McCauley v. Computer Aid, Inc. ( 2007 )

Opinions of the United
2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
6-27-2007
McCauley v. Computer Aid Inc
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 06-4089
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
Recommended Citation
"McCauley v. Computer Aid Inc" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 878.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/878
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 2007 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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 06-4089
________________
JOHN MCCAULEY
vs.
COMPUTER AID, INC.
(E.D. Pa. Civ. No. 06-cv-01620)
________________
JOHN MCCAULEY
vs.
Corporate Officers ANTHONY J. SALVAGGIO, President; WINSLOW S. HILL, Vice
President; NORENE L. SALVAGGIO, Secretary
(E.D. Pa. Civ. No. 06-cv-02612)
John McCauley, Appellant
____________________________________
On Appeal from the Order of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
District Court Judge: Honorable Marvin Katz
_______________________________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
June 21, 2007
Before: FISHER, ALDISERT and WEIS, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed June 27, 2007)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM.
John McCauley, proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights action in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against
Computer Aid, Inc. after Computer Aid terminated McCauley’s
employment. McCauley also filed a complaint against Computer Aid’s
corporate officers, Anthony J. Salvaggio, Winslow S. Hill, and Norene L.
Salvaggio (together with Computer Aid, the “Defendants”). The District
Court consolidated the actions, and granted the Defendants’ motion to
dismiss McCauley’s complaints. We will affirm.
In both complaints, McCauley alleged that Computer Aid hired him
as a Help Desk Analyst on June 4, 2004. The Recruiting Manager, Mrs.
Reynolds, helped McCauley complete Computer Aid’s employment forms.
McCauley asked Reynolds whether he needed to provide his social security
number on the forms. Reynolds replied that she did not know, and told
McCauley that she would contact him at Computer Aid’s client’s place of
business.
McCauley began training at the client’s work site. McCauley
alleged that he was issued an identification card several days later, but was
then instructed to go home and await further instructions because of a
questionable criminal background check. McCauley spoke to Reynolds,
who told him that he satisfied the criminal background check, but asked
2
him whether he took his drug-screening test at an authorized testing site. McCauley
alleged that he then met with Reynolds. She confirmed that he took the drug-screening
test at an authorized site, and told him that he must complete the employment forms.
McCauley again asked whether he needed to provide his social security number.
Reynolds told McCauley she would contact him later. On June 16, 2004, Reynolds called
McCauley, and told him that Computer Aid was terminating his employment because he
failed to complete and meet its hiring criteria.
McCauley claimed that the Defendants violated Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq., by firing him on account of his
national origin (American) and by retaliating against him. McCauley asserted that the
Defendants discriminated against him by requiring that he provide his social security
number on an I-9 immigration form and a health insurance enrollment form. McCauley
also brought various constitutional claims, asserted a violation of his statutory right to
privacy, and advanced claims under state law.
The Defendants moved to dismiss the complaints for failure to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted. The District Court dismissed McCauley’s federal
claims, and declined to exercise jurisdiction over his state law claims. The District Court
also denied McCauley’s motion for reconsideration. This appeal followed. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our standard of review is plenary. Curay-Cramer v.
Ursuline Academy, 450 F.3d 130, 133 (3d Cir. 2006).
Although McCauley asserted violations of Title VII in the first two counts
3
of his complaint, he does not address these claims on appeal. To the extent McCauley
still seeks to pursue these claims, his complaint does not state a prima facie case for
national origin discrimination. Even assuming McCauley alleged facts that, if true,
established that he is a member of a protected class and qualified to perform his job, he
did not plead facts showing that he was fired under circumstances that give rise to an
inference of unlawful discrimination. See Waldron v. SL Industries, Inc., 56 F.3d 491,
494 (3d Cir. 1995) (setting forth elements of a prima facie case of discrimination).
McCauley does not contend that he was fired because he is American, but because he
refused to provide his social security number on his employment forms, a requirement he
acknowledges was imposed on all of Computer Aid’s employees. See Appendix at 245-
46, 259; Appellant’s Br. at 22-3.
Other courts of appeals have rejected similar discrimination claims, noting
that federal law requires employers to collect social security numbers to aid enforcement
of tax and immigration laws, and that these requirements apply to all employees. See,
e.g., Cassano v. Carb, 436 F.3d 74, 75 (2d Cir. 2006) (holding that employee who was
fired for refusing to provide her social security number to her employer for fear of
identity theft failed to state a claim under anti-discrimination statutes). McCauley
primarily argues on appeal that Computer Aid was not legally required to obtain his social
security number as a condition of his employment. Even if true, McCauley’s allegations
4
do not support a conclusion that he was fired on account of his national origin.1
McCauley also failed to state a claim for a violation of his constitutional right to privacy
or his right to equal protection under the law.2 Requiring disclosure of a social security
number does not so threaten the sanctity of individual privacy as to require constitutional
protection. See Cassano, 436 F.3d at 75; McElrath v. Califano, 615 F.2d 434, 441 (7th
Cir. 1980). In addition, McCauley has not alleged that the Defendants treated him
differently from those similarly situated to him for purposes of an equal protection claim.
See Andrews v. City of Philadelphia, 895 F.2d 1469, 1478 (3d Cir. 1990). He only
contends that Computer Aid’s foreign employees need not provide a social security
number as a condition of employment. See also Cassano, 436 F.3d at 75-6 (rejecting
equal protection claim because the collection of social security numbers is neutrally
applied, those who refuse to disclose their numbers for fear of identify theft are not a
protected class, and the laws requiring the collection of social security numbers have a
1
Similarly, McCauley did not allege facts that, if true, established that he engaged in a
protected activity for purposes of a retaliation claim. See Moore v. City of Philadelphia,
461 F.3d 331, 341 (3d Cir. 2006) (noting that an employee must hold an objectively
reasonable belief that an activity he opposes is unlawful under Title VII).
2
McCauley brought his claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The District Court concluded
that the Defendants did not act under color of state law. We do not address whether the
Defendants were state actors because, as discussed below, we agree that McCauley was
not deprived of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or federal
law. See Kost v. Kozakiewicz, 1 F.3d 176, 184 (3d Cir. 1993) (stating requirements for
§ 1983 action). For the same reason, we do not address whether McCauley established
federal action necessary for a Bivens action, asserted in count five of his complaint
against Computer Aid and count three of his complaint against the corporate officers.
5
rational basis).
We further conclude, for substantially the reasons stated by the District
Court, that McCauley failed to state a claim under the Privacy Act of 1974, 18 U.S.C. §§
241 and 242, or 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985(3) and 1986. Finally, the District Court did not err in
declining to exercise jurisdiction over McCauley’s state law claims, nor did it abuse its
discretion in denying McCauley’s motion for reconsideration. Accordingly, we will
affirm the orders of the District Court.
6