Richmond Lapolla v. County of Union
157 A.3d 458
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2017Background
- Richmond Lapolla, a long-time Union County employee, held a Civil Service title (Director, Repair and Maintenance) and maintained pay but was repeatedly reassigned to positions he says had no duties (Vo-Tech, JDC, Watchung Stables).
- Lapolla was politically active in the Union County Democratic Committee (donations, literature, fundraising) but testified he was not part of the faction led by his brother Michael.
- Michael Lapolla was County Manager (1997–2002) and later clashed with Charlotte DeFilippo, chair of the county Democratic Committee; plaintiff alleges DeFilippo (and others) influenced adverse personnel actions against him.
- Plaintiff sued under the New Jersey Civil Rights Act (NJCRA) claiming political-affiliation discrimination and later asserted retaliation for filing suit; he sought money and equitable relief.
- The trial court granted summary judgment dismissing the NJCRA and retaliation claims; plaintiff appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lapolla engaged in constitutionally protected political conduct for an NJCRA/First Amendment patronage claim | Lapolla contends his familial/social affiliation (brother’s faction) and minimal partisan activity sufficed as protected association and that adverse transfers were politically motivated | County/Devanney argue Lapolla’s activity was minimal/non-factional and not the type of partisan conduct protected by Elrod/Branti/Rutan line | Court held Lapolla did not engage in constitutionally protected conduct; no prima facie NJCRA political-affiliation claim |
| Whether Devanney is entitled to qualified immunity on the NJCRA claim | Lapolla argues a reasonable official should have known actions motivated by partisan actors violating rights | Devanney argues no clearly established right applied given lack of protected conduct | Court held qualified immunity applied because no clearly established constitutional right was implicated |
| Whether Lapolla’s post‑lawsuit employment actions state a retaliation claim under NJCRA (petition/speech) | Lapolla contends filing the lawsuit was protected petition/speech on public concern and later adverse actions were retaliatory | Defendants argue the suit concerned only personal employment grievances, not public‑concern petition/speech protected by the First Amendment/NJCRA | Court held the suit concerned private employment matters (not public concern) so retaliation claim fails |
| Whether the NJCRA claim is time‑barred or procedural defects preclude relief | Lapolla argued timeliness/other procedural points preserved claims | Defendants maintained statute of limitations and procedural defenses supported dismissal | Court found dismissal proper on merits (lack of protected conduct) and need not resolve some procedural arguments; NJCRA claim was also time‑barred in trial court’s view |
Key Cases Cited
- Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (plurality) (patronage-based terminations violate First Amendment unless position requires political affiliation)
- Branti v. Finkel, 445 U.S. 507 (public‑employee patronage restrictions and the policymaking exception)
- Rutan v. Republican Party of Ill., 497 U.S. 62 (political considerations in hiring/promotions/transfers unlawful)
- Galli v. N.J. Meadowlands Comm’n, 490 F.3d 265 (3d Cir.) (scope of Elrod/Branti protections; elements for political‑affiliation retaliation claim)
- Montone v. City of Jersey City, 709 F.3d 181 (3d Cir.) (example of protected political conduct supporting claim)
- Goodman v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Comm’n, 293 F.3d 655 (3d Cir.) (political‑affiliation protection in employment‑action context)
- Baldassare v. New Jersey, 250 F.3d 188 (3d Cir.) (tripartite test for public‑employee speech/retaliation: public concern, balancing, causation/defense)
- Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri, 564 U.S. 379 (petition‑clause/public‑concern requirement for public‑employee suits)
- Board of County Comm’rs v. Umbehr, 518 U.S. 668 (contractors protected from retaliation for speech/political reasons)
- O'Hare Truck Service, Inc. v. City of Northlake, 518 U.S. 712 (retaliation against contractors for political refusal implicated First Amendment)