Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-14-01610/USCOURTS-ca3-14-01610-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City of Paterson
Appellee
Jeffrey J. Heffernan
Appellant
Jose Terres
Appellee
Michael Walker
Not Party
James Wittig
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 14-1610

___________

JEFFREY J. HEFFERNAN, 

Appellant 

v. 

CITY OF PATERSON; 

MAYOR JOSE TERRES; 

POLICE CHIEF JAMES WITTIG; 

POLICE DIRECTOR MICHAEL WALKER

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the District of New Jersey 

(D.C. Civil No. 2-06-cv-03882) 

District Judge: Honorable Kevin McNulty

Before: VANASKIE, GREENBERG, and COWEN, Circuit Judges.

ORDER 

AND NOW, upon issuance of the mandate of the United States Supreme Court in 

the case of Heffernan v. City of Paterson, N.J., 136 S. Ct. 1412 (2016), reversing the 

judgment entered by this Court, and remanding for further proceedings;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the order of the District 

Court entered on March 5, 2014 is vacated insofar as it granted the motions for summary 

judgment filed by Defendants, and this matter is remanded for further proceedings. This 

Case: 14-1610 Document: 003112390760 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/25/2016
Court holds that the waiver doctrine does not apply to the issues identified by the United 

States Supreme Court. We further hold that, if, at the time Plaintiff was disciplined, the 

City of Paterson had in effect (whether written or unwritten) a neutral policy prohibiting 

police officers assigned to the Office of the Chief of Police from overt involvement in 

political campaigns, such a policy meets constitutional standards.

We direct the District Court following discovery to conduct a trial (1) to determine 

whether there was in fact such a neutral policy prohibiting police officers assigned to the 

Office of the Chief of Police from overt involvement in any political campaign of which 

Plaintiff was aware or reasonably should have been aware; and, if the answer to Question 

(1) is yes, (2) to determine whether Plaintiff was disciplined for what reasonably 

appeared to be a violation of that policy. If both Questions (1) and (2) are answered in 

the affirmative, a judgment should be entered in favor of Defendants. If either Question 

(1) or Question (2) is answered in the negative, Defendants are liable for any resulting 

damages. 

We recommend, but do not hold, that the District Court first try the liability phase 

of this matter. Thereafter, a bifurcated determination should be made as to damages if 

that be necessary. We leave the bifurcation decision to the sound discretion of the 

District Court.

Pursuant to Local Appellate Rule 33.4, the Court refers this matter to Mr. Joseph 

A. Torregrossa, Chief Appellate Mediator, for mediation. To allow for appellate 

Case: 14-1610 Document: 003112390760 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/25/2016
mediation, issuance of the mandate is stayed pending further order by this Court.

BY THE COURT,

s/ Thomas I. Vanaskie

Circuit Judge

Dated: August 25, 2016

Case: 14-1610 Document: 003112390760 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/25/2016