66 F. Supp. 3d 592
M.D. Penn.2014Background
- Keslosky, a long‑time Old Forge police officer, had certification lapses and was suspended in 2005 for failing to comply with MPOETC requirements.
- Commonwealth Court and state proceedings addressed certification timing (1999 vs 2001) and civil service decisions, with final affirmations before federal suit.
- Old Forge repeatedly sought certification compliance, including notices in 2004 and 2005 and a 2005 suspension pending re‑certification.
- Federal suit alleges First Amendment retaliation, §1983 claims, USERRA/PMAA reemployment and discrimination, and PHRA/Title VII claims, among others.
- The court granted summary judgment on most claims, limited some USERRA/PMAA issues for trial, and deferred collateral estoppel effects where appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| First Amendment retaliation claim viability | Keslosky argues retaliation for protected speech at council meetings and related actions. | Defendants contend insufficiency of protected‑speech proof and lack of causation; Commonwealth Court findings relevant. | Count II granted to defendants; no triable issue on protected speech causation. |
| § 1983 claims timeliness and merits | Keslosky asserts ongoing retaliation and constitutional rights violations. | Actions predated 2005; statute of limitations and lack of causation defeat claims. | Count III granted to defendants; §1983 claims time‑barred. |
| USERRA reemployment and discrimination under §4311‑4313 | Keslosky seeks reemployment rights and relief under USERRA protections. | Certification lapse and lack of available position; some issues require trial; race/military status claims addressed. | Count IV partially denied; triable issues on reemployment/discrimination under §4311 remain; §4313 issues partly barred; relief limited to potential alternate positions. |
| PMAA discrimination claim viability | Keslosky alleges discrimination based on military status under PMAA. | PA Supreme Court would align PMAA with USERRA; limited record on direct PMAA discrimination. | Count V denied against most defendants; Borough remains potentially liable; triable issues noted. |
| PHRA/Title VII discrimination and retaliation defenses | Keslosky asserts national origin/religion discrimination and retaliation. | Claims time‑barred or unsupported by evidence; failure to prove qualifications and causation. | Counts VI–IX granted in favor of Borough; claims dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Baldassare v. State of N.J., 250 F.3d 188 (3d Cir.2001) (three‑step test for public employee retaliation; burden shifts to employer)
- Engquist v. Oregon Dept. of Agriculture, 553 U.S. 591 (U.S. 2008) (class‑of‑one equal protection not cognizable in public employment context)
- McLaughlin v. Fisher, 277 F. App’x 207 (3d Cir.2008) (collateral estoppel and state court decisions referenced for preclusion)
- Parsons Steel, Inc. v. First Alabama Bank, 474 U.S. 518 (U.S. 1986) (Full Faith and Credit Act; state judgments given federal preclusion effect)