Bailey v. Reading Housing Authority ( 2006 )

Opinions of the United
2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
7-11-2006
Bailey v. Reading Housing Auth
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-2722
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
Recommended Citation
"Bailey v. Reading Housing Auth" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 760.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/760
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 05-2722
RICARDO G. BAILEY,
Appellant
v.
READING HOUSING AUTHORITY;
DANIEL F. LUCKEY; RICHARD MULUTZIE
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(District Court No: 04-cv-2532)
District Judge: Honorable Juan R. Sanchez
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
May 18, 2006
Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, MCKEE and STAPLETON, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: July 11, 2006)
OPINION
McKEE, Circuit Judge.
Ricardo Bailey appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of
all defendants in the suit he filed alleging that he was fired from his employment with the
Reading Housing Authority because of illegal racial discrimination. For reasons that
follow, we will affirm.
Since we write primarily for the parties who are familiar with this dispute, we do
not recite the facts. The district court explained why summary judgment is appropriate
in this case in the succinct Memorandum and Order it filed on April 29, 2005. App. at
A2. There, the court set forth the elements of plaintiff’s prima facie case and explained
that Bailey had not produced evidence that non-members of the protected class were
treated more favorably than Bailey. We will affirm substantially for the reasons set forth
by the district court.
Bailey claims the court erred in concluding that his allegation that “Mulutzie, a
Caucasian, was promoted in 1995 despite being well known for sleeping on the job” was
insufficient to support a prima facie case of discrimination. App. at A5. He argues that
“sworn statements by a party opposing summary judgment may not just be swept away
by describing them as allegations or bald assertions.” Rather, he cites Levendos v. Stern
Entertainment, Inc., 860 F.2d 1227, 1231 (3d Cir. 1988) to argue that “such a sworn
statement or testimony by itself is sufficient to raise an issue of material fact,”
Appellant’s Br. at 12. In a footnote in Levendos, we cited Jackson v. University of
Pittsburgh, 826 F.2d 230, 236 (3d Cir. 1987), cert denied, 484 U.S. 1020 (1988) in
stating that “‘No rule of law . . . provides that a discrimination plaintiff may not testify in
his or her own behalf, or that such testimony, standing alone, can never make out a case
of discrimination that will survive summary judgment.’” However, Bailey reads far too
much into that excerpt and his argument requires that we stretch it beyond the context of
that case. In Levendos, the plaintiff’s affidavit contained allegations of specific acts of
2
discrimination based upon her own knowledge including nonhearsay statements to other
employees that she was not fit because she was a woman. She also claimed stolen items
were placed in her locker so that she could be falsely accused of theft. She further
submitted the affidavit of a co-employee who stated that her reputation was excellent and
she was popular with customers. All of that evidence was admissible at trial. That is quite
different from Bailey’s attempt to create a genuine issue of material fact by allegations
that it was “common knowledge” that a White employee also slept on the job.
In addition, although Bailey does address the issue of municipal liability in his
Reply brief, the record here is clearly inadequate to establish municipal liability under
Monell v. Department of Social Servs. , 436 U.S. 658 (1978), and its progeny.
Accordingly, for all the reasons set forth above, we will affirm the order of the
district court.
3