Thomas Rink v. Northeastern Educational, 717 F. App'x 126

Background

Rink, NEIU fiscal director since 1981, cooperated with federal and state investigations into former NEIU executive director Rosetti (served subpoena, testified, made impact statement at sentencing). Rosetti pled guilty in 2012 and was sentenced in March 2013.
After Rosetti’s misconduct surfaced, NEIU replaced auditors (Kelly Firm) whose 2012 audit found NEIU’s books "unauditable," producing many adjusting entries and 13 written findings; 2013 and 2014 audits showed progressive improvement.
The Board implemented a performance improvement plan for Rink (2013) and later retained independent reviewer Shovlin (2014) to evaluate the business office and Rink’s performance; Shovlin recommended disciplinary action could be warranted.
On May 20–21, 2014, the Board voted not to renew Rink’s employment effective June 30, 2014; later administrative actions characterized the separation as a termination for cause (neglect of duty). Rink did not demand a pre-termination hearing and did not attend the post-decision hearing.
Rink sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (First Amendment retaliation, procedural due process, civil conspiracy) and under the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Act; district court granted summary judgment for defendants, and the Third Circuit affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
First Amendment retaliation: whether Rink’s cooperation/testimony was a substantial or motivating factor in his termination	Rink: Board retaliated for his cooperation and sentencing statement; auditors and investigator were used to manufacture pretext	NEIU: termination followed independent audits and review showing serious accounting deficiencies; no evidence Board colluded to retaliate	Affirmed for defendants — no genuine dispute that protected speech was a motivating factor; plaintiff’s proof was speculative and insufficient to show causation
Pennsylvania Whistleblower Act retaliation	Rink: statutory protection for cooperating with investigation supports retaliation claim	NEIU: same evidentiary defects as § 1983 claim; no causal nexus shown	Affirmed — same failure to prove causal connection
Procedural due process (property interest in continued employment)	Rink: § 10‑1089 and long employment created entitlement to continued employment and pre-termination process	NEIU: Rink was at‑will; § 10‑1089 provides procedural protections for certain removals but does not create life tenure absent an agreement; Rink was given opportunity to demand a hearing which he declined	Affirmed — no protected property interest established; even assuming one, NEIU provided the procedural protections § 10‑1089 requires and Rink declined them
Civil conspiracy under § 1983	Rink: Board members conspired to deprive him of rights by using auditors and investigator	NEIU: no underlying deprivation of federal right proven; no evidence of agreement to violate rights	Affirmed — conspiracy claim fails because no constitutional violation shown

Key Cases Cited

Chavarriaga v. N.J. Dep’t of Corrs., 806 F.3d 210 (3d Cir. 2015) (standard of review and summary judgment principles)
Lauren W. ex rel. Jean W. v. DeFlaminis, 480 F.3d 259 (3d Cir. 2007) (causation tests for First Amendment retaliation: temporal proximity or pattern of antagonism)
Munroe v. Cent. Bucks Sch. Dist., 805 F.3d 454 (3d Cir. 2015) (speech as substantial or motivating factor and burden-shifting)
Merkle v. Upper Dublin Sch. Dist., 211 F.3d 782 (3d Cir. 2000) (retaliation causation and mixed-motive framework)
Bd. of Regents of State Colls. v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972) (property interests defined by state law)
Elmore v. Cleary, 399 F.3d 279 (3d Cir. 2005) (property-interest test for employment)
Knox v. Bd. of Sch. Dirs., 888 A.2d 640 (Pa. 2005) (interpretation of 24 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 10‑1089 and scope of protections for school business administrators)
Alvin v. Suzuki, 227 F.3d 107 (3d Cir. 2000) (no due process violation when administrative remedies exist and plaintiff fails to use them)