Opinion ID: 2719372
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Philadelphia Transfer

Text: Locke alternatively avers that US Airways breached the Agreement by preventing his transfer to Philadelphia International Airport, where Locke obtained a comparable mechanic position with US Airways. More specifically, Locke contends that the Agreement did not mandate that [he] needed to work at Logan and that by terminating Locke after he had obtained the Philadelphia position, the airline breached its contractual obligation to reinstate Locke upon completion of any pre-employment steps. Once again, however, Locke's theory lacks an adequate foundation in the record. The apposite evidence comprises only 1) 7 Locke also cites his own testimony that Andrews informed him on October 14 that Bashar was wrongfully and without reason . . . holding [his] badge back and that Conarroe told him in late October that Bashar had been preventing the issuance of the security badge at Logan. Even assuming arguendo that these statements are admissible nonhearsay under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(D) (statements of an opposing party's employees), they are in themselves bald assertions [and] empty conclusions that need not be credited at summary judgment. Pina, 740 F.3d at 795 (internal quotation marks omitted). Locke only offered Andrews's and Conarroe's conclusory remarks that Bashar was preventing the issuance of a badge, with no explanation of how Bashar did so. Indeed, Locke conceded that his only basis . . . for saying that Mr. Bashar was preventing [him] from getting the badge was Bob Andrews telling [him] that Bashar was preventing it. Nor did Andrews or Conarroe themselves offer any corroborating testimony on this point. Without further context and detail, these statements raise no genuine factual questions precluding summary judgment. -17- Locke's testimony in an affidavit that he applied for and received the position on the advice of Conarroe, who promised that he would receive a security badge in Philadelphia; and 2) general testimony of Matthew Ellis-Drackett, a badging officer at Philadelphia International, concerning that airport's security badging procedures. Although Locke suggests that he would have received a security badge at Philadelphia International, he nowhere indicates that he actually obtained such a badge.8 Nor does he argue that this failure to obtain a badge was somehow the fault of US Airways, as he claims was the case at Logan Airport. With no evidence, then, that Locke completed the vital pre-employment step of obtaining a security badge at Philadelphia International, Locke's argument that US Airways was contractually obligated to reinstate him in Philadelphia is a nonstarter. More fundamentally, even if Locke had obtained a security clearance in Philadelphia, the Agreement itself furnishes no basis for Locke's claim that he was entitled to transfer to another airport. The Agreement spoke of Locke's reinstatement to his 8 Even Locke's contention that he would have received a badge in Philadelphia lacks a sufficient basis in the record, resting on little more than unsupported speculation. Alicea, 744 F.3d at 778. In discussing badging procedures, Ellis-Drackett did not address the particular facts of Locke's case, only the airport's general practices. And although Locke testified that Conarroe promised him that he would receive a badge in Philadelphia, there is no indication that Conarroe had any influence on the badging decision in Philadelphia; on the contrary, Ellis-Drackett testified that Conarroe was not an authorized signer for US Airways badge applicants at Philadelphia International. -18- former position, not his transfer to a new position. Furthermore, if US Airways believed that Locke had failed to comply with the Agreement's terms, the Director of Maintenance (i.e., Conarroe) was empowered to conduct a meeting with Locke to determine whether the Agreement had been violated. Conarroe's ultimate determination was to be final and binding with respect to whether [Locke] violated the terms of th[e] Agreement. Conarroe held such a meeting with Locke on November 10, and thereafter terminated Locke for fail[ing] to obtain the required BOS Airport Identification Badge. That determination is conclusive under the terms of the Agreement, regardless of whether Locke personally believes that a transfer to Philadelphia would also have satisfied the Agreement.