Michael Palardy, Jr. v. Township of Millburn
906 F.3d 76
3rd Cir.2018Background
- Palardy was a Millburn, NJ police officer (1988–2014), promoted to captain in 2012; he served in union leadership (PBA and SOA president/vice-president).
- Township business administrator Timothy Gordon controlled promotions and allegedly expressed hostility to Palardy because of his union affiliation.
- Palardy claims Gordon blocked his advancement to Chief of Police because of union membership; Palardy resigned the union presidency hoping it would improve promotion prospects.
- Palardy retired in 2014 and sued the Township and Gordon under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging First Amendment retaliation (free speech and freedom of association).
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants, holding Palardy’s union-related speech and association were not constitutionally protected under Garcetti/Connick. Palardy appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Palardy engaged in constitutionally protected conduct (speech/association) | Palardy argues his union membership and activity are protected First Amendment associational and speech activity that motivated retaliation | Defendants argue Garcetti/Connick bar protection because his conduct was workplace speech or not a matter of public concern | Court: Association claim is protected; speech claim fails as co-extensive with the associational claim and thus not a standalone basis for relief |
| Applicability of Connick public-concern test to pure union association claims | Palardy: Connick should not bar pure associational claims arising from union membership | Defendants: Connick’s public-concern requirement applies to associational claims | Court: Connick’s public-concern test need not apply to pure union-membership associational claims; membership may inherently implicate public concern in this context |
| Applicability of Garcetti (public-employee/official-duty) to union membership | Palardy: Garcetti governs speech, not mere membership; union membership is not an official duty | Defendants: Garcetti applies to limit protection for public-employee workplace communications | Court: Garcetti does not apply to pure associational claims based on union membership here |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate on remaining elements of retaliation (adverse action, causation) | Palardy: Evidence raises genuine issues on retaliatory action and causation | Defendants: District court resolved case on protected-conduct element; did not press other elements on appeal | Court: Remanded for district court to consider deterrence and causation; evidence not so one-sided to warrant summary judgment for defendants on those elements |
Key Cases Cited
- Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006) (public-employee statements pursuant to official duties are not protected speech)
- Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983) (public-employee speech is protected only when it touches on a matter of public concern; balance with employer interests)
- Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968) (balancing employee speech interests against governmental efficiency)
- Sanguigni v. Pittsburg Bd. of Pub. Educ., 968 F.2d 393 (3d Cir. 1992) (Connick applied to certain associational claims that are co-extensive with speech)
- Boddie v. City of Columbus, 989 F.2d 745 (5th Cir. 1993) (union membership of public employees treated as inherently implicating public concern)
- Smith v. Arkansas State Highway Employees, 441 U.S. 463 (1979) (public employee has First Amendment right to associate with a union)
- Janus v. American Fedn. of State, County & Mun. Employees, 138 S. Ct. 2448 (2018) (public employees cannot be compelled to subsidize union speech; referenced regarding union duties)