2008 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 2-13-2008 

# Mi ll s v . P hi l a G a s W

orks 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 . 07-2481

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_2008

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 2008 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 " Mi ll s v . P hi l a G as W

ork s " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1605. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1605NOT 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. 07- 2481

___________ FI D EL M I LLS, A ppel l ant V S. P HI L ADE L P HI A GAS WORKS

____________________________________ 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 . C i v. N o. 06- cv- 02444) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Ti m othyJ . Savage

_________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J anuary25, 2008 B efor e: M C K E E , SM I T H and C H A G A R E S, C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed February13, 2008)

OP I NI ON P E R C UR I AM F id e l M ill s a p p e a ls p ro se f ro m th e D istric t C o u rt’s e n tryo f su m m a ryju d g m e n t in favorof Phi l adel phi a G as W or ks ( “PG W ”) . W e w i l l aff i r m forthe r eas ons di s cus s ed b e lo w .M ill s re c e iv e d a rig h t-to -su e lette r f ro m th e E E O C a s to th is c h a rg e in 1 O c to b e r 2 0 0 5 . H e d id n o t f ile a c iv il a c tio n w ith in 9 0 d a y s o f h is re c e ip t o f

th e le tte r. 2 I. M i l l s , an A fr i can- A m er i can mal e, began w or ki ng forPG W i n 1997. I n O ct ober 2 0 0 1 , af ter b e in g p ro m o ted , h e c o m p lain e d to P G W ’s E q u a l E m p lo ym e n t O p p o rtu n ity r epr es ent at i ve thata co- w or kerw as har as s i ng hi m abouthi s w ei ght . PG W t ook no act i on, a n d in M a y2 0 0 2 , M ill s f iled c h a rg e s w ith th e E q u a l E m p lo ym e n t O p p o rtu n ity C om m i s s i on ( “EE O C ”) and Penns y l vani a H um an R i ght s C om m i s s i on ( “PH R C ”) al l egi ng th a t h e w a s s u b

jec t to a h o stile w o rk e n v iro n m e n t b e c a u se h e w a s “ e x tre m e ly overw ei ght . ” I n M ayorJ une 2003, aft erM i l l s w as pas s ed overforpr om ot i on t o t he next

1 l evel of aut o m echa ni c, he compl ai ned t o hi s uni on r epr es ent at i ve, butnott o any one fr om PG W . I n N ovember2004, M i l l s fi l ed a s econd PH R C compl ai nt , w hi ch w as cr os s - fi l ed i n the EE O C , al l egi ng r ace and di s abi l i t ydi s cr i m i nat i on. T hen, i n J anuary2005, he appl i ed forone of tw o Seni orD r i verI I pos i t i ons . A H i s pani c mal e and a C auca s i an mal e, b o th o f w h o m h a d m o re c o m p a n ys e n io ri ty th a n M ills , w e re h ir e d f o r t h e p o s itio n s . M ill s’s u n io n d id n o t p u rsu e th e g rie v a n c e it i n iti a llyf iled re g a rd in g M ill s’s f a ilu re to re c e iv e th e s e n io r d ri v e r I I p o s itio n . I n J une 2006 M i l l s r ece i ved a r i ght - t o- s ue l ett erfr om the EE O C r egar di ng the N ovember2004 char ge. H e fi l ed the curr entl aw s ui ti n t he U . S. D i s t r i ctC our tforthe E as t ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a s hor t l yther eaf t er . M i l l s ’ s amended compl ai ntal l eged3

th a t P G W v io la te d T itle V II o f th e C iv il R ig h ts A c t o f 1 9 6 4 , a s a m e n d e d , 4 2 U .S .C . § 2000e, and the Penns y l vani a H um an R el at i ons A ct , 43 P A . C ON S . S TAT . A NN . § 951, by di s cr i m i nat i ng agai ns thi m due t o a di s abi l i t yand hi s r ace bynotpr om ot i ng hi m t o t he nextl evel of aut o m echa ni c, bynotcons i der i ng hi m forthe Seni orD r i verI I pos i t i on, and b yre ta lia tin g a g a in s t h im f o r f ilin g E E O C a n d P H R C c h a rg e s . O n A p ri l 27 , 2 0 0 7 , the D istri ct C o u rten tered a f o o tno te ord er g ran ti n g the P G W ’s m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent . A ft erM i l l s fi l ed a t i m el ynot i ce of appea l , the D i s t r i ct C o u rt e n ter e d a m e m o ra n d u m o p in io n d e sc rib in g in f u rth e r d e tail th e re a so n s f o r its A p ril 2 7 th o rd e r. In p a rticu lar , the D istric t C o u rt f o u n d th a t M ill s (1 ) f

a iled to e x h a u st h is a d m in istra tiv e re m e d ies a s to h is re talia tio n c laim ; (2 ) a b a n d o n e d h is d isa b ili ty di s cr i m i nat i on cl ai m ; and ( 3) di d notm ake a pr i m a fa ci e s how i ng of Ti t l e V I I r aci al dis cri m i nati on becau se he of fered no evidence thatA fri can-A m eri cans w ere treat ed les s favor abl yt han non- A fr i can- A m er i cans . T he D i s t r i ctC our ts t at ed thatthe undi s put ed fac t s s how ed thats eni or i t yw as t he det erm i nat i ve fa ct ori n t he Seni orD r i verI I s el ect i on pr oces s , and thatbeca us e tw o m or e s eni orcandi dat es acc ept ed the j ob, M i l l s w as never i nt ervi ew ed fort he pos i t i on. M i l l s , w ho atthe t i m e w as r epr es ent ed bycouns el , i gnor ed PG W ’ s as s ert i ons r egar di ng i t s deci s i on- m aki ng pr oces s and fa i l ed t o pr es entany e v id e n c e c a s tin g d o u b t o n th e le g itim a c yo f th e s e n io ri ty syste m . M i l l s t i m el yappea l ed fr om t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or der , butonl ychal l enges the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s fi ndi ng t hatt he s eni or i t ys y s t em w as an appr opr i at e bas i s forr anki ng t he4

candi dat es . M i l l s cont ends t hatpur s uantt o t he “U ni on B ook, ” PG W coul d nott ake companys eni or i t yi nt o acc ount . R ather , PG W w as onl yal l ow ed t o cons i derj ob s eni or i ty— and M i l l s al l eges t hathe had mor e j ob s eni or i t ythan ei therof the tw o m en w ho w er e hi r ed. I n s uppor tof thi s new ar gum ent , M i l l s at t empt s t o s uppl ementthe re c o rd b ya tta c h in g n e w d o c u m e n ts , w h ic h in c lu d e a p a g e f ro m th e U n io n B o o k . II. W e h av e jurisdicti o n p u rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 an d rev iew a d istri ct co u rt ’s entryof s um m aryj udgm entde novo. Penns y l vani a C oal A s s ’ n v. B abbi t t , 63 F. 3d 231, 23 6 (3d C i r. 19 95 ). M i l l s’ s appea l i s pl agu ed b yseveral problem s. F irst, “[ w ]h ile th e re c o rd o n a p p e a l m u st b e v iew e d in th e lig h t m o st f a v o ra b le to the partyw ho l os ton s um m aryj udgm ent , . . . an appe l l at e courtm ayonl yr evi ew the r ecor d as i texi s t ed att he t i m e s um m aryj udgm entw as ent er ed. . . . T he part i es cannot add exhi bi t s , depos i t i ons , oraff i davi t s t o s uppor tthei rpos i t i on. ” U ni on Pac. R . R . C o. v. G ree n tr ee T ran sp . T ruc k ing C o . , 2 9 3 F . 3 d 1 2 0 , 1 2 5 -26 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). M il ls, h o w ev er, h a s a ttem p ted to su p p lem e n t th e re c o rd b ya ttac h in g se v e ra l n e w d o c u m e n ts to h is i nform al br i ef. W e w i l l notcons i derthes e document s . See I n r e A ppl i cat i on of A dan, 437 F. 3d 381, 389 n. 3 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( “[W ] e w i l l notcons i dernew evi dence on appea l a b s e n t e x tr a o rd in a ry c ir c u m s ta n c e s .” ). S ec o n d , “[ t] h is co u rth as c o n sist en tl yh eld th at i t w il l no t con side r i ssu es th at are raised fo r th e f

ir st t im e o n ap p ea l. ” H arris v. C ityo f P h il a., 3 5 F . 3 d 8 4 0 , 8 4 5 (3d C ir .5

1994) ; U ni on Pac. R . R . C o. , 293 F. 3d at126 ( A ppel l ant s m aynot“adva nce ne w theor i es o rr a i s e n e w i s s u e s i n o r d e rt o s e c u r e a r e v e r s a l o f th e l o w e rc o u r t ’ s d e t e r m i n a t i o n . ” ) . We d e p a rt f ro m th is ru le o n lyw h e n “ m a n if e st in ju stic e w o u ld re su lt” f

ro m a f a ilu re to cons i dera novel i s s ue. Pr i t zkerv. M err i l l L ynch, Pi er ce, Fenner& Sm i t h, I nc. 7 F. 3d 1110, 1115 ( 3d C i r . 1993) . T he s ol e i s s ue thatM i l l s pr es ent s i n hi s i nform al br i ef i s t hat PG W ’ s us e of c om panys eni or i t yi n hi r i ng forthe Seni orD r i verI I pos i t i on vi ol at ed the

“ U n i o n B o o k . ” E v e n i f t h a ta r g u m e n ts o m e h o w d e m o n s t r a t e d th a tP G W ’ s s e n i o r i t yb a se d se lec tio n p ro c e ss w a s p re tex t f o r ra c e d isc rim in a tio n , M ill s c o u ld h a v e a ss e rte d it i n h is r esp o n se to P G W ’s m o ti o n fo r sum m aryjud g m en t. H o w ev er, as the D istri ct C o u rt not ed, M i l l s i gnor ed PG W ’ s as s er t ed l egi t i m at e non- di s cr i m i nat oryr eas on fornot i nt ervi ew i ng ors el ect i ng hi m fort he Seni orD r i verI I pos i t i on. T hus , beca us e ther e i s no r ecor d of thi s t heorybei ng r ai s ed i n the D i s t r i ctC our t , and bec aus e ther e i s no i ndi cat i on th a t m a n if

e s t in ju s tic e w ill r e s u lt, w e w ill n o t c o n s id e r i t h e re . A d d iti o n a lly , af

ter a th o ro u g h re v iew o f th e re c o rd a n d th e b rie f s s u b m itt e d to th is C our t , w e fi nd no err ori n t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s entr yof s um m aryj udgm ent . T hus , fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m t he D i s t r i ctC ourt ’ s entr yof s um m aryj udgm enti n favor o f P G W .