Because this matter is before the Court on a motion for summary judgment, the Court views the evidence 1

in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draws all reasonable inferences in that party’s favor. 

See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JOHN J. MAZZEO :

 Plaintiff : CIVIL ACTION

 :

vs. :

: NO. 05-CV-692

PHILLIP MITTMAN, ET AL. :

:

 Defendants :

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

GOLDEN, J. MARCH 8th, 2007

Before the Court is defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff filed claims for

political discrimination; conspiracy to politically discriminate against him; substantive due

process violations; procedural due process violations; and violations of several provisions of the

Pennsylvania Constitution. The Court will grant the motion as to the conspiracy, due process,

and Pennsylvania constitutional claims for money damages, and deny the motion as to the

political discrimination claim and the Pennsylvania constitutional claim for injunctive relief. 

FACTS1

Plaintiff John J. Mazzeo was an Easton police officer from December 1973 until January

2004. Defendant Phillip Mitman was elected mayor of Easton in November 2003, and took

office on January 6, 2004. Defendant Stephen A. Mazzeo is the former chief of police for the

City of Easton, and is plaintiff’s cousin. 

Plaintiff served with the Easton police department as a patrolman, and later became

captain. Plaintiff supported Mitman’s opponent in the 2003 mayoral election. Mitman made

Case 2:05-cv-00692-TMG Document 24 Filed 03/09/07 Page 1 of 7
-2-

Stephen Mazzeo chief of police shortly after taking office, and then demoted plaintiff from

captain to sergeant. Rather than accept the demotion, plaintiff retired as a captain in order to

retain his retirement benefits at a captain level. 

Plaintiff claims that Mitman demoted him because he supported Mitman’s opponent. 

Plaintiff alleges that three other individuals who supported Mitman’s opponent were demoted or

fired after Mitman took office. Defendants claim that they demoted plaintiff because he was

unwilling to support the policy changes Stephen Mazzeo sought to implement, and because he

posed a civil liability risk. Defendants assert that plaintiff, along with other police officers,

falsely arrested a man named Jack Cuvo in 2001. Cuvo sued Easton for this arrest, and the

matter resulted in a $2.5 million settlement. Defendants further claim that, as the new police

chief, Stephen Mazzeo attempted to begin a community policing program and police

accreditation initiative in order to improve the image of the department. Plaintiff allegedly

refused to support defendant Stephen Mazzeo’s initiatives.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Summary judgment should be granted to the defendant if the record, including pleadings,

depositions, affidavits, and answers to interrogatories demonstrates “that there is no genuine

issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of

law.” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 56(c). In making that determination, the “evidence of the non-movant

is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor.” Anderson v. Liberty

Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). The question is whether “the evidence presents a

sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party

must prevail as a matter of law.” Id. at 251-52. See also Sommer v. The Vanguard Group, 461

Case 2:05-cv-00692-TMG Document 24 Filed 03/09/07 Page 2 of 7
-3-

F.3d 397, 403-04 (3d Cir. 2006). 

ANALYSIS

A. Political Discrimination Claim

As a public employee making a First Amendment political discrimination claim, plaintiff

must prove: (1) that the activity he engaged in is protected by the First Amendment; and (2) that

the protected activity was a substantial factor in his demotion. See Hill v. City of Scranton, 411

F.3d 118, 125 (3d Cir. 2005). Defendants may nonetheless defeat plaintiff’s claim by showing

that his demotion would have taken place in the absence of the protected conduct. Id. 

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the political discrimination claim must fail

because whether Mitman knew of plaintiff’s political affiliation and why plaintiff was demoted

are both contested facts. Plaintiff claims that Stephen Mazzeo knew of his support of Mitman’s

opponent for mayor and passed this information on to Mitman, but Mitman himself denies

knowing plaintiff’s political affiliation. Defendants claim they demoted plaintiff because he was

a civil liability risk and unsupportive employee. Plaintiff has provided facts suggesting that the

reasons defendants offered for plaintiff’s demotion are pretextual, including the promotion of

other officers involved in Cuvo’s false arrest, and plaintiff’s alleged support of the initiatives

defendant Mazzeo sought to implement. Thus, a jury must resolve the factual issues. 

B. Conspiracy

Plaintiff’s claim of a conspiracy in furtherance of political affiliation discrimination

cannot survive summary judgment because the Third Circuit has held that political affiliation

discrimination is not the type of discrimination covered under Section 1985(3). See Farber v.

City of Patterson, 440 F.3d 131, 143 (3d Cir. 2006). The Third Circuit requires that plaintiff be a

Case 2:05-cv-00692-TMG Document 24 Filed 03/09/07 Page 3 of 7
-4-

member of an identifiable class for Section 1985(3) to apply, and has rejected the argument that

membership in a political party constitutes an identifiable class. See id. at 135-38. 

C. Substantive Due Process Claims

In order to prevail on a substantive due process claim, plaintiff must show that he has a

protected fundamental property interest in his employment. See Nicholas v. Pennsylvania State

Univ., 227 F.3d 133, 140 (3d Cir. 2000). In this context, “public employment is not a

fundamental right entitled to substantive due process protection.” Hill v. Borough of Kutztown,

455 F.3d 225, 234, n.12 (3d Cir. 2006) (citing Nicholas, 227 F.3d at 142-43). As a police officer,

plaintiff is a public employee and thus not entitled to substantive due process. Plaintiff cannot

revive his claim by alleging injury to his reputation, because “to the extent [plaintiff’s]

substantive due process claim was based not only on the loss of his job, but also on reputational

injury that decreased his ‘ability to earn a living,’ it also fails.” Hill, 455 F.3d at 234, n.12 (citing

Boyanowski v. Capital Area Intermediate Unit, 215 F.3d 396, 399-404 (3d Cir. 2000)). 

D. Procedural Due Process Claims

In order to prevail on a procedural due process claim, plaintiff must show a protected

property or liberty interest deprived without notice or hearing. See Independent Enterprises, Inc.

v. Pittsburgh Water & Sewer Auth., 103 F.3d 1165, 1177 (3d Cir. 1997). Whether plaintiff has

“a legitimate entitlement to–and hence a property interest in–his government job is a question

answered by state law.” Hill, 455 F.3d at 234. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held that

police captains may be demoted without a hearing, so long as they are kept on the force. See

Petrillo v. City of Farrell, 29 A.2d 84, 86 (Pa. 1942). Interpreting Pennsylvania law, the Eastern

District has held that Pennsylvania police officers have no property interest in the rank of

Case 2:05-cv-00692-TMG Document 24 Filed 03/09/07 Page 4 of 7
 Plaintiff’s opposition to defendants’ motion suggests that defendants publicly defamed him when they 2

provided justification for his demotion in their motion for summary judgment. But providing justification in a court

filing is not the type of public dissemination that gives rise to a liberty interest claim. See, e.g., Hill, 455 F.3d at 236

(allowing plaintiff’s liberty interest claim to proceed where plaintiff was defamed before members of the general

public in city council meetings). 

-5-

detective, and thus no right to a hearing prior to being demoted from detective to patrolman. See

Bennis v. Gable, 604 F. Supp. 244, 249 (E.D. Pa. 1984). Plaintiff therefore had no protected

property interest in his employment as police captain, and his procedural due process claim

cannot succeed.

Plaintiff also asserts a procedural due process liberty interest claim. Liberty interest

allegations in the public employment context are known as “stigma-plus” claims. See Codd v.

Velger, 429 U.S. 624, 628 (1977). In order to succeed on a “stigma-plus” claim, plaintiff must

show that his employer created a defamatory impression of him during the course of his

termination. See Hill, 455 F.3d at 236. A plaintiff satisfies the stigma prong of the test by

proving the stigmatizing statements “were made publicly.” Id. Plaintiff has produced no

evidence, nor even alleged, that defendants made stigmatizing statements about him publicly, and

therefore his liberty interest claim fails.

2

E. The Pennsylvania Constitution

Plaintiff claims a right to monetary damages for violations of various provisions of the

Pennsylvania Constitution. The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court has held that there is no

private right of action for monetary damages under the Pennsylvania Constitution. See Jones v.

City of Philadelphia, 890 A.2d 1188, 1208-09 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2006). Furthermore, the Eastern

District has declined to “create a new judicial remedy which the Pennsylvania courts themselves

have declined to recognize.” Klump v. Nazareth Area Sch. Dist., 425 F. Supp. 2d 622, 641 (E.D.

Case 2:05-cv-00692-TMG Document 24 Filed 03/09/07 Page 5 of 7
 Klump is now on this Court’s docket, but it was not at the time the referenced decision was issued. 3

-6-

Pa. 2006). Plaintiff’s damages claim for Pennsylvania constitutional violations therefore fails. 3

We do not, however, “dismiss plaintiffs’ claims for [injunctive relief] because those claims do

not seek monetary damages for violation of the Pennsylvania Constitution.” Id. 

An appropriate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. 

Case 2:05-cv-00692-TMG Document 24 Filed 03/09/07 Page 6 of 7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JOHN J. MAZZEO :

 Plaintiff : CIVIL ACTION

 :

vs. :

: NO. 05-CV-692

PHILLIP MITTMAN, ET AL. :

:

 Defendants :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 8th day of March, 2007, it is hereby ORDERED that, pursuant to the

above Memorandum Opinion, defendants’ Motion For Summary Judgment (Document No. 11)

is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. 

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Thomas M. Golden 

THOMAS M. GOLDEN, J.

Case 2:05-cv-00692-TMG Document 24 Filed 03/09/07 Page 7 of 7