Todora v. Buskirk
2014 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 348
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2014Background
- Todora, a Northampton County Prison corrections officer, worked from 1989 to 2008.
- A mold exposure lawsuit was filed by Todora and others in 2005 and dismissed in 2010 after summary judgment for defendants.
- Todora and Ferraro filed a federal retaliation claim in 2008 based on disciplinary actions after the mold suit, with the matter transferred to state court in 2009.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment on the retaliation claims in 2013; the trial court granted it.
- On appeal, the Commonwealth Court conducted de novo review of legal questions and examined the record in the light most favorable to Todora.
- The court emphasized a lack of evidence showing public-concerned speech and no causal link between mold-suit filing and disciplinary actions; it upheld dismissal of due process and derivative claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mold suit speech was a matter of public concern | Todora asserts public-concern speech. | Defendants assert mold suit addressed employment conditions, not public concern. | No public-concern speech as a matter of law. |
| Whether mold-suit filing was a substantial factor in retaliation | Disciplinary actions increased after mold suit filing showing retaliation. | Preexisting disciplinary history and ongoing infractions negate causal link. | No causal connection; no First Amendment retaliation claim. |
| Whether due process claims were viable given suspensions | Indefinite suspension without notice violated due process. | Temporary suspensions without pay may precede a hearing; no pre-deprivation hearing required. | Due process claim properly dismissed. |
| Whether derivative claims failed for lack of underlying constitutional violation | Derivative claims survive if underlying violation exists. | No underlying constitutional violation proved. | Derivative claims rejected; underlying violation not shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (U.S. 1983) (content, form, and context determine public-concern status)
- Hill v. City of Scranton, 411 F.3d 118 (3d Cir. 2005) (retaliation requires protected activity and causal link)
- Eichenlaub v. Township of Indiana, 385 F.3d 274 (3d Cir. 2004) (public concern inquiry is a matter of law)
- Sanguigni v. Pittsburgh Board of Public Education, 968 F.2d 393 (3d Cir. 1992) (speech addressing broad concerns may be protected; employment grievances may not)
- Gaj v. United States Postal Service, 800 F.2d 64 (3d Cir. 1986) (safety complaints tied to personal interest may not be public concern)
- Czurlanis v. Albanese, 721 F.2d 98 (3d Cir. 1983) (speech about government performance can be public concern)
- Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated School District, 439 U.S. 410 (U.S. 1979) (public-interest speech exception to private employee concerns)