Drew Smith v. Township of Stafford, 704 F. App'x 114

Drew Smith (seeking sergeant) and Michael Guadalupe (seeking lieutenant) were Stafford Township police officers who underwent the Township’s formal promotional assessment process and did not receive promotions.
The promotional procedure was set by a Township resolution and included multiple phases, a Supervisory Recommendation roundtable (for sergeant), and a Police Executive Assessment by the Chief of Police.
Neither appellant obtained a high enough score for automatic promotion and both challenged the Chief’s assessments as unfair; Smith also challenged Phase One tie-break handling.
Both appellants declined to follow the formal appeals procedure specified in the Township resolution (Smith did not appeal; Guadalupe attempted informal meetings and a late grievance), asserting that an appeal would be futile because the Chief would review it.
Plaintiffs brought § 1983 suits alleging violations of procedural and substantive due process; district courts granted summary judgment for defendants, and the appeals were consolidated.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Existence of a property interest in fair promotion procedures	Smith/Guadalupe: legitimate entitlement to fair, unbiased promotional examination and compliance with Township rules	Township: no federal property interest; plaintiffs also failed to use available administrative appeal remedies	Court did not decide property-interest question but affirmed judgment because plaintiffs failed to exhaust/apply the available appeals process
Procedural due process — failure to exhaust internal remedies	Plaintiffs: appeals would have been futile because Chief would review his own decision	Township: adequate procedures existed and plaintiffs did not follow them	Court: procedural due process claim fails; plaintiffs did not avail themselves of the Township’s remedies and presented no evidence that the remedies were futile
Substantive due process — arbitrary/bad-faith promotion decision	Plaintiffs: allegedly arbitrary, bad-faith promotion decisions violate substantive due process	Township: promotions and related procedures are not constitutionally protected fundamental interests	Court: substantive due process claim fails; promotional processes and public employment rights are state-created, not fundamental federal rights
Summary judgment standard and reviewability	N/A (procedural)	N/A	Court applied plenary review of summary judgment and affirmed defendants’ summary judgment in both cases

Alvin v. Suzuki, 227 F.3d 107 (3d Cir. 2000) (procedural due process claim requires plaintiffs to pursue available administrative remedies)
Nicholas v. Pa. State Univ., 227 F.3d 133 (3d Cir. 2000) (no substantive due process property interest in public employment)
Goldenstein v. Repossessors Inc., 815 F.3d 142 (3d Cir. 2016) (standard of appellate review for summary judgment)
Hubicki v. ACF Indus., Inc., 484 F.2d 519 (3d Cir. 1973) (grant of summary judgment is a judgment on the merits and may have preclusive effect)