Nico Electrical Contractor, Inc. v. City of Camden
709 F. App'x 148
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Marshall B. Williams, owner of Nico Electrical (non‑union), sued the City of Camden, two electrical inspectors (Revaitis and Emenecker), their supervisor (Rizzo), and the city code director under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming retaliation for his non‑union status.
- Alleged misconduct arose from four inspection incidents between November 2011 and August 2013 where inspectors temporarily failed or criticized his work; in each case the work was ultimately approved or corrected.
- Williams contended non‑union status is a protected associational interest under the First Amendment and that inspectors treated him adversely because he was non‑union.
- The District Court granted summary judgment for defendants; on appeal the Third Circuit reviewed de novo and viewed the evidence in Williams’s favor.
- The Third Circuit affirmed: it found no direct causal link showing actions were motivated by anti‑non‑union animus, rejected the pattern/combined‑incidents theory, and held there was no basis for supervisory or Monell liability.
- The court noted a city investigation also found Williams’s claims lacked merit and discounted an out‑of‑period CFO remark and uncited regulatory claims as irrelevant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether non‑union status is protected associational conduct under the First Amendment | Williams: non‑union affiliation is an expressive/associational right and inspectors retaliated against him for it | Defendants: actions were routine inspections/quality disputes, not punishment for non‑union status | Court: did not decide viability of claim but found no evidence of retaliation tied to non‑union status, so claim fails |
| Whether inspectors’ actions constituted retaliation sufficient to deter exercise of rights and were causally linked to protected conduct | Williams: repeated failures, comments, and required free remediation show retaliatory pattern | Defendants: disagreements reflect perceived quality issues or inspector error, not anti‑union animus | Court: no sufficiently direct causal link; comments and failures consistent with quality disputes; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether supervisory liability applies (Rizzo and Afanador) | Williams: supervisors are liable for subordinates’ unconstitutional conduct | Defendants: no underlying constitutional violation by inspectors, so no supervisory liability | Court: no individual constitutional violation → no supervisory liability |
| Whether the City is liable under Monell for a custom/policy of discrimination | Williams: City had a policy/custom favoring union contractors (pointing to alleged CFO remark) | Defendants: no underlying violation and no evidence of a municipal custom or policy | Court: Monell claim fails because no predicate constitutional violation and no evidence of a custom |
Key Cases Cited
- Thomas v. Independence Twp., 463 F.3d 285 (3d Cir. 2006) (elements for a First Amendment retaliation claim)
- Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge 1 v. City of Camden, 842 F.3d 231 (3d Cir. 2016) (standard for reviewing summary judgment; view evidence for nonmoving party)
- Mulholland v. Gov’t Cty. of Berks, 706 F.3d 227 (3d Cir. 2013) (Monell liability requires an underlying constitutional violation)