Date: 03-13-2002

Case Style: Eric Gregg, v. National League of Professional Baseball Clubs

Case Number: 02-1902

Judge: Alan D. Lourie

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on appeal from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia County

Plaintiff's Attorney: Alice Ballard, Law Office of Alice W. Ballard, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Defendant's Attorney: Steven R. Wall, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Description: Appellant, Eric Gregg, appeals from an order of the District Court which
granted summary judgment in favor of the National League of Professional Baseball Clubs,
Leonard S. Coleman, and Major League Baseball Commissioner’s Office. Appellant
alleges as error the issue listed in paragraph I, taken verbatim from his brief. Because we
conclude that the District Court did not err, we will affirm.

I.

The allegation of error asserted by appellant is as follows:
Did the District Court err when it dismissed Mr. Gregg’s claim of disability
discrimination on summary judgment on the ground that he was not protected
by the PHRA?

II.

The facts and procedural history of this case are well known to the parties and
the court, and it is not necessary that we restate them here. The court has heard oral
argument on the issue presented to us in this appeal. The reasons why we write an opinion
of the court are threefold: to instruct the District Court, to educate and inform the
attorneys and parties, and to explain our decision. We use a not-precedential opinion in
cases such as this, in which a precedential opinion is rendered unnecessary because the
opinion has no institutional or precedential value. See United States Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit, Internal Operating Procedure (I.O.P.) 5.3. Under the usual circumstances
when we affirm by not-precedential opinion and judgment, we briefly set forth the reasons
supporting the court’s decision. In this case, however, we have concluded that neither a full
memorandum explanation nor a precedential opinion is indicated because of the very
extensive and thorough opinion filed by Judge John P. Fullam of the District Court. Judge
Fullam’s opinion adequately explains and fully supports its order and refutes the appellant’s
allegations of error. Hence, we believe it wholly unnecessary to further opine, or offer
additional explanations and reasons to those given by the District Court, why we will affirm.

* * *

See: http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/021902u.pdf

Outcome: It is a sufficient explanation to say that, essentially for the reasons given by the District
Court in its opinion dated the 13th day of March, 2002, we will affirm.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: