WANCO v. THE TOWNSHIP OF ROCHELLE PARK
2:14-cv-07413
D.N.J.Jul 24, 2017Background
- Paul Wanco was a volunteer firefighter in Rochelle Park (unpaid) and separately served as Fire Marshal for Lodi. He pled guilty on June 3, 2014 to bias intimidation arising from facts concerning his elderly mother’s fall and plea allocution was widely published.
- Chief Brown informed Wanco on June 9, 2014 that Wanco was disqualified and relieved of duties as a volunteer firefighter; formal Statement of Charges was served in late September 2014 and administrative discipline proceeded under Rochelle Park Code procedures.
- Wanco sued (filed Nov. 28, 2014) asserting wrongful discharge (public policy), breach of contract/implied covenant, defamation, § 1983 and NJCRA claims for deprivation of due process and equal protection, and abuse of process. His counsel was later disbarred and Wanco proceeded pro se.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment; Wanco failed to file a responsive statement of material facts. The court reviewed the record and construed pro se filings liberally but applied summary judgment standards.
- Court determined (1) the public-policy wrongful-discharge doctrine has not been extended to removal from volunteer organizations and Wanco presented no contract or Woolley-type handbook evidence; (2) his volunteer status conferred at most de minimis property/ liberty interests so procedural due process claims fail; (3) equal protection/class-of-one claims are not viable in public employment/volunteer context; (4) defamation and abuse-of-process claims fail for two independent reasons: substantive defects and failure to comply with the New Jersey Tort Claims Act notice requirement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful discharge/public policy (Count 1) | Wanco says removal violated public policy and wrongful-discharge doctrine. | Defendants say doctrine hasn’t been extended to volunteer expulsions and no contractual or public-policy basis supports claim. | Summary judgment for defendants — doctrine not extended to volunteer removal and plaintiff presented no basis. |
| Breach of contract / implied covenant (Count 2) | Wanco asserts implied contractual protections or covenant of good faith and fair dealing. | Defendants say no contract or handbook created enforceable membership rights; municipal ordinances don’t create Woolley-style contractual rights for volunteers. | Summary judgment for defendants — no evidence of a contract or enforceable implied covenant. |
| Due process / § 1983 & NJCRA (Counts 4–6) | Wanco claims deprivation of property/liberty interest in volunteer role without notice/hearing. | Defendants: volunteer role is unpaid and confers at most de minimis benefits; statutory forfeiture/conviction issues also relevant. | Summary judgment for defendants — no protected property/liberty interest; procedural and substantive due process fail. |
| Defamation & Abuse of Process (Counts 3, 7) | Wanco alleges statements and process were misused to harm reputation and remove him. | Defendants: NJTCA notice not provided; statements privileged/opinion or not made with actual malice; disciplinary process was legitimate (not a perversion). | Summary judgment for defendants — claims barred by NJTCA notice requirement and substantively deficient. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pierce v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 84 N.J. 58 (recognizes wrongful discharge in violation of public policy)
- Woolley v. Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc., 99 N.J. 284 (recognizes implied-contract/handbook claims limiting at-will termination)
- Versarge v. Township of Clinton, 984 F.2d 1359 (3d Cir.) (volunteer firefighter removal does not create constitutionally protected due-process interests)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden-shifting principles)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (summary judgment standards on lack of genuine issue)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment and reasonable jury standard)
- Engquist v. Oregon Department of Agriculture, 553 U.S. 591 (class-of-one equal protection theory not appropriate in public employment context)
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (actual malice standard for defamation of public figures)
- Velez v. City of Jersey City, 180 N.J. 284 (N.J. law that NJTCA notice requirement applies to common-law torts against public employees)
- In re License of Fanelli, 174 N.J. 165 (discussion of legal meaning and elasticity of "moral turpitude")