Russell Lande v. City of Bethlehem
457 F. App'x 188
3rd Cir.2012Background
- Lande, Bethlehem police officer, sued City, Police Commissioner Miller, and Lt. Strawn under 42 U.S.C. §1983 alleging retaliation for protected First Amendment speech and for association with a Hispanic, disabled arrestee Lopez.
- Two three-day suspensions were imposed for neglect of duty and interference with the administration of justice related to Lande’s MDT message to a coworker and his conduct during ADA Obrecht testimony.
- District Court granted summary judgment on federal claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims; this is an appellate challenge to that ruling.
- Lopez’s arrest involved disputed use of force; Lande allegedly reported concerns to the ADA but did not timely submit a formal report.
- Lande argued §§1981, 1985, and 1986; the court held these claims fail under the record.
- Court affirms the district court’s judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lande’s First Amendment retaliation claim survives. | Lande claims discipline was retaliation for reporting concerns. | Discipline was for failure to timely file a report, not for protected speech. | Claim fails; discipline focused on reporting delay, not content. |
| Whether Lande has a procedural due process claim. | Lande had a property interest in employment needing a more robust process. | Pre-suspension hearing satisfied due process requirements. | Claim fails; pre-suspension hearing satisfied due process. |
| Whether Lande’s equal protection claim exists under class-of-one theory in public employment. | Disparate treatment due to protected status or association. | Class-of-one theory does not apply to public employment. | Claim fails; class-of-one theory in public employment not recognized. |
| Whether §1981 against a municipality is actionable. | Lande’s association with Lopez violated §1981. | Municipal §1981 claims are not cognizable. | Claim fails; no private cause of action against municipality under §1981. |
| Whether §1985 conspiracy and §1986 liability lie here. | There was a conspiracy between City and FOP to retaliate. | No viable §1985 conspiracy; entities cannot conspire, and §1986 predicated on §1985. | Claims fail. |
Key Cases Cited
- Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (Supreme Court 2006) (public employee speech test and official duties defense)
- Hill v. Borough of Kutztown, 455 F.3d 225 (3d Cir. 2006) (speech must involve a matter of public concern as a private citizen)
- Anderson v. Davila, 125 F.3d 148 (3d Cir. 1997) (retaliation framework for public employee speech)
- Engquist v. Oregon Dept. of Agric., 553 U.S. 591 (Supreme Court 2008) (class-of-one equal protection limits in government employment)
- McGovern v. City of Philadelphia, 554 F.3d 114 (3d Cir. 2009) (§1981 claims against municipality unnecessary; no private action)
- Hull v. Cuyahoga Valley Joint Vocational Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 926 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991) (conspiracy under §1985 and requirement of multiple actors)