Federal Civil Rights

Pennsylvania
By Christopher Boyle Sr., Esq. (610-354-8476 or cpboyle@mdwcg.com)

Even Where The Underlying Lawsuit Is Found To Be Without Merit, A Municipality May Still Be Subject To Litigation And Liability If They Take Action In Retaliation For An Employee Filing Suit.
Skrutski v. Marut, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 15452 (3d Cir. 2008)

Allegedly, as a result of a police corporal's reports of instances of inappropriate conduct by fellow officers and of his filing of a lawsuit, the defendants retaliated against him by subjecting him to a number of adverse employment actions. The corporal's criticism and reprimands of another officer for not fulfilling her administrative and investigative responsibilities was done as part of the corporal's official duties as a supervisor. Thus, none of these internal statements could serve as the predicate for a viable First Amendment retaliation claim. On the other hand, there was no dispute that the corporal's filing of a lawsuit was a protected activity. The lesson here is that, even where the underlying suit is found to be without merit, a Department may still be liable for retaliation if they take action as a result of the suit being filed. The defendants were also entitled to prevail on the corporal's substantive due process claim because he failed to present any evidence at trial that he was legally entitled to any overtime assignments.

Where An Individual Sends Profane And Threatening Letters To Municipal Officials, The Police Are Within Their Rights, And The Individual's Rights Are Not Per Se Violated, When Police Escort Him Within Municipal Property.
Deninno v. Municipality of Penn Hills, 269 Fed. Appx. 153 (3d Cir. 2008)

The owner's suit arose from his attempt to develop his property. Earlier, the owner filed a state court suit challenging decisions to revoke his grading permit and to deny his additional site plan applications. Although he obtained relief, the owner filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 rather than take the steps necessary to get his grading permit reinstated. The court found no error in the district court's decision. The owner's First Amendment retaliation claim, arising from the fact that he was escorted by the police when he visited a municipal building, failed because he did not show any causal connection between the escort and his actions in seeking a grading permit. The escort was ordered after the owner sent profane letters to individuals who worked in the building. The owner's 5^th & 14^th Amendment, takings, due process, and equal protection claims were not ripe for adjudication because there were still processes available to him in the state courts and because a final decision had not been issued on his grading permit. No 4^th Amendment violation occurred. The police officer had probable cause to believe that the owner trespassed on a neighbor's property.