id.3 Greene filed motions to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) , and the District Court dismissed the claims against them with prejudice.
II.
In order to state a Section 1983 claim against PHA and Sections 1983 and 1986 claims against Greene, Smith must allege violations of the C onstitution or federal law. 3

In Collins , the widow of a deceased city sanitation employee brought a Section 1983 claim against the City of Harker Heights , Texas

. See Collins , 503 U.S. at 117. She alleged that the city had “customarily failed to train or warn its employees about known hazards in the workplace” and that this led to her husband ’s fatal injur y in the course of his employment. Id. T he Supreme Court read her claim as alleging two possible See, e.g. , Collins v. City of Harker Heights, Texas , 503 U.S. 115 , 120 (1992)

. Smith
states that his constitutional right s under the substantive component of the Due Process
Clause were violate d when PHA and Greene deliberately and consciously concealed a known danger , the presence of friable asbestos, at Smith’s workplace. The District Court dismissed Smith’s claims, stating that under Supreme Court precedent there is no constitutional right t o a safe work environment under the Due Process Clause

. See Smith
v. Phila. Hous. Auth. , No. 12

- 329, 2012 WL 3263592, at * 5 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 10, 2012) (citing Collins , 503 U.S. at 128 ).

3 As the District Court recognized, although Count IV , alleging Sections 1983 and 1986 claims against Greene, does not allege a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 198 5, “the parties acknowledge that Section 1986 is premised on an underlying violation of Section 1985, and that both sections require an underlying cognizable constitutional violation to proceed.” Smith v. Phila. Housing Auth. , No. 12

- 329, 2012 WL 3263592, at *4 n.2 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 10, 2012).4 theories: “ that the Federal Constitution imposes a duty on the city to provide its employees with minimal levels of safety and security in the workplace , or that the city’ s ‘deli berate indifference’ to Collins’ safety was arbitrary government action that must ‘shock the conscience’ of federal judges.” Id. at 126. The Court rejected both of these theories, stating that there is no duty under the substant ive component of the Due Process Clause to provide a safe work environme nt for government employees and that failure t o warn about known risks does not rise to the conscience

- shocking level. See i d. at 126

- 28. Therefore, there were no constitutional viol ation s upon which petitioner could base her
Section 1983 claim.
Smith attempts to distinguish his case from Collins , stating that in his case he has alleged “a policy of deliberate and conscious concealment of a known danger by state officials.” Appellant ’s Br. at 16 (emphasis in original). However, Smith’s claims fall squarely under the holding of Collins . Both cases involve defendants who allegedly knew about a dangerous work condition but did not take action or precautions to protect the employees exp osed to this condition. Collins controls the outcome of this case, and
Smith’s claims must be dismissed for failure to plead a cognizable constitutional or federal law violation as required by Sections 1983 and 1986

. 4
III.
For the aforementioned reasons , we will affirm the District Court’s dismissal of
Smith’s First Amended Complaint.

4 Because we affirm the District Court’s dismissal of the First Amended Complaint for failure to state a clai m, we do not address Appellant’s other arguments in favor of reversal

.