David Holt, II v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
683 F. App'x 151
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- David Holt, an African American Pennsylvania State Trooper (sergeant), sued PSP and three supervisors alleging race discrimination and retaliation under § 1983 (Equal Protection and First Amendment), Title VII, and the PHRA arising from ~10 incidents between 2008–2011. Two jury trials produced mixed verdicts; the Magistrate Judge set aside most favorable verdicts and entered JMOL for defendants on many claims.
- Key contested incidents: (1) Phillips IAD investigation initiated by Captain Johnson (late 2008); (2) non-selection for commander positions at Jonestown and Schuylkill Haven after Holt filed an EEO complaint (April–July 2009); (3) derogatory roll-call comments by Lt. Brahl when Holt sought transfer to Troop T (spring 2011); (4) "schizophrenic memo" IAD investigation initiated by Captain Winterbottom after Holt missed a deadline (Aug. 2011); (5) Day-off IAD investigation for failing to notify Brahl (Sept. 2011).
- Jury found liability/awards on some claims (including Title VII retaliation against Johnson for non-selection and § 1983 against Winterbottom for the Pocono assignment and for the memo incident), but the Magistrate Judge granted JMOL for defendants on many counts and remitted certain awards; Holt appealed those rulings.
- The Third Circuit affirmed JMOL as to the Phillips investigation, roll-call comments, schizophrenic memo (on qualified immunity), and Day-Off incident (no recoverable damages), but reversed JMOL on Holt’s Title VII retaliation claim for non-selection and remanded to reinstate the jury verdict and damages (subject to an unchallenged conditional remittitur).
- Court emphasized reviewing the record as a whole and the jury’s credibility findings; it applied Title VII/PHRA standards together and invoked qualified immunity for the § 1983 claims where law was unsettled.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Johnson’s initiation/continuation of the Phillips IAD investigation was race discrimination or actionable First Amendment retaliation | Holt: IAD initiation was discriminatory/retaliatory; protected speech/support for friend’s case | Defendants: insufficient comparator evidence; speech not public/political so not First Amendment protected | Affirmed JMOL for defendants — no sufficient comparator for § 1983, First Amendment amendment futile (speech not public concern) |
| Whether Johnson’s refusal to appoint Holt to commander positions was Title VII retaliation | Holt: non-selection was retaliation for EEO complaint; jury verdict supported causal inference from record-wide circumstantial evidence | Defendants: no causal nexus; Magistrate found timing/other evidence insufficient | Reversed JMOL; remanded to reinstate jury verdict and damages (subject to conditional remittitur) |
| Whether Brahl’s roll-call comments were an adverse employment action (Equal Protection/Title VII) | Holt: comments damaged reputation and impeded assignments, so constituted adverse action | Defendants: derogatory comments alone are not adverse employment actions | Affirmed JMOL for defendants — comments not adverse employment action |
| Whether Winterbottom’s initiation of the IAD investigation over the "schizophrenic" memo violated First Amendment or Equal Protection (and whether qualified immunity applies) | Holt: memo investigation was retaliation and race discrimination; jury found for Holt | Defendants: insufficient evidence of retaliatory/racial animus; qualified immunity shields official because law unclear on whether IAD initiation is adverse action | Affirmed JMOL on qualified immunity grounds; official entitled to immunity because law unsettled |
Key Cases Cited
- Avaya Inc. v. Telecom Labs., Inc., 838 F.3d 354 (3d Cir.) (standard of appellate review for JMOL)
- Williams v. Runyon, 130 F.3d 568 (3d Cir.) (Rule 50 waiver/notice principles)
- LeBoon v. Lancaster Jewish Cmty. Ctr. Ass'n, 503 F.3d 217 (3d Cir.) (temporal proximity for causation in retaliation)
- Farrell v. Planters Lifesavers Co., 206 F.3d 271 (3d Cir.) (looking to record as a whole for retaliatory animus)
- Jones v. Se. Pa. Transp. Auth., 796 F.3d 323 (3d Cir.) (adverse employment action standard; suspension with pay not adverse)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (qualified immunity framework)
- Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603 (reliance on unsettled law supports qualified immunity)
- Mammaro v. N.J. Div. of Child Protection and Permanency, 814 F.3d 164 (3d Cir.) (clarifying standard for clearly established law in qualified immunity)