From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Boles v. City of Philadelphia Water Dept

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Jun 29, 2011
434 F. App'x 55 (3d Cir. 2011)

Summary

holding that being only minority in workplace "do[es] not support an inference of discrimination"

Summary of this case from Odrick v. Scully Co.

Opinion

No. 10-2870.

Submitted pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) Tuesday, May 24, 2011.

Opinion filed: June 29, 2011.

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Civ. No. 2-06-cv-01609), District Judge: Hon. Stewart Dalzell.

Alice W. Ballard, Esq., J. Matthew Wolfe, Esq., Law Office of Alice W. Ballard, Philadelphia, PA, Robert T. Vance, Jr., Esq., Philadelphia, PA, for Appellant.

Elise M. Bruhl, Esq., City of Philadelphia Law Department, Philadelphia, PA, for City of Philadelphia Water Department.

Before: McKEE, Chief Judge, SCIRICA and RENDELL, Circuit Judges.


OPINION


Laureen M. Boles appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant City of Philadelphia on the claims she brought under Title VII and Pennsylvania's Human Relations Act. For the reasons set forth below, we will affirm.

Because we write primarily for the parties, we need not repeat the facts or procedural dural history of this case. Moreover, the district court has ably summarized the relevant background. See Boles v. City of Phila. Water Dept, 2010 WL 2044473 (E.D.Pa. May 21, 2010). On appeal, Boles argues that the district court erred: (1) when it granted summary judgment to the City of Philadelphia on her claim that she was subject to disparate treatment on account of her race; and (2) when it failed to consider claims of retaliation and hostile work environment, which did not appear in Boles's complaint. Those claims were raised in Boles' response to the City's motion for summary judgment.

In his detailed and thoughtful opinion, Judge Dalzell carefully and clearly explained his reasons for granting the City's motion for summary judgment. See id. We can add little to Judge Dalzell's analysis and discussion and we will therefore affirm the district court's order for substantially the same reasons as set forth in that opinion.


Summaries of

Boles v. City of Philadelphia Water Dept

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Jun 29, 2011
434 F. App'x 55 (3d Cir. 2011)

holding that being only minority in workplace "do[es] not support an inference of discrimination"

Summary of this case from Odrick v. Scully Co.
Case details for

Boles v. City of Philadelphia Water Dept

Case Details

Full title:Laureen M. BOLES, Appellant v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA WATER DEPARTMENT

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

Date published: Jun 29, 2011

Citations

434 F. App'x 55 (3d Cir. 2011)

Citing Cases

Odrick v. Scully Co.

Mr. Odrick's status as the only employee member of a protected class does not establish discrimination by his…