Stephen Schleig v. Borough of Nazareth, 695 F. App'x 26

Plaintiff Stephen Schleig, a Nazareth Borough police officer, engaged in pro-union activity and allegedly provided materials to a colleague suing the department.
Relations soured; Chief Trachta and others publicly berated and reassigned Schleig.
Officer Daniel Troxell allegedly confronted Schleig in Nov. 2013 and threatened to get him fired, press criminal charges, physically harm him and his family, and even kill him for supporting the union litigation.
Schleig sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging First Amendment retaliation (free speech/association/petition); District Court dismissed some claims but allowed First Amendment retaliation claims against Troxell to proceed and denied Troxell qualified immunity.
Troxell appealed the denial of qualified immunity. The Third Circuit affirmed, holding the alleged threats could constitute unlawful retaliation and the law was clearly established.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Troxell's statements constitute First Amendment retaliation	Troxell threatened adverse action (firing, criminal charges, physical harm, death) in response to Schleig's union-protected activity	Troxell contends remarks were not directed at Schleig (no specific intent) and amounted to mere speech or unnamed threats	Court: Allegations, taken as true, show direct, credible threats aimed at Schleig and qualify as retaliation
Whether Troxell is entitled to qualified immunity because the right was not clearly established	Schleig: Public employees are protected from retaliation for speech on matters of public concern; threats of dismissal or death are plainly unlawful	Troxell: Precedent (e.g., Zaloga) shows ambiguous guidance when official speech merely criticizes or influences others; mere threats without action not clearly prohibited	Court: Right was clearly established; no reasonable officer could think threatening to fire, injure, or kill an employee for union activity was lawful; qualified immunity denied

Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (qualified immunity standard)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (two-step qualified immunity analysis)
Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (constitutional-violation/clearly-established-right framework)
Dougherty v. Sch. Dist. of Philadelphia, 772 F.3d 979 (public-employee speech on matters of public concern)
Pickering v. Bd. of Educ., 391 U.S. 563 (retaliation via dismissal/chilling effect on public-employee speech)
Zaloga v. Borough of Moosic, 841 F.3d 170 (limits where official merely criticizes or urges third parties)
McLaughlin v. Watson, 271 F.3d 566 (distinguishing mere speech from coercive threats where official lacked direct authority)
Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (when unlawfulness is obvious such that reasonable official would know)
Bennis v. Gable, 823 F.2d 723 (retaliatory discharges clearly established as unlawful)