629 F. App'x 362
3rd Cir.2015Background
- Michael M. Choy (pro se on appeal) sued Comcast alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and New Jersey’s CEPA after his March–August 2007 employment as a Principal Network Engineer ended with a termination notice (June 27, 2007) and final termination (August 15, 2007).
- At district court, Comcast won summary judgment on the CEPA claim; the § 1981 claim proceeded to a two-week jury trial and resulted in a verdict for Comcast in September 2012.
- After trial Choy sought transcripts, moved under Rule 60(b) for a new trial (denied), sought access to the court reporter’s personal audio backup of the jury selection proceeding (denied), and appealed multiple rulings; one appeal was dismissed as untimely.
- Choy’s CEPA theory relied on whistleblowing he said began in mid‑May 2007 (raising concerns about disclosure of a vendor’s proprietary information); Comcast maintained it terminated him for documented poor performance predating those complaints.
- Choy also raised appellate claims that the district court improperly handled voir dire (failed to ask education level, dismissed Comcast subscribers wholesale, failed to screen bias) and challenged the accuracy of the jury selection transcript, seeking the reporter’s audio to prove omissions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| CEPA retaliatory‑discharge claim — causation and pretext | Choy argued his mid‑May whistleblowing caused the June/July termination actions (temporal proximity supports inference) | Comcast argued it fired Choy for longstanding, documented poor performance and offered nondiscriminatory reasons | Summary judgment for Comcast affirmed: ~6 weeks’ proximity insufficient alone; performance problems preceded whistleblowing and provided legitimate reason, and no genuine issue of pretext |
| Voir dire procedures / jury selection challenges | Choy alleged the court failed to ask education level, excused all Comcast subscribers, and inadequately screened bias | Comcast (and record) showed questionnaires asked education, only one Comcast subscriber was excused for bias, and voir dire addressed bias | Claims waived for failure to contemporaneously object; in any event transcript contradicts Choy and claims lack merit |
| Access to court reporter’s personal audio backup | Choy contended the transcript omitted or altered voir dire (e.g., wholesale excusal of Comcast subscribers) and sought the audio to verify corruption | Comcast/district court noted reporter’s stenographic notes are official record and reporter confirmed transcript accuracy after checking notes and audio | Denial of audio access affirmed: backup audiotapes are not judicial records absent evidence casting doubt on transcript accuracy; Choy’s assertions were unsubstantiated |
| Rule 60(b) appeal timeliness / supplemental appeals | Choy sought post‑trial relief and appealed the denial of Rule 60(b) relief | District court entered order denying Rule 60(b); appellate court requires timely notice of appeal | Appeal from denial of Rule 60(b) was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because Choy’s notice of appeal was untimely |
Key Cases Cited
- Tri‑M Grp., LLC v. Sharp, 638 F.3d 406 (3d Cir. 2011) (standard of appellate review for summary judgment)
- Kaucher v. County of Bucks, 455 F.3d 418 (3d Cir. 2006) (summary judgment standard and inferences for nonmoving party)
- Abbamont v. Piscataway Bd. of Educ., 650 A.2d 958 (N.J. 1994) (CEPA purpose and protection for employee reporting)
- Blackburn v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 179 F.3d 81 (3d Cir. 1999) (elements and framework for CEPA retaliation claims)
- Budhun v. Reading Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 765 F.3d 245 (3d Cir. 2014) (temporal proximity alone is often insufficient to establish causation)
- Smith v. U.S. Dist. Court Officers, 203 F.3d 440 (7th Cir. 2000) (backup audiotapes are not judicial records absent reason to doubt transcript)
- In re Pratt, 511 F.3d 483 (5th Cir. 2007) (same principle regarding court reporter backups)