### 2002 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

3-14-2002 

# H el f a n t v . M a rg at e

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al :

D ocke t 1-1301

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w
. v i l l a no v a
. e du/thir dc ir c uit_2002

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no va U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2002 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no va U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w
. v i l l a no va
. e du

. 

### Re c omme nde d C it a t ion

" H e l fa n t v . M a r g a t e " (2002). 2002 D e cisio n s

. P ape r 174. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w
. v i l l a no v a
. e du/thir dc ir c uit_2002/174NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

__________
NO. 01-1301

__________ RICHARD HELFANT, Appellant

v.

CITY OF MARGATE; FRED GOFF; THOMAS HILTNER; NED HUMPHREYS; SIGMUND RIMM; JOHN DOES 1 THROUGH 25, INCLUSIVE, FICTITIOUS NAMED DEFENDANTS, JOINTLY, SEVERALLY, AND IN THE ALTERNATI VE

__________ On Appeal from the United States District C ourt for the District of New Jersey (D.C. Civil No. 97-cv-03718) District Judge: Honorable Stephen M. Orlof sky

__________ Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a ) on March 5, 2002

Before: ALITO, RENDELL, and HALL*, Circuit Ju dges,

(Filed: March 13, 2002)

__________

OPINION OF THE COURT

__________

____________________ *Honorable Cynthia Holcomb Hall, United States Circ uit Judge for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation. RENDELL, Circuit Judge. Richard Helfant brought this action against th e City of Margate and several of its employees (together "Defendants") alleging employme nt discrimination and retaliation, including violations of his federal and state const itutional rights. The District Court entered summary judgment in favor of Defendants on all counts. Helfant now appeals. The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant t o 28 U.S.C.  1331. We havejurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.  1291. We subject the District

Court's grant of summary judgment to plenary review and will apply t he same standards as the District Court. Beers-Capitol v. Whetzel, 256 F.3d 120, 130 n.6 (3d Cir. 2001). Helfant alleges that Defendants' actions amoun ted to three separate legal violations: first, a violation of his rights to equ al protection and substantive due process under both the United States and New Jersey Constit utions; second, employment discrimination in violation of the New Jersey Law A gainst Discrimination; and, third, retaliation against him for conduct protected by th e Conscientious Employees' Protection Act. After conducting a careful review of the reco rd in this case, we reach the same conclusions as set forth by the District Court in i ts thorough and wellreasoned opinion. The District Court carefully considered the merits of each count as it applied to each Defendant, and we find no fault with its analysis. Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Defen dants.

____________________________________________________

Please file the foregoing Not Precedential Opi nion.

/s/ Marjorie O. Rendell

Circuit Judge