Michalesko v. Freeland Borough, 3:13-cv-02634

Background

Scott D. Michalesko, a 12‑year Freeland Borough police officer and union bargaining‑committee chair, was injured in August 2011 and on medical leave through early December.
In September 2011 he notified the Borough council that the union would pursue binding interest arbitration; he alleges this triggered a campaign of harassment.
On December 22, 2011, family members reported Michalesko threatened suicide and three personal firearms were seized; he voluntarily sought brief hospital mental‑health treatment.
Police chief notified council and requested Michalesko be relieved of duties; council suspended him without pay on January 3, 2012 and later voted to terminate him for "conduct unbecoming an officer." An arbitration panel later reversed the termination.
Michalesko sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (procedural due process and First Amendment retaliation), the ADA, and the PHRA; defendants moved to dismiss.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Pre‑suspension due process: was a Loudermill‑style pre‑suspension hearing required before suspending Michalesko without pay?	Michalesko: as a borough police officer with a protected property interest, he was entitled to a pre‑suspension hearing; none was provided.	Borough: public‑safety concerns based on suicide report justified immediate suspension without predeprivation process (extraordinary circumstances).	Denied dismissal as to Borough — plausible due process claim survives; further fact development needed. Individual council members entitled to qualified immunity on due process claim.
First Amendment retaliation: did council retaliate for protected union activity (notice of arbitration)?	Michalesko: his September notice of arbitration was protected speech and was a motivating factor in later adverse actions (suspension/termination).	Borough: actions were justified by safety concerns and legitimate nonretaliatory reasons.	Denied dismissal — First Amendment claim may proceed against Borough and individual council members (qualified immunity not appropriate at this stage).
Monell municipal liability: can Borough be liable for council’s conduct or alleged failure to train?	Michalesko: Borough failed to train council and council actions constitute official policy; Monell claim is viable.	Borough: single incidents insufficient to show municipal policy or custom.	Denied dismissal — Monell theory survives as council is the Borough’s policymaking body; council decisions may constitute municipal policy.
ADA / PHRA disability discrimination: did Borough regard Michalesko as disabled or terminate him because of disability?	Michalesko: defendants fired him because of alleged mental infirmity and disparaged his medical condition.	Borough: termination was for conduct unbecoming an officer; medical records show he was cleared and any impairment was transient; no individual liability under ADA.	ADA and PHRA claims dismissed with prejudice as pleaded — allegations show a transient condition and supporting documents indicate termination for conduct, not disability; no individual liability under ADA.

Key Cases Cited

Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (recognizing property interest in public employment when state law creates entitlement)
Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (pretermination notice and opportunity to respond required for public employees with property interest)
Gilbert v. Homar, 520 U.S. 924 (postdeprivation process may suffice when extraordinary circumstances require immediate action)
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (balancing test for required due‑process procedures)
Schmidt v. Creedon, 639 F.3d 587 (Third Circuit: police officers generally entitled to pre‑suspension hearing absent extraordinary circumstances)
Dee v. Borough of Dunmore, 549 F.3d 225 (discussing risk of erroneous deprivation without predeprivation process)
Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability only for official policy or custom)
Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469 (single decision by a properly constituted legislative body can be municipal policy)
Sulima v. Tobyhanna Army Depot, 602 F.3d 177 (standard for "regarded as" disabled under ADA)
Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603 (clarifying level-of‑generality concerns in qualified immunity analysis)