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 Third C irc uit 12-22-2009 

# C onnec tion T

raining S e rvices v

. C ity of P hi l a delphi a P re c e de nt i al or N on-P re c e de nt i al : N on-P re c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-1856

F o llow thi s and a ddit ion al works at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vill anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s brou ght t o you for f re e and ope n a c c e s s by 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 Third C irc uit at V ill 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 by an authori z e d a dmini s trat or of V ill anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or more inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vill anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " C onne ct ion T

rainin g S e rvic e s v

. C ity of P hi l a delp hi a" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 55. http://di git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2009/55NOT 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- 1856 C O N N E C T IO N T R A IN IN G S E R V IC E S , A Penns y l vani a N on- Pr ofi tC orpor at i on, A p p e l l a n t v. CI T Y OF P HI L ADE L P HI A; P E RR I T T I DI VI RG I L I O; J AM E S F E RR AR O.

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt forthe E as t ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 2- 06- cv- 03753 ) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le N o rm a L . S h ap ir o Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

D ece m ber16, 2009 B efore: F ISH E R , H A R D IM A N , and V A N A N T W E R P E N , C i rcui tJudg es. ( Fi l ed: D ece m ber22, 2009)

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT V A N A N T W E R P E N , C i r cui tJudge . Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l antC onnect i on T r ai ni ng Ser vi ces ( “C T S”) fi l ed thi s appea l of an or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe East ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a gr ant i ngT he ce r t i fi cat i on r equi r ementw as i ncl uded i n a footnot e. T he di r ect orand 1 pr ogr am m anage rof C T S, G arnettL i t t l epage ( “Li t t l epage ”) , as s ert ed thathe pur s ued the tr ai ni ng pr ogr am aft err evi ew i ng an onl i ne ver s i on of the O r di nance w hi ch cont ai ned no 2 su m m a ryju d g m e n t to d e f e n d a n ts, th e C ityo f

P h ilad e lp h ia, P e rritti D iV irg ili o ( “ Di Vi r g i l i o ” ) , a n d J a me s Fe rr a r o ( “ Fe rr a r o ” ) ( c o l l e c t i v e l y , th e “ Def e n d a n t s ” ) . CTS appea l s the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s concl us i on thatC T S fai l ed t o s how a genui ne i s s ue of m at er i al fac tthati ts uffe r ed a de tr i m enti n r el y i ng on D efe ndant s ’ m i s r epr es ent at i ons as t o the ava i l abi l i tyof a pr evai l i ng w age e xempt i on pur s uantt o a ci tyor di nance . T he D istric t C o u rt re lied o n a n e sto p p e l ar g u m e n t in its g ra n t f o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t. W e w ill a f f ir m th e e n tr yo f

s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t, b u t th ro u g h a lte rn a tiv e re a s o n in g . I. B e c a u se w e w rite s o lelyf o r th e p a rties , w e in c lu d e o n lyth o se f a c ts n e c e ss a ryto o u r d isp o sitio n o f

th is a p p e a l. O n Sept ember28, 1999, the C i tyof Phi l adel phi a ena ct ed or di nance num ber 990221- A ( the “O r di nance ”) , w hi ch purpor t ed t o expand the s cope of w orker s exempt fr om the pr evai l i ng w age r equi r ement s forci tycontr actw ork. T he O r di nance w oul d not become eff

ect i ve unt i l the M i nor i tyB us i nes s E nt erpr i s e C ounci l ( “M B E C ”) pr ovi ded cert ai n cert i fi cat i ons t o the M ay or ’ s O ffi ce a nd the C i tyC ounci l . M B E C neverpr ovi ded th o se c e rtific a tio n s a n d , the re f o re , the O rd in a n c e n e v e r to o k e f f e c t. N everthel es s , C T S devel oped a tr ai ni ng pr ogr am and soughtcert i fi cat i on as a bona f i de tr ainin g p rog ram u n d er the O rdin an ce . A fter rec eivin g ap p rov al an d d iscreti o n ary 1footnot es . T hus , the D i s tr i ctC our tconcl uded, forthe purpos es of s um m aryj udgm ent

r e v i e w, th a tLi t t l e p a g e was u n a war e o f th e c e r t i f

i c a t i o n r e q u i r e me n ta tth e t i me CTS i n i t i a t e d i t s tr a i n i n g p r o g r a m. 3 f u n d i n g f r o m t h e Ph i l a d e l p h i a W o r k f o r c e Dev e l o p me n tCorp o r a t i o n ( “ PW DC ” ) , CTS soug ht t o p l ace i t s trai nees w i th L P G roup2 , Inc. (“LP 2”). L P 2 att em pted t o u se these tr ai nees on a contr actw i th the ci ty , butr ece i ved ci t at i ons fr om Phi l adel phi a’ s L abor St andar ds U ni t( “LS U ”) forpr evai l i ng w age vi ol at i ons . D i V i r gi l i o and Ferr ar o ar e the di r ect orand deputydi r ect or , r es pect i vel y , of the LS U , w hi ch i s r es pons i bl e forens ur i ng th a t, in tera lia , w orkers on ci tycon tract s r ecei ve the prevai l i ng w ages. P rio r to th e O rd in a n c e , the o n lye x e m p tio n f ro m th e p re v a ili n g w a g e re q u ire m e n ts w as for r ecog nized app rent i ceshi p p rogram s. T he O rdi nan ce w ou l d h ave ex t end ed those exempt i ons t o bona f

i de tr ai ni ng pr ogr ams thatcompl i ed w i th the r equi r ement s of the O r di nance . T he LS U r efus ed t o r ecogni ze a n exempt i on forC T S’ s tr ai ni ng pr ogr am on the bas i s thatthe onl yavai l abl e exe m pt i on w as forappr ent i ces hi p pr ogr ams. D ur i ng the cour s e of thi s l i t i gat i on, D efe ndant s as s ert ed thatC T S’ s cl ai m ed exe m pt i on w as unenfor ceabl e bec aus e the O r di nance nevert ook eff ect . N everthel es s , the LS U enfor ced otherr equi r ement s underthe O r di nance w hi ch s i m i l ar l ydi d nott ake e ffe ctw i thoutthe M B E C ’s c e rt if

ic a tio n . C T S a rg u e s th a t D e f

e n d a n ts’ re f

u sa l to re c o g n ize its tra in in g p ro g ra m s p re c lu d e s it fr om pl aci ng i t s tr ai nees w i th cons truct i on fi r m s w orki ng on ci typr oj ect s , ther eby v iolati n g it s d u e p roc ess a n d eq u al pro tecti o n ri g h ts, as w ell as v iolati n g P en n sy lvan ia’sT he D i stri ctC ou rtassert ed that“[t ]o est op a go vernm ent agency , a plai nti ff m ust 2 es t abl i s h: ( 1) thatthe age ncyi nt ent i onal l yornegl i gent l ym i s r epr es ent ed s om e mat er i al fac t ; ( 2) the age ncyhad know l edge orr eas on t o know thatthe otherpartyw oul d r el yupon it; a n d (3 ) th e a g e n c yin d u c e d th e o th e r p a rtyto a c t to its d e trim e n t b e c a u se o f ju stif iab le r el i ance upon the mi s r epr es ent at i on. ” J . A. at1890 ( ci t i ng Str unk v. Zoni ng Hear i ng B d. of U pperMi l f or d Tw p. , 6 8 4 A . 2 d 6 8 2 , 6 8 5 (P a. C o m m w . C t. 1 9 9 6 )). 4 Publ i c O ffi ci al and Em pl oy ee Ethi cs A ct( “PO E E A ”) , 65 Pa. C ons . St at . A nn. § 1101- 1113. B eca us e thes e fi r m s w oul d have t o paythe pr evai l i ng w age unl es s C T S’ s tr ai ni ng pr ogr am i s exempt , the fi r m s w i l l nothi r e and pa yuns ki l l ed w orker s atthe s ame r at e as sk ill e d w o rk e rs. C T S ’s a rg u m e n t co n tin u e s th a t if it c a n n o t p lac e its tra in e e s, th e n it c a n n o t r e c e iv e a d d itio n a l f u n d in g f ro m th e c ity o r c ity-re la te d a g e n c ie s , s u c h a s P W D C . Al th o u g h CTS p r o v i d e d e v i d e n c e o f P W DC’ s c r i t e r i a f

o rr e f u n d i n g a tr a i n i n g p r o g r a m, th e r e i s n o i n d i c a t i o n CTS wa s g u a r a n t e e d r e f u n d i n g i f i tme tth o s e c r i t e r i a . Fu r th e r , CTS argues that i ti ncu rr ed long-t erm exp enses i n creat i ng and i nit i at i ng i t s trai ning prog ram s, w hi ch i tcannotr ecove ri f D efe ndant s ar e perm i t t ed t o r efus e t o exempti t s tr ai ni ng p ro g ra m . O n D ece m ber31, 2008, the D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed D efe ndant s ’ m ot i on for s u mma ryj u d g me n ta s t o CTS ’ s d u e p r o c e s s a n d e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n c l a i ms u n d e r4 2 U. S . C. § 1 9 8 3 . Th e c o u r td e t e r mi n e d th a tb e c a u s e th e Or d i n a n c e n e v e rwen ti n t o e f f e c t , CTS coul d onl ys ucce ed on i t s cl ai m s i f i tcoul d es t op the D efe ndant s fr om deny i ng thatthe Or d i n a n c e t o o k e f

f e c t . Th e c o u r tc o n c l u d e d th a t“ th e r e c o r d d o e s n o ts h o w t h a tCTS 2 s oughtw age e xempt i ons i n r el i ance on [D ] efe ndant s ’ negl i gentm i s r epr es ent at i ons . . . or thats uch r el i ance w oul d have be en j us t i fi ed. ” J . A. at1891. T hus , C T S coul d notes t opT h e n o ti ce o f a p p ea l i n a c ivil ac ti o n m u st be fil ed w ith in thirtyd ay s af ter th e e n try 3 of the j ud gm ent appealed. F ed. R . A pp . P . 4(a) (1) (A ). If, ho w ever, the p artyfi l es a m ot i on t o al t eroramend t he j udgm entw i thi n the t i m e perm i t t ed underthe Feder al R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e, the t i m e forfi l i ng the not i ce of appea l runs fr om the entryof the or der d is p o s in g o f

s u c h m o tio n . I

d. R . 4( a) ( 4) ( A ) ( i v) . A m ot i on t o r econs i deri s cons i der ed a m o tio n to a lte r o r a m e n d th e ju d g m e n t. C arrascosa v. McG uir e , 5 2 0 F .3 d 2 4 9 , 2 5 3 n .3 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( ci t i ng U nited S tates v. McG l ory , 202 F. 3d 664, 668 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ( en b a n c )) . T h e m o tio n to re c o n s id e r m u s t b e f ile d w ith in 1 0 d a y s o f

th e s u b je c t ju d g m e n t. F ed . R . C iv. P. 59 (e). C T S fil ed a ti m elym o ti o n to rec o n side r th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s D ece m ber31, 2008 or dergr ant i ng D efe ndant s ’ r eques tfors um m aryj udgm ent . T he D i s tr i ctC our tdi s pos ed of CT S’ s m ot i on on February25, 2009, and C T S fi l ed i t s not i ce o f a p p e a l w ith in th ir ty d a y s o f th a t o rd e r. T h e re f

o re , C T S f

ile d a tim e ly ap p e a l. See Fed. 5 D e f e n d a n ts f ro m c laim in g th e O rd in a n c e w a s n o t in e f f e c t an d , the re f

o re , fa iled to id e n tifya p ro tec ted p ro p e rtyrig h t. C T S subs equent l yfi l ed a t i m el ym ot i on forr econs i der at i on, w hi ch the D i s tr i ct C o u rt d e n ied in a F e b ru a ry2 5 , 2 0 0 9 o rd e r. A lth o u g h th e c o u rt a ss u m e d th a t C T S c o u ld s how i tj us t i fi abl yr el i ed on D efe ndant s ’ m i s r epr es ent at i ons , i tconcl uded that“C T S has notpr oduced e vi dence thati t s r el i ance caus ed i tdetr i m ent . ” I d. at 18 9 8 -99 . T h e c o u rt then den i ed a seco nd m oti on for r econ si derat i on as i m proper and decli ned t o ex erci se s u p p l e me n t a l j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e rCTS ’ s P OEE A c l a i m. II. T h e D is tr ic t C o u rth a d ju ri s d ic tio n f o r C T S ’s § 1 9 8 3 c la im s u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1331. T he D i s tr i ctC our tdecl i ned t o exer ci s e s uppl ement al j ur i s di ct i on forC T S’ s s t at elaw claim u n d er § 1 3 6 7 . T h is C o u rth as ju ri sd ict ion to rev iew the g ran t of su m m ary ju d g m e n t u n d e r § 1 2 9 1 . D ee v. B orou gh of D un m ore , 5 4 9 F .3 d 2 2 5 , 2 2 7 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). P lain tiff f iled a tim e lyn o tice o f

a p p e a l. 3R . A p p . P . 4 (a)(1)(A ). 6

T he appe al fr om the deni al of a mot i on forr econs i der at i on br i ngs up the u n d erly ing jud g m en t fo r rev iew ; th ere fo re, th e stan d ard o f re v iew d ep en d s o n the n ature o f th e u n d e rl y in g ju d g m e n t. McAl is t erv. Sentr y I ns . C o. , 9 5 8 F . 2 d 5 5 0 , 5 5 2 -53 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 2 ). B ec au se th e u n d erly ing jud g m en t gran ted D ef en d an ts’ m o ti o n fo r sum m ary j udgm ent , thi s C our texer ci s es pl enaryr evi ew , appl y i ng the s ame st andar ds the D i s tr i ct C o u rtw a s re q u ir e d to a p p ly. Bo we rs v . NCAA , 4 7 5 F .3 d 5 2 4 , 5 3 5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). S u m m a ryju d g m e n t is a p p ro p ria te if th e m o v in g p a rtyh a s e sta b lish e d th a t th e re is n o g e n u in e is s u e o f

m a te ri a l f

a c t a n d it is e n title d to ju d g m e n t a s a m a tte r o f la w . C elot ex C o rp . v. C a tre tt , 477 U . S. 317, 322 ( 1986) ( ci t i ng Fed. R . C i v. P. 56( c) ) . T he movi ng partybear s the i ni t i al bur den of s how i ng thatthe non- m ovanthas fai l ed t o es t abl i s h one o r m o re e s s e n tia l e le m e n ts o f its c a s e . I

d. a t 3 2 2 -2 3 . T h e re v iew in g c o u rt m u st ta k e a ll fac t s i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o and mustdr aw al l r eas onabl e i nfer ence s i n favorof the n o n -m o v a n t. B ow ers , 475 F. 3d at535. If th e m o v in g p a rtym e e ts its b u rd e n , the b u rd e n th e n sh if ts to th e n o n -m o v a n t to e s ta b lis h th a t s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t is in a p p ro p ri a te . M a tsu sh ita E lec . In du s. C o . v. Ze n ith R adi o C or

p. , 475 U . S. 574, 586 ( 1986) . T o avoi d s um m aryj udgm ent , the non- m ovant m us tgo bey ond the pl eadi ngs and come forw ar d w i th s peci fi c fa ct s i ndi cat i ng a genui ne is s u e f o r t ri a l. C elot ex , 477 U . S. at324. A genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac texi s t s w hen the e v id e n c e is s u c h th a t a re a s o n a b le ju ry c o u ld re tu rn a v e rd ic t f o r t h e n o n -m o v a n t.7

A nders on v. Li ber t

y Lobby, I

nc. , 4 7 7 U .S . 2 4 2 , 2 4 8 (1 9 8 6 ). S u m m a ryju d g m e n t is appr opr i at e i f the non- m ovantfai l s t o m ake a s how i ng s uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h the exi s t ence o f a n e le m e n t e s s e n tia l to its c a s e . C elot ex , 477 U . S. at322- 23. III . O n a p p e a l, C T S a rg u e s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in c o n c lu d in g th a t itf a iled to add uce ev i den ce of

i t s det ri m ental rel i ance w hich w as suffi ci ent t o survi ve D efen dan t s’ m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent . A l though C T S i ndi cat ed i n i t s not i ce of appea l thati tw as ap p ea li n g ea ch o f th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord ers, C T S arg u es a g ains t on lythe D istri ct C o u rt ’s deni al of C T S’ s fi r s tm ot i on forr econs i der at i on. M or e s peci fi cal l y , C T S ar gues the D is tr ic t C o u rte rr e d in g ra n tin g s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t a g a in s t C T S ’s d u e p ro c e s s c la im s . T h e re f o re , C T S h a s w a iv e d a n yo th e r a rg u m e n ts it m a yh a v e h a d o n th is a p p e a l. See Labore rs ’I

nt ’ lU ni on of N . A m . v. Fos t erW

heelerC or

p. , 26 F. 3d 375, 398 ( 3d C i r . 1994) ( cons i der i ng party ’ s fai l ur e t o r ai s e i s s ue i n i t s openi ng br i ef a s w ai verof thatar gum ent o n a p p e a l); N

agl e v. A l

s pach , 8 F. 3d 141, 143 ( 3d C i r . 1993) ( r equi r i ng partyt o i dent i fy i s s u e i n s t a t e m e n to f

i s s u e s o ri n a r g u m e n ts e c t i o n o f b r i e f t o a v o i d w a i v e r ) . A c c o r d i n g l y, w e w i l l notaddr es s the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s entryof s um m aryj udgm enton C T S’ s equal pr ot ect i on cl ai m orthe court ’ s deci s i on nott o exer ci s e s uppl ement al j ur i s di ct i on over C T S ’s st ate-law claim . R athe r, w e w il l fo cu s o n the D istri ct C o u rt ’s en tryo f su m m aryI ti s uncl earfr om the r ecor d and fr om C T S’ s br i ef w hetheri ti s as s ert i ng a 4 pr ocedur al ors ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s cl ai m . D es pi t e pas s i ng r efe r ence s t o s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s i n C T S’ s br i ef oppos i ng D efe ndant s ’ m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent , the D i stri ctC ou rti nd i cat ed itcon si dered b oth types of du e process cl ai m s. N on etheles s, C T S ’s b ri e f

d o e s n o t in d ic a te e ith e r p ro c e d u ra l o r s u b s ta n tiv e d u e p ro c e s s . See App el lan t ’s B r. a t 2 , 3 8 -4 8 . A n d a lth o u g h D e f e n d a n ts m a in tain th a t C T S a p p e a ls its s u b s ta n tiv e d u e p ro c e s s c la im , Ap p e lle e s ’ B r . at16, D efe ndant s as s erta pr ocedur al due p ro c e s s a rg u m e n t in th e irb ri e f , i d. at34- 35 ( ci t i ng O ’

B annon v. Tow n C our tN urs i ng C tr. , 447 U . S. 773 ( 1980) ( eval uat i ng cons t i tut i onal i tyof pr oces s underFi fth A m endment Du e P r o c e s s Cl a u s e ) ) . Be c a u s e o u ru l t i ma t e c o n c l u s i o n d o e s n o td e p e n d o n wh e th e rwe c o n s id e r C T S ’s c la im a s p ro c e d u ra l o r s u b s ta n tiv e , w e w ill a d d re s s b o th . 8 j ud gm ent as t o C T S ’s du e process cl ai m s. 4 T he Four t eenth A m endmentpr ohi bi t s s t at e ac t i on w hi ch “de pr i ve[s ] anyper s on of l i fe, l i berty , orpr operty , w i thoutdue pr oces s of l aw . ” U . S. C ons t . amend. X I V , § 1. C on gress enacted § 1 98 3 as a fed eral cause o f act i on againstthe d epri vati on of an yri gh t s, p ri v ile g e s , o r i m m u n itie s s e c u re d b yth e C o n s titu tio n o r l a w s o f th e U n ite d S ta te s . T

o wn of C as t l e Rock v. G onz al es , 545 U . S. 748, 755 ( 2005) . T o s t at e a § 1983 c l ai m , a pl ai nt i ff m us tdemonstr at e thatthe def endant , act i ng undercol orof s t at e l aw , depr i ved pl ai nt i ff of a ri g h t s e c u re d b yth e C o n s titu tio n o r l a w s o f th e U n ite d S ta te s . C hai ney v . Str eet , 523 F. 3d 200, 219 ( 3d C i r . 2008) . W e w i l l as s um e, beca us e the part i es do notdi s put e, thatfor th e p u rp o s e s o f

th is a p p e a l th e D e f

e n d a n ts a re s ta te a c to rs s u b je c t to § 1 9 8 3 . T he D ue Pr oces s C l aus e i ncl udes pr ot ect i ons forboth pr ocedur al and s ubs t ant i ve d u e p ro c e s s . See, e. g. , G onz al es , 545 U . S. at755- 56 ( acknow l edgi ng s ubs t ant i ve and p ro c e d u ra l co m p o n e n ts o f D u e P ro c e ss C lau se ). B e c a u se it i s u n c lea r w h e th e r C T S is as s ert i ng a pr ocedur al ors ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s cl ai m , w e w i l l addr es s eac h i n turn. T he9

fi r s ts t ep i n eval uat i ng a § 1983 cl ai m , how ever , i s t o i dent i fythe exa ctcont our s of the under l y i ng r i ghtC T S cl ai m s w as vi ol at ed and t o det erm i ne w hetherC T S has al l eged a d e p ri v a tio n o f

a c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t a t a ll. C hai ney , 5 2 3 F .3 d a t 2 1 9 . A. T o es t abl i s h a s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s cl ai m under§ 1983, the pl ai nt i ff mustpr ove ( 1) the part i cul ari nt er es tati s s ue i s pr ot ect ed bythe Four t eenth A m endment , and ( 2) the g o v e rn m e n t’ s d e p ri v a tio n o f th a t p ro te c te d in te re s t s h o c k s th e c o n s c ie n c e . I d. ; s ee G o ttl ieb v . L a u re l Hig h la n d s S c h . D ist. , 272 F. 3d 168, 172 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( s t at i ng that s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s i s vi ol at ed w hen s t at e conduc ti s arbi tr ary , orcons ci ence s hocki ng, i n a cons t i tut i onal s ens e) ( quot i ng C o u n ty o f Sa c ra m e n to v . L e w is , 52 3 U. S. 8 3 3 , 8 4 7 (1 9 9 8 )). T h e p lain tiff m u st h a v e b e e n d e p riv e d o f a f u n d a m e n tal p ro p e rty in te re s t u n d e r t h e C o n s titu tio n . C hai ney , 5 2 3 F . 3 d a t2 1 9 . I f th e r i g h ti s f

u n d a me n t a l , we m u st th e n c o n sid e r w h e th e r th e c o n d u c t w a s a rb itrar yo r irra tio n a l; h o w e v e r, if th e rig h t is notfundament al , ther e i s no s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s i s s ue and the s t at e conduc tw i l l be u p h e ld s o lo n g a s th e s ta te c o m p lie s w ith p ro c e d u ra l d u e p ro c e s s . See Ni cholas v. P a. Stat e U ni v. , 2 2 7 F . 3 d 1 3 3 , 1 4 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). T hi s C our thas r ecogni zed tw o s tr ands of s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s corr el at i ng t o the n a tu re o f th e g o v e rn m e n t a c tio n , i.e . w h e th e r i t w a s le g is la tiv e o r n o n -l e g is la tiv e . Id . at 139. N on- l egi s l at i ve, orexec ut i ve, act i ons “typi cal l yappl yt o one per s on ort o a l i m i t ed nu m ber of p ers on s, w hil e l egis l at i ve acts , gen eral l yl aw s and b road ex ecuti ve regu l at i on s,10

appl yt o l ar ge s egment s of s oci ety . ” I d. at139 n. 1. I n thi s cas e, C T S ar gues that D e f e n d a n ts’ re f

u sa l to q u a lifyits tra in in g p ro g ra m f o r th e w a g e e x e m p tio n v io late d its due pr oces s r i ght s ; ther efor e, C T S ar gues i tw as depr i ved bynon- l egi s l at i ve ac t i on. T o p revai l on a no n-l egis l at i ve sub st anti ve d ue p rocess cl ai m , C T S m ustest abli sh a p ro te c te d p ro p e rt yin te re s t to w h ic h th e F o u rt e e n th A m e n d m e n t’ s p ro te c tio n a p p lie s . I d. a t1 3 9 - 4 0 . T h i s C o u r th a s r e q u i r e d p l a i n t i f f s i n s u c h c i r c u m s t a n c e s t o i d e n t i f y a “part i cul arqual i tyof pr opertyi nt er es t . ” I d. at14 0. W hethera cert ai n p ropertyi nter est embodi es thi s part i cul arqual i tyi s notdet erm i ned byr efe r ence t o s t at e l aw , butdepends o n w h e th e r t h a t in te re s t is “ f u n d a m e n ta l” u n d e r t h e C o n s titu tio n . I d. T he as s ert ed propertyi nter estm ustbe co nsi dered ag ai nstthe b ackg round of co nst i tuti on al pu rposes, rati o n all yd ev elop ed an d h ist o ri ca ll yp erc eive d , w ith resp ec t fo r th e tea ch ing s o f h ist o ry a n d a s o lid re c o g n itio n o f th e b a s ic v a lu e s th a t u n d e rl ie o u r s o c ie ty. I d. ( quot i ng R eg e n ts of U ni v. of Mi ch. v. E w i ng , 4 7 4 U .S . 2 1 4 , 2 2 9 -3 0 (1 9 8 5 ) ( P o w e ll, J ., c o n c u rr in g )) . W e foc us on the natur e of the pr opertyi nt er es tats t ake a nd, s o far , have l i m i t ed n o n -l e g is la tiv e s u b s ta n tiv e d u e p ro c e s s ri g h ts to re a l p ro p e rt yo w n e rs h ip . I d. a t 1 4 1 . Fur ther , w e have decl i ned t o r ecogni ze a fundament al pr opertyi nt er es ti n a var i etyof o th e r c ir c u m s ta n c e s . See, e. g. , G ika s v . W a sh . Sc h . D ist. , 3 2 8 F . 3 d 7 3 1 , 7 3 6 -37 (3d C ir . 2003) ( hol di ng ther e i s no pr opertyi nt er es ti n s t atut oryvet er ans ’ empl oym entpr efe r ence f o r su b sta n tiv e d u e p ro c e ss p u rp o se s); Ni cholas , 227 F. 3d at143 ( decl i ni ng t o fi nd in ter e st in ten u re d e m p lo ym e n t); I ndep. E nt ers . I

nc. v. P i t t

s bur gh W at er& Se w erA uth. ,11

103 F. 3d 1165, 1178, 1179- 80 ( 3d C i r . 1997) ( concl udi ng l ow es tbi dderhas no fundament al pr opertyi nt er es ti n m uni ci pal contr act s even though s t at e s t atut e r equi r es m u n icip a lityto a w a rd c o n tra c t to lo w e st b id d e r); R ei ch v. Beh arry , 883 F. 2d 239, 244- 45 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 9 ) (f

in d in g n o in ter e st in p ro m p t p a ym e n t f o r p ro f e ss io n a l se rv ice s); R ans om v. Marrazzo , 8 4 8 F .2 d 3 9 8 , 4 1 1 -1 2 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 8 ) (a ss e rtin g th a t sta te- law e n tit lem e n t to w a ter a n d se w e r se rv ice s is n o t a p ro tec ted p ro p e rtyin ter e st); M aur i el l o v. U

ni v. of Med. & D ent is tr

y of N . J. , 781 F. 2d 46, 52 ( 3d C i r . 1986) ( di ct a) ( s ugges t i ng gr aduat e s tudent h as n o p rop ertyinterest i n co n ti n u ed en roll m en t i n p rog ram ). I n thi s cas e, C T S as s ert s pr opertyi nt er es t s i n r ecogni t i on of i t s tr ai ni ng pr ogr am u n d e r th e O rd in a n c e so th a t itc a n (1 ) c o n tin u e to p lac e its tra in e e s, w h ich C T S a ss e rts is n e c e s s a ry t o r e c e i v e f

u tu r e , d i s c r e t i o n a ry f

u n d i n g f r o m th e C i ty o f

P h i l a d e l p h i a o rc i tyre late d a g e n c ies , an d (2 ) re c o v e r th e lo n g -te rm f ix e d c o sts it ex p e n d e d in c re a tin g its tr ainin g p rog ram . S u ch interests are n o t “fu n d am en tal ” u n d er the C o n sti tuti o n , n o r are theybas i c val ues thatunder l i e ours oci ety . C T S’ s as s ert ed i nt er es t s ar e ana l ogous t o the num er ous i nt er es t s w e have decl i ned t o r ecogni ze, w hi ch r el yon s t atut oryr i ght s or r el at i ons hi ps w i th governm entagenc i es , and ar e nots i m i l art o the “ve ner abl e comm onl aw r i ght s of r eal pr opertyow ner s hi p. ” See Ni cholas , 2 2 7 F. 3 d a t1 4 3 . Th e r e f o r e , CTS has fai l ed t o i dent i fyan i nt er es tpr ot ect ed bys ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s and w e nee d not c o n s id e r w h e th e r D e f

e n d a n ts ’ c o n d u c t s h o c k s th e c o n s c ie n c e . See Chai ney , 523 F. 3d at 21 9 (r equ i ri ng dep ri vati on of f un dam ental propertyi nter est ). A ccordi ng l y , D efen dan t s’12

c o n d u c t w ill b e u p h e ld s o lo n g a s it c o m p lie d w ith p ro c e d u ra l d u e p ro c e s s . See Ni cholas , 227 F. 3d at142. B. T o es t abl i s h a pr ocedur al due pr oces s cl ai m under§ 1983, the pl ai nt i ff mustpr ove (1) a d ep ri v ati o n o f a n ind ividu al i n terest en co m p asse d b ythe F o u rt ee n th A m en d m en t’ s pr ot ect i on of l i fe, l i berty , orpr operty , and ( 2) thatthe pr ocedur es avai l abl e di d not p ro v id e d u e p ro c e s s o f

la w . Hi l lv . Bo r o u g h o f Ku t z t o wn , 4 5 5 F . 3 d 2 2 5 , 2 3 3 -34 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). P ro c e d u ra l d u e p ro c e ss d o e s n o t p ro tec t ev e ryb e n e f it; ra th e r, to h a v e a p ro p e rty i nt er es ti n a bene fi t , a per s on m us tcl ear l yhave mor e than an abs tr actneed ordes i r e and m o re th a n a u n ila te ra l e x p e c ta tio n o f re c e iv in g th e b e n e f

it. G onz al es , 5 4 5 U .S . a t 7 5 6 . T hus , i n cons t i tut i onal par l ance , the pl ai nt i ff musthave a l egi t i m at e cl ai m of an “ent i t l ement . ” I

d. E n ti tl em en ts, h o w ev er, are n o t est ab li sh ed b ythe C o n sti tuti o n ; r athe r, theyar e cr eat ed and de fi ned byexi s t i ng rul es orunder s t andi ngs thats t em from an in d e p e n d e n t s o u rc e , s u c h a s s ta te la w . I d. I ti s undi s put ed thatthe O r di nance nevert ook eff ectand, ther efor e, C T S i s not ent i t l ed t o the pr evai l i ng w age e xempt i on unders t atut e. T hus , C T S m us tbe abl e t o es t op D e f e n d a n ts f ro m d e n y in g th e O rd in a n c e to o k e f f e c t. U n d e r P e n n sy lv a n ia la w , a p a rty as s ert i ng es t oppel agai ns ta governm entagenc ym us ts how ( 1) a negl i gent m i s r epr es ent at i on, w hi ch ( 2) i nduced j us t i fi abl e r el i ance and ( 3) caus ed the partyt o s uffe r a d e tr im e n t. See Str unk v. Zoni ng Hear i ng B d. of U pperMi l f or d Tw p. , 684 A . 2d 682, 68513

( Pa. C om m w . C t . 1996) . A partyas s ert i ng es t oppel m us toffe rcl ear , pr eci s e, and u n eq u ivo ca l evid en ce in su p p o rto f it s claim an d m u st pro d u ce m o re tha n m ere s p e c u la tio n . N

ovel t y Kni t t i ng Mi l l

s , I nc. v. Sis ki nd , 4 5 7 A .2 d 5 0 2 , 5 0 4 (P a . 1 9 8 3 ). E ven as s um i ng C T S can s how negl i gentm i s r epr es ent at i on and j us t i fi abl e r el i ance , it c a n n o t s h o w D e f

e n d a n ts ’ m is re p re s e n ta tio n s c a u s e d it d e tr im e n t. C T S a ss e rts it su f f e re d d e trim e n t b e c a u se , u n les s re c o g n ize d u n d e r th e p re v a ili n g w a g e e x e m p tio n , it w ill n o t (1 ) re c e iv e f

u tu re d isc re tio n a ryf

u n d in g , o r (2 ) re c o u p its lo n g -te rm e x p e n se s in c re a tin g its tra in in g p ro g ra m . C T S ’s c laim f o r re c o u p m e n t is ju st a v a ria tio n o f its c laim th a t it w ill n o t r e c e iv e f u tu re f u n d in g – C T S w o u ld re c o u p its e x p e n s e s f ro m th a t f

u n d in g . Fur ther , beca us e the fundi ng i s di s cr et i onary , i ti s t oo s pecul at i ve t o m eetC T S’ s bur den to s h o w a d e tr im e n t. Se e N o v e lty Kn itt in gMill

s , 4 5 7 A .2 d a t 5 0 4 . A b se n t a c o g n iza b le d e tr im e n t, C T S c a n n o t e s to p D e f e n d a n ts f ro m d e n y in g th e O rd in a n c e to o k e f f e c t. Con s e q u e n t l y , CTS c a n n o tc l a i m a n e n t i t l e me n tu n d e rs t a t e l a w. Th e r e f o r e , CTS is n o t e n title d to p ro c e d u ra l d u e p ro c e s s p ro te c tio n . I V. W e conc l ude thatC T S has notas s ert ed a c ogni zabl e pr opertyi nt er es tunderei ther pr ocedur al ors ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s . C ons equent l y , as a mat t erof l aw , C T S cannot m a in tain c laim s u n d e r § 1 9 8 3 f o r v io latio n o f

its d u e p ro c e ss rig h ts. T h e re f o re , w e w ill affirm the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s entryof sum m aryj ud gm ent for D efen dan t s.