Zachary Barker v. Boeing Co , 609 F. App'x 120 ( 2015 )

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 14-3009
_____________
ZACHARY BARKER;
FRANCIS X. BOYD, JR.; DAVID W. SMITH
v.
THE BOEING COMPANY
Francis X. Boyd, Jr. and David W. Smith,
Appellants
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
District Court No. 2-12-cv-06684
District Judge: The Honorable Luis Felipe Restrepo
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
July 13, 2015
Before: SMITH, GREENAWAY, JR., and SHWARTZ, Circuit Judges
____________________
JUDGMENT ORDER
____________________
This cause came on to be considered on the record from the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and was submitted on July 13, 2015.
Francis X. Boyd, Jr., and David W. Smith, both of whom are Caucasian, alleged that
their former employer, the Boeing Company, discriminated against them on the basis of
their race, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, when it terminated their employment after
they appeared in a photograph taken at work with a third employee looking like members
of the KKK. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Boeing. It
concluded that Boyd and Smith failed to establish a prima facie case of race
discrimination because they were not similarly situated to Kenta Smith, the African-
American employee who took the photograph and reported the incident. In addition, the
Court reasoned that “[e]ven if a jury could somehow find that the evidence met the prima
facie threshold,” “[t]here is no evidence that could lead a reasonable jury to conclude that
Boeing did not really fire the plaintiffs for posing as the KKK, or that a more likely cause
was Boeing’s animus toward” Caucasians. A10. This timely appeal followed.
The District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Appellate jurisdiction
exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review over an order granting
summary judgment. Brown v. J. Kaz, Inc., 581 F.3d 175, 179 (3d Cir. 2009). For
substantially the same grounds set forth in the well-reasoned opinion of the District
Court, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment in favor of Boeing.
On consideration whereof, it is now hereby ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the
judgment of the District Court entered May 15, 2014, be and the same is hereby
AFFIRMED. Costs taxed against Appellants.
By the Court,
s/D. Brooks Smith
Circuit Judge
2
Attest:
s/Marcia M. Waldron
Clerk
DATED: July 14, 2015
3