2005 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 7-12-2005 

# S e rbin v . C onsolid ated Rai l 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 . 04-3964

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_2005

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 2005 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 " S e r b in v . C on s o l id at e d R ai l " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 866. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/866NOT 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. 04- 3964

____________ J OHN M. S E RB I N, A ppel l ant v. CO NS OL I DAT E D R AI L CO RP OR AT I ON

a/k/a C O N R A IL

____________ 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- 06957) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J ohn P. Ful l am

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

J une 30, 2005 B e f o re : * N Y G A A R D , S M IT H a n d F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudges .

( Fi l ed J ul y12, 2005 )

____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________ F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudge . A ppel l antJ ohn M . Serbi n br oughtthi s act i on agai ns thi s form erempl oy er , al l egi ng

*H onor abl e R i char d L . N y gaar d as s um ed s eni ors t atus on J ul y9, 2005.T h e o rd e r o n a p p e a l w a s e n ter e d u p o n c o n sid e ra tio n o f C o n ra il’s “ m o tio n to 1 di s m i s s , ori n t he al t ernat i ve, fors um m aryj udgm ent . ” A ppel l antthus knew thatthe m o tio n c o u ld b e tre a ted a s o n e f o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t an d in d e e d , h e su b m itt e d m a ter ials b e y o n d th e c o m p la in t, in c lu d in g h is o w n a f f id a v it. See Hi l

f i r t y v. Shi pm an , 91 F. 3d 573 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 6 ) (w h ere m o ti o n s to d ism iss fram ed in the alt ern ati v e f o r sum m ary ju d g e m e n t, pla in tiff

w a s o n n o tice o f

c o n v e rsio n ). A p p e llan t w a s th u s a p p ro p ria telyh e ld t o the more demandi ng evi dent i arys t andar d r equi r ed t o avoi d s um m aryj udgm entr ather th a n to th e s ta n d a rd f

o r d is m is s a l o f

a c o m p la in t. S e e id . at579 ( “[w ] her e a pa r tyhas f iled a m o tio n f

o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t, th e o p p o sin g p a rtyis u n d e r a n o b lig a tio n to re sp o n d to th a t m o tio n in a tim e lyf a sh io n a n d to p lac e b e f

o re th e c o u rt a ll m a ter ials it w i s hes t o have c ons i der ed w hen the courtrul es on the mot i on. ”) ( i nt ernal ci t at i on o m itted). T o the e x tent A p p ell an t no w co m p lai n s tha t sum m aryjud g m en t w as p rem ature i n the abs ence of an a ns w erordi s covery , w e not e he di d noti nvoke Fed. R . C i v. P. 56( f) b e f o re th e D is tr ic t C o u rt . See Bradley v . U ni t ed Stat es , 299 F. 3d 197, 207 ( 3d C i r . 2002) (“ W e h a v e m a d e c lea r th a t, i n a ll b u t th e m o st e x c e p tio n a l ca se s, f a ilu re to c o m p lyw ith 2 thatC ons ol i dat ed R ai l C orpor at i on ( “C onr ai l ”) vi ol at ed the A m er i cans w i th D i s abi l i t i es A ct( “A D A ”) and the R ehabi l i t at i on A ctof 1973 ( “R ehabi l i t at i on A ct ”) w hen i tatt empt ed to “ f o rc e -p ro m o te” h im f

ro m a tra in m a n p o sitio n to e n g in e e r a n d late r te rm in a ted h is e m p lo ym e n t. T h e U n ited S tate s D istric t 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 gr ant ed s um m aryj udgm entt o C onr ai l . W e w i l l aff i r m , focus i ng pr i nci pal l yon the r at i onal e forourdeci s i on. I. W e hav e j uri sdi ct i on ov er this app eal pu rs uan tt o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 29 1. W e exerci se pl enaryr evi ew of the gr antof s um m aryj udgm ent , empl oy i ng the s ame st andar d as the di s tr i ctcourt– i . e. , s um m aryj udgm enti s appr opr i at e w her e the r ecor d s how s no genui ne is s u e o f m a te ri a l f

a c t a n d th e m o v in g p a rt yis e n title d to ju d g m e n t a s a m a tte r o f la w . G lan zm an v. Metropo l i tan M an ag em ent C orp . , 3 9 1 F . 3 d 5 0 6 , 5 0 8 n . 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). 1R ul e 56( f) i s fat al t o a cl ai m of i ns uffi ci entdi s coveryon appea l . ”) . T her e ar e no s uch

exce pt i onal ci r cumst ance s her e. 3 T o est abli sh a pri m a facie cas e of d i scr i m i nati on un der the A D A , a plai nti ff m ust show : “(1) he is a dis abled person w i thin the m eaning o f t he A D A ; (2) he is otherw i se q u a lifie d to p e rf

o rm th e e ss e n tial f

u n c tio n s o f

th e jo b , w ith o r w ith o u t re a so n a b le accom m od at i on s bythe em ploy er; and (3) he h as suffered an o therw i se adve rs e e m p lo ym e n t d e c is io n a s a re s u lt o f d is c ri m in a tio n .” W

i l l i am s v. P hi ladel

phi a H ous i ng A uth. P ol i ce D ept ., 3 8 0 F .3 d 7 5 1 , 7 6 1 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 4 ) (in ter n a l cita tio n o m itt e d ); see al so D on ah ue v. C on sol i da t ed R ail C orp . , 224 F. 3d 226, 229 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ( el ement s for pr i m a fa ci e s how i ng underthe R ehabi l i t at i on A ct ) . U nderthe bur den- s hi ft i ng par adi gm of McD onnel lD ouglas , o n c e a p l a i n t i f f i n a n a c t i o n u n d e re i th e rAc tma k e s o u ta p r i ma fac i e ca s e, the bur den s hi ft s t o t he def endantt o art i cul at e s om e l egi t i m at e, n o n d is c ri m in a to ry re a s o n f o r t h e a c tio n . Fu e n tes v . P e rs k ie , 3 2 F . 3 d 7 5 9 , 7 6 3 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 4 ); s ee al

s o N ew m an v. G H

S O s t eopathi c, I

nc . , 60 F. 3d 153 ( 3d C i r . 1995) ( McD on nell

D ou glas fr amew or k appl i cabl e t o cl ai m s underR ehabi l i t at i on A ct ) . I f a defe ndants at i s fi es thi s bur den, a pl ai nt i ff maydefe ata mot i on fors um m aryj udgm entby pr ovi di ng evi dence thatw oul d al l ow a fa ctfi nderr eas onabl yt o ( 1) di s bel i eve the em p loy er' s arti cu lat ed legiti m ate rea so n s; or (2) b eli ev e tha t an in v idiou s d iscri m inato ry r e a s o n w a s m o r e l i k e l y th a n n o tth e m o t i v a t i n g o rd e t e r m i n a t i v e c a u s e o f th e e m p l o ye r 's4

a c tio n . Sar ul l o v. U

ni t ed Stat es P os talSer vi ce , 352 F. 3d 789, 800 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . T he ul t i m at e bur den of pe r s uas i on r emai ns atal l t i m es w i th the pl ai nt i ff. II. T he record show s that w hen A pp el l ant w as fi rs thir ed b yC on rai l i n lat e 20 00 as a tra in m a n , h e d isc lo se d , an d a m e d ica l ex a m in a tio n c o n f irm e d , 1 0 0 % h e a rin g lo ss in h is l eftear . W hen C onr ai l “for ce- pr om ot ed” hi m t o the pos i t i on of engi neeri n M ay2002 as perm i t t ed underthe appl i cabl e col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng agr eement , A ppel l antw as r equi r ed t o fi l l outa medi cal ques t i onnai r e i n connec t i on w i th thattr ans fer . I n r es pons e t o the ques t i on l abel ed: “H i s t ory : H ave y ou everhad ordo y ou now have a nyof the fol l ow i ng?” he che cked “ Y es ” notonl yforhear i ng l os s , butal s o fora w i de r ange of ot her i m pai rm ent s , i ncl udi ng epi l eps y , s ei zur es orfi t s , l os s of cons ci ous nes s , di zzi nes s or fai nt i ng s pel l s , and s l eep di s or der . A . 52. O n thats ame day , A ppel l antw as exami ned by tw o p h y sici an s – D r. T u m asz (his fa m il yp h y sici an ) an d D r. K irk p atri ck (at C o n rail ’s re q u e s t) – b o th o f

w h o m d e f

e rr e d to f u rt h e r e v a lu a tio n b yC o n ra il’ s m e d ic a l d ir e c to r. A . 76- 77; 81- 82. D r . K i r kpatr i ck s peci fi ed: “Pat i entdoes notpas s phy s i cal forengi neer pendi ng eval uat i on byC onr ai l m edi cal di r ect or . ” A . 76. C onr ai l det erm i ned thatthe addi t i onal ai l m ent s i dent i fi ed byA ppel l anton the ques t i onnai r e w er e s er i ous m edi cal condi t i ons thatw oul d pr ecl ude hi m fr om per form i ng the es s ent i al funct i ons of ei thert he tra in m a n o r e n g in e e r p o sitio n s. A . 5 1 (D e c l. of S a n d ra C o m p o (C o n ra il D i r ect or/ A s s i s t antSecr et aryC om pl i ance ) ) . A ccor di ngl y , i n J une 2002, C onr ai l pl ace d5

A p p e llan t o n m e d ica l lea v e a n d a sk e d h im to p ro v id e a d d iti o n a l in f o rm a tio n to s ubs t ant i at e thathe di d nots uffe rfr om thes e addi t i onal ai l m ent s . I n D ece m ber2002, A ppel l ants ubm i t t ed a br i ef l ett erfr om D r . T um as z document i ng thathe had notbeen d iagn o sed w ith thes e a d d it ion al ail m en ts. A . 8 3 . In M arc h 2 0 0 3 , A p p ell an t’ s em p loym en t w as term inated , all eg ed lyb ec au se h e w as “ ab sen t w ith o u t sat isfac tory w r i t t en pr oof of a n author i zed l eave of abs ence . ” A . 20- 21 ( C om pl ai nt ) . M s . C om po d e c lar e d th a t “[ a ]t n o tim e d id [ A p p e llan t] p ro v id e C o n ra il’s M e d ica l D e p a rtm e n t w ith i nform at i on r efl ect i ng thathi s l i s t ed medi cal condi t i ons had bee n ful l yeval uat ed, appr opr i at el ytr eat ed, curr ent l ys t abl e, undercontr ol orr es ol ved. . . . A ccor di ngl y , aft er fi ve mont hs w i thoutadequa t e medi cal document at i on r egar di ng hi s m edi cal condi t i ons or thei racc om m odat i on, C onr ai l t erm i nat ed [A ppel l ant ’ s ] s eni or i tyas perm i t t ed by[the co ll ec ti v e b arg ainin g ag ree m en t] . ” A . 5 1 (C o m p o D ec l. ). A p p e llan t co n ten d s th a t C o n ra il d isc rim in a ted a g a in st h im o n th e b a sis o f h is h e a ri n g lo s s , w h ic h h e b e lie v e d re n d e re d h im u n q u a lif ie d f o r t h e e n g in e e r p o s itio n . C o n rail co u n tered that this discrim ination ac ti o n w as p ree m p ted b ythe m an d atory arbi tr at i on pr ovi s i ons of the R ai l w ayL aborA ct , and thatA ppel l anthas been t erm i nat ed beca us e he ne veradequa t el yexpl ai ned aw aythe addi t i onal ai l m ent s i dent i fi ed on the ques t i onnai r e. T he D i s tr i ctC our tfi r s trul ed thatthe ac t i on w as notpr eempt ed, M em. O p. at2- 4, and then gr ant ed s um m aryj udgm entt o C onr ai l , on the gr ound thatA ppel l anthadC onr ai l i nvi t es us t o fi nd thi s act i on pr eempt ed as a s epar at e and i ndepende nt 2 bas i s foraff

i r m i ng the or derbel ow . W hatC onr ai l actual l yar gues , how ever , i s thatthe D i s tr i ctC our terr ed i n i t s r es ol ut i on of pr eempt i on. W e w i l l notr evi ew thi s i s s ue i n the a b se n c e o f

a c ro ss -a p p e a l. 6 f a iled to e sta b lish a p rim a f a c ie c a se u n d e r e ith e r A c t. I d. a t 5 -6 . In th e b o d yo f its 2 o p inion , the D istri ct C o u rtsp ec u lat ed that there w ere tw o ex p lana ti o n s fo r A p p ell an t’ s i dent i fi cat i on of the addi t i onal ai l m ent s on the ques t i onnai r e – he a ctual l ys uffe r ed fr om th e m o r h a d p u rp o s e f

u lly m is re p re s e n te d th e m to a v o id th e tr a n s f e r. Id . at6. T he D i s tr i ct C o u rt th e n c o n c lu d e d : “I n e ith e r c a se , the a c tio n s ta k e n b yC o n ra il co u ld n o t re a so n a b ly be found t o vi ol at e pl ai nt i ff’ s r i ght s under[ei therA ct ] . ” I d. We a g r e e wi th Ap p e l l a n tth a t , a tl e a s ti n th e o ry , th e r e c o u l d b e mo r e th a n two e x p lan a tio n s f

o r w h yh e id e n tifie d th e a d d iti o n a l ailm e n ts o n th e q u e stio n n a ire . A s h is att orneys ugges t ed dur i ng or al ar gum entbefor e the D i s tr i ctC our t , A ppel l antm ayhave s i m pl yt aken a confus i ng form t oo l i t er al l y . T he ca s e, how ever , w as befor e the D i s tr i ct C o u rto n a m o ti o n fo r sum m aryjud g m en t; A p p ell an t th u s h ad an o b li g ati o n to d o m o re th a n sim p lysp e c u late a s to o th e r p o ss ib le e x p lan a tio n s f o r h is b e h a v io r. N o tab ly , h is aff i davi tdi d nots eek t o expl ai n w hyhe had i dent i fi ed the addi t i onal ai l m ent s – a cr i t i cal om i s s i on i n l i ghtof C onr ai l ’ s art i cul at i on of a l egi t i m at e, non- di s cr i m i nat oryr eas on for th e te rm in a tio n . See inf ra . T h u s, itw as n o t i m p rop er f o r th e D istri ct C o u rto n this reco rd t o l i m i tthe i nfer ence s fr om the evi dence t o tw o, both of w hi ch w oul d pr eventA ppel l antW e r ecogni ze the exi s t ence of a que s t i on on the r ecor d w hetherA ppel l antw as 3 qual i fi ed forthe engi neerpos i t i on due t o hi s hear i ng l os s . A ppel l antbel i eved a tal l t i m es th a t h e w a s u n q u a lifie d ; C o n ra il, c iti n g 4 9 C .F .R . § § 2 4 0 .1 2 1 , 2 4 0 .2 0 7 a n d A p p e n d ix F to Sect i on 240, cont ends he w as not . T he D i s tr i ctC our t , i n s ett i ng for th the fa ct s , s t at ed that A ppel l ant“di d not , i n fac t , m eetthe phy s i cal r equi r ement s foran engi neerpos i t i on, beca us e of hi s hear i ng l os s , ” M em. O p. at2, butC onr ai l m ai nt ai ns thi s i s err oneous . O ur di s pos i t i on r ender s thi s ques t i on i r r el evant . A ddi t i onal l y , ther e i s s om e ques t i on w hether C onr ai l coul d pr ovi de the r el i ef A ppel l ants eeks – i . e. , r ei ns t at ementt o the tr ai nm an p o sitio n – w ith o u t v io latin g th e c o llec tiv e b a rg a in in g a g re e m e n t, w h ich C o n ra il i n terp re ts to p re v e n t a tr a in m a n f

o rc e -p ro m o te d to e n g in e e r f ro m re tu rn in g to th e tr a in m a n p o s itio n . O urdi s pos i t i on r ender s thi s ques t i on i rr el evantal s o. 7 fr om s how i ng he w as “qual i fi ed” f orei therpos i t i on as r equi r ed bythe s econd pr ong of the pr i m a fa ci e ca s e. 3 W e f u rth e r c o n c lu d e th a t, as su m in g a p rim a f a c ie s h o w in g b yA p p e llan t, C o n ra il has pr offe r ed a l egi t i m at e, nondi s cr i m i nat oryr eas on fori t s act i ons and A ppel l anthas f a i l e d t o o f

f e rs u f f i c i e n te v i d e n c e f

r o m w h i c h a j u ryc o u l d f i n d th a tr e a s o n p r e t e x tu a l . To s ur vi ve s um m aryj udgm ent , a pl ai nt i ff musts etfor th evi dence t o al l ow a fa ctfi nder r eas onabl yt o ( 1) di s bel i eve the empl oy er ’ s art i cul at ed l egi t i m at e r eas ons ; or( 2) bel i eve thatan i nvi di ous di s cr i m i nat oryr eas on w as m or e l i kel ythan notthe mot i vat i ng or d e te rm in a tiv e c a u s e o f

th e e m p lo y e r's a c tio n . Sa ru llo , 352 F. 3d at799- 800. A pl ai nt i ff can meetthi s bur den bys how i ng thatthe empl oy er ’ s pr offe r ed r eas on w as “w eak, in c o h e re n t, i m p lau sib le, o r so in c o n sis ten t th a t ‘a re a so n a b le f a c tf in d e r c o u ld ra tio n a lly fi nd [i t ] unw or thyof cr edenc e. ’ ” S e e id . at800 ( quot i ng Kel l erv. O r i x C r edi tA l l i ance, I nc . , 130 F. 3d 1101, 1108- 09 ( 3d C i r . 1997) ) . A ppel l anthas notm etthi s bur den. A gai n, hi s aff i davi tdoes notexpl ai n w hyhe i dent i fi ed the addi t i onal ai l m ent s , nordoes he off er8

anyotherevi dence t o di s put e C onr ai l ’ s r eci t at i on thati ts oughtaddi t i onal i nform at i on fr om hi m and t erm i nat ed hi s empl oym entw hen a s at i s fac t oryexpl anat i on w as not for thcomi ng. A tbes t , A ppel l antfaul t s C onr ai l fornotfol l ow i ng up on the exa m i ni ng p h y sic ian s’ d e f

e rra l to e x a m in a tio n b yC o n ra il’s m e d ica l d ire c to r. C o n ra il’s c o n d u c t in thi s r egar d, how ever , i s notnece s s ar i l ys urpr i s i ng as i tappea r s t o have r i ght ful l ypl ace d the onus of expl anat i on on A ppel l ant ; r egar dl es s , w e w i l l nots aythatC onr ai l ’ s conduct c a sts su f f icie n t d o u b t o n th e c re d ib ili tyo f C o n ra il’s n o n -d isc rim in a to ryre a so n f o r its a c tio n s s o a s to p re c lu d e su m m a ryju d g m e n t. A c c o rd in g ly , w e w ill a f f irm th e o rd e r e n ter in g su m m a ryju d g m e n t f o r C o n ra il.