William Morgan v. Township of Covington
563 F. App'x 896
3rd Cir.2014Background
- William Morgan, a former Covington Township police officer, was suspended (Aug 2007) after Sgt. Klocko accused him of interfering with an investigation and unauthorized entry; Township offered a public hearing and placed him on leave.
- Morgan’s counsel requested a public hearing; administrative and criminal referrals were investigated and declined by state police and the county DA; the Board held hearings Morgan did not attend and later terminated him.
- Morgan filed Morgan I (Oct 2007) alleging First Amendment retaliation (petitioning) and due process claims; the jury in Morgan I found retaliation by the Township but also found the same actions would have occurred absent petitioning, yielding a defense verdict.
- Morgan sued again (Morgan II) to add the termination claim that occurred after Morgan I was filed; the district court initially dismissed Morgan II but this court reversed and remanded, finding res judicata inapplicable to events postdating the first complaint.
- At the Morgan II trial, after Morgan rested, the district court granted judgment as a matter of law for defendants, finding Morgan’s request for a hearing and the filing of Morgan I were not petitions on matters of public concern under the Petition Clause per Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri.
- This appeal challenges whether Morgan’s hearing request and the filing of Morgan I were protected Petition Clause activity; the Third Circuit affirmed the district court and denied sanctions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Morgan’s request for a public hearing and filing of Morgan I were protected by the Petition Clause (i.e., involved matters of public concern) | Morgan: his actions alleged abuse of power and constitutional violations and attracted press coverage, so they addressed public concern | Defendants: the communications were individualized, aimed at restoring Morgan’s job, and did not advance matters of public interest | Held: Not protected—content, form, and context show private, personal grievances, not public concern (court applied Guarnieri) |
| Whether news coverage converted Morgan’s dispute into a public-concern petition | Morgan: media attention shows public interest | Defendants: mere coverage of a private employment dispute does not establish public concern | Held: Coverage alone insufficient; content/context of messages matter and here coverage reported a personal gripe |
| Whether the jury verdict in Morgan I precluded the district court from deciding public-concern as a matter of law in Morgan II | Morgan: prior jury found hearing request protected, so issue precluded | Defendants: Guarnieri changed the law after Morgan I; preclusion not appropriate for an intervening change in legal standard | Held: No preclusion—Guarnieri altered legal framework, so court correctly re-evaluated public-concern question as a legal issue |
| Whether sanctions were warranted for filing this appeal | Township: appeal frivolous and in bad faith | Morgan: appeal was colorable given prior remand and earlier precedent differences | Held: No sanctions—the appeal was not objectively frivolous though claims were unsuccessful |
Key Cases Cited
- Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri, 564 U.S. 379 (2011) (Petition Clause protection for public employees requires petitioning on matters of public concern)
- Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983) (public-concern test considers content, form, and context)
- Azzaro v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 110 F.3d 968 (3d Cir. 1997) (public-employee complaints can be public concern; motive not dispositive)
- Montone v. City of Jersey City, 709 F.3d 181 (3d Cir. 2013) (applies Connick/Azzaro framework to employee complaints about misconduct)
- Singer v. Ferro, 711 F.3d 334 (2d Cir. 2013) (lawsuit seeking personal relief does not necessarily implicate public concern)
- Watters v. City of Philadelphia, 55 F.3d 886 (3d Cir. 1995) (media dissemination is relevant but content/context control public-concern inquiry)
- Baldassare v. State of N.J., 250 F.3d 188 (3d Cir. 2001) (whether petition raises public concern is a question of law for the court)