William Morgan v. Covington Twp, 648 F.3d 172

Morgan, a Covington Township police officer, faced disciplinary charges in 2007 arising from two incidents involving ex-girlfriend Jill Mailen and an occupied-to-empty apartment incident with Jamie Villani.
Covington notified Morgan of charges and offered a public hearing; he participated in a hearing process but remained on paid administrative leave during investigation.
Disciplinary charges were suspended after Klocko briefed Pennsylvania State Police and then referred to the DA, who declined to prosecute; charges were reinstituted with an additional conduct unbecoming an officer charge.
Morgan filed Morgan I in federal court alleging due process and First Amendment retaliation; the district court granted summary judgment on due process but denied it on retaliation.
A public hearing occurred; Morgan was ultimately terminated on January 15, 2008; Morgan I proceeded to trial and Morgan II was filed in 2009 alleging retaliation for demanding a hearing and for Morgan I.
The district court later dismissed Morgan II as barred by res judicata, while the Morgan I trial produced mixed findings on retaliation but ultimately concluded in favor of Covington on several claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether res judicata bars Morgan II for post-complaint events	Morgan	Covington	Res judicata does not bar post-complaint events
Whether Covington was entitled to a Mt. Healthy same-action jury instruction	Morgan	Covington	Covington properly instructed; Morgan waived objection
Whether the trial court erred by excluding rebuttal witnesses on credibility	Morgan	Covington	Exclusion was error, but not prejudicial enough to warrant new trial
Whether Morgan's due process claims were misanalyzed on summary judgment	Morgan	Covington	District Court properly granted summary judgment on due process claims

Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (Supreme Court 1977) (same-action causal test for retaliation defenses)
Hill v. Borough of Kutztown, 455 F.3d 225 (3d Cir. 2006) (defamation-reputational harms and public disclosure standards)
Massie v. Dep’t of Housing & Urban Dev., 620 F.3d 340 (3d Cir. 2010) (standard for appellate review of summary judgment and related rulings)
Rawe v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 462 F.3d 521 (6th Cir. 2006) (no bar to claims accruing after complaint if merits permit)
Computer Assocs. Int’l, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 126 F.3d 365 (2d Cir. 1997) (scope of res judicata depends on complaint as filed)
Manning v. City of Auburn, 953 F.2d 1355 (11th Cir. 1992) (res judicata does not bar post-complaint events)
Los Angeles Branch NAACP v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist., 750 F.2d 731 (9th Cir. 1984) (acts occurring prior to litigation may be included for preclusion analysis)
United States v. Castillo, 181 F.3d 1129 (9th Cir. 1999) (impeachment by contradiction and Rule 608 considerations)
United States v. Lopez, 979 F.2d 1024 (5th Cir. 1992) (impeachment provisions nuances in credibility determinations)
United States v. Gilmore, 553 F.3d 266 (3d Cir. 2009) (Rule 403 balancing in impeachment and witness credibility)
Shinseki v. Sanders, 129 S. Ct. 1696 (Supreme Court 2009) (harmless error standard in civil proceedings)
Post v. Hartford Ins. Co., 501 F.3d 154 (3d Cir. 2007) (scope of claims and preclusion principles)