Mike Baloga v. Pittston Area School District, 927 F.3d 742

Background

Baloga, a Pittston Area School District custodian and union vice president, was annually rotated between a primary center (outdoor work) and the high school; in Jan 2016 the union filed a grievance over losing MLK Day as a holiday.
Shortly after the grievance, Baloga spoke with maintenance director Serino and was told he should not have filed the grievance; within days he was transferred back to the primary center more than a month earlier than usual and has not returned to the high school.
Baloga alleges the transfer was retaliation for his union leadership/association and brought § 1983 claims for First Amendment retaliation (speech and association) against the District and Serino.
The District Court granted summary judgment for defendants, holding Baloga’s activity did not involve a matter of public concern and disposing of both speech and association claims together.
The Third Circuit reversed in part: it held that a pure union-association claim (membership/leadership) need not satisfy the Connick public-concern test because union membership is inherently a public concern, and found triable issues on protected conduct, adverse action, and causation as to Serino (qualified immunity denied); it affirmed dismissal of Monell claims against the District for lack of municipal policymaker evidence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Baloga engaged in constitutionally protected conduct (public-concern requirement)	Baloga: claim is a pure union-association claim (leadership/membership) and thus is inherently a matter of public concern	District/Serino: association tied to grievance speech, so public-concern test applies and is lacking	Held: union membership/leadership claims are per se matters of public concern under Palardy; protected conduct survives summary judgment
Whether the transfer was an adverse action	Baloga: accelerated/essentially permanent transfer reduced responsibilities, disrupted childcare/shift benefits, injured reputation — sufficient to deter an ordinary person	Defendants: effects were de minimis because pay/benefits unchanged and rotations are routine	Held: triable issue exists; transfer can be an adverse action (not de minimis)
Whether causation (retaliatory motive) was shown	Baloga: close temporal proximity, Serino’s anti-union remarks, and threats support inference that transfer was motivated by union activity	Defendants: transfers are routine and new hires obviated need for Baloga at high school, so transfer would have occurred regardless	Held: disputed material facts remain; reasonable jury could find protected activity was a motivating/but-for factor
Municipal (Monell) liability of the District	Baloga: District liable because action by Serino reflects municipal practice/policy	District: no final policymaker authorized the retaliatory action; Serino lacked final decision authority	Held: affirmed for the District — no evidence Serino was a final policymaker or that board/superintendent approved unlawful transfer

Key Cases Cited

Palardy v. Township of Millburn, 906 F.3d 76 (3d Cir. 2018) (union membership/leadership association claims are matters of public concern)
Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968) (balance public employee speech rights against employer interest in efficiency)
Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983) (public-concern requirement for protected employee speech)
Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability requires policy or custom by a final policymaker)
Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006) (distinguishes speech pursuant to official duties from citizen speech)
Smith v. Arkansas State Highway Employees, 441 U.S. 463 (1979) (First Amendment protects public employees’ right to union association)
Suppan v. Dadonna, 203 F.3d 228 (3d Cir. 2000) (very low threshold for actionable retaliation; adverse actions need not affect pay)