2002 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

3-14-2002

Helfant v. Margate

Precedential or Non-Precedential:

Docket 1-1301

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2002 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Helfant v. Margate" (2002). 2002 Decisions. Paper 174.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002/174
 NOT PRECEDENTIAL 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 ALTERNATIVE 

 __________ 

 

 On Appeal from the United States District Court 

 for the District of New Jersey 

 (D.C. Civil No. 97-cv-03718) 

 District Judge: Honorable Stephen M. Orlofsky 

 __________ 

 

 Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) 

 on March 5, 2002 

 

 Before: ALITO, RENDELL, and HALL*, Circuit Judges, 

 (Filed: March 13, 2002) 

 __________ 

 

 OPINION OF THE COURT 

 __________ 

____________________ 

*Honorable Cynthia Holcomb Hall, United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth 

Circuit, 

sitting by designation. 

RENDELL, Circuit Judge. 

 Richard Helfant brought this action against the City of Margate and 

several of its 

employees (together "Defendants") alleging employment discrimination and 

retaliation, 

including violations of his federal and state constitutional rights. The 

District Court 

entered summary judgment in favor of Defendants on all counts. Helfant 

now appeals. 

 The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.  1331. We 

have 
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.  1291. We subject the District 

Court's grant of 

summary judgment to plenary review and will apply the 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 amounted to three separate 

legal 

violations: first, a violation of his rights to equal protection and 

substantive due process 

under both the United States and New Jersey Constitutions; second, 

employment 

discrimination in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination; 

and, third, 

retaliation against him for conduct protected by the Conscientious 

Employees' Protection 

Act. After conducting a careful review of the record in this case, we 

reach the same 

conclusions as set forth by the District Court in its 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 Defendants. 

_________________________
___________________________ 

 Please file the foregoing Not Precedential Opinion. 

 

/s/ Marjorie O. Rendell 

 

Circuit Judge