Jill Mancini v. Northampton County
836 F.3d 308
| 3rd Cir. | 2016Background
- Mancini was hired as a full‑time assistant county solicitor in Northampton County (2007) and the jury found her position was a "career service" job entitled to termination only for "just cause."
- After a Republican County Executive (Brown) took office, Brown and incoming County Solicitor (Scomillio) eliminated the two full‑time assistant solicitor positions (Jan 2014) and replaced them with part‑time positions; Mancini was not offered the new posts or allowed to displace part‑time staff.
- Mancini was suspended with pay, then terminated; she filed grievances and appeals but received no pretermination hearing and the Personnel Appeals Board never issued a final decision.
- Mancini sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violation of Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process and First Amendment political‑discrimination claims; the jury found a due process violation against Northampton County (awarding $94,232) but found no First Amendment violation.
- Northampton argued a "reorganization exception" to pretermination process, that county policy or state law excused process during reorganizations, and that solicitors are at‑will; the District Court denied JMOL and awarded Mancini attorney’s fees under § 1988; the Third Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mancini had a protected property interest in her job | Mancini: position was career service; only terminable for just cause, so due process applies | Northampton: position was exempt/at‑will or reclassified; no protected property interest | Held: jury found career service status; Court accepts that finding and held Mancini had a protected property interest |
| Whether pretermination process was required when position eliminated in reorganization | Mancini: even in a reorganization, she was entitled to notice and a meaningful pretermination hearing because she was protected | Northampton: a bona fide reorganization eliminating a position obviates need for pretermination hearing (reorganization exception) | Held: No reorganization exception applies where reorganization may be pretext; evidence supported jury finding of inadequate pretermination process |
| Whether the reorganization was bona fide or pretextual | Mancini: Defendants targeted her personally, failed to follow layoff policy, redistributed work to part‑timers, and made decision based on knowledge of individuals | Northampton: action was cost‑driven, person‑neutral restructuring | Held: Sufficient evidence of pretext (decision made before office review, personnel preferences, Layoff Policy violations); jury reasonably found pretext and due process violation |
| Whether Mancini is entitled to § 1988 attorney's fees despite partial success | Mancini: claims shared common core of facts; prevailing on key issue (career status/due process) justifies full fee award | Northampton: minimal success; award should be reduced proportionally | Held: District Court did not abuse discretion; claims were related and overlap justified fee award |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (framework for determining required procedural protections)
- Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985) (public employees with property interest entitled to notice and pretermination opportunity to respond)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (standards for awarding attorney’s fees to prevailing civil rights plaintiffs)
- Whalen v. Mass. Trial Ct., 397 F.3d 19 (1st Cir. 2005) (discussing a limited reorganization exception where layoffs are bona fide and identity‑neutral)
- Rodriguez‑Sanchez v. Municipality of Santa Isabel, 658 F.3d 125 (1st Cir. 2011) (upholding no‑process layoffs in large, systemwide, non‑pretextual RIF)
- Dee v. Borough of Dunmore, 549 F.3d 225 (3d Cir. 2008) (career‑service status creates cognizable property interest)
- Elmore v. Cleary, 399 F.3d 279 (3d Cir. 2005) (unilateral expectation insufficient for property interest)
- Schmidt v. Creedon, 639 F.3d 587 (3d Cir. 2011) (notice, explanation of evidence, and chance to present side required)
- Misek v. City of Chicago, 783 F.2d 98 (7th Cir. 1986) (rejecting sham reorganization as a means to avoid due process)