2006 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
7-26-2006 

# Hi ll v . K ut zt own P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-1356

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2006 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" Hi ll v . K utzt own" (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 646. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/646T he H onor abl e J ohn C
. L i fl and, Seni orD i s tr i ctJ udge * forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. 1 P R E C E D E N T I A L UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

__________ N o. 05- 1356

__________ KEI TH A
. HI LL, A ppel l ant v. BO RO UGH OF KUT Z T OWN a n d G E N N A R O M A R IN O , M A Y O R O F K U T Z T O W N , in h is in d iv id u a l an d o f f icia l ca p a c ity

____________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( 04- cv- 03390) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le R o b ert F
. K ell y , S r.

A r gued M ay15, 2006 B e f o re : M C K E E a n d G A R T H , C i r cui tJudges , and L IF L A N D , D is tr i ct

Judge *2 ( Fi l ed: J ul y26, 2006) Wi l l i a m P
. M u rp h y , E s q . ( AR GUE D) M u rp h y& G o l d s t e i n , P
. C. 1616 W al nutSt r eet , Sui t e 2000 Phi l adel phi a, PA 19103 C ouns el f orAppel lant T i mo th yT
. M y e r s , E s q . ( AR GUE D) R aym ond J
. Sant ar el l i , E s q. J ohn G
. D ean, E s q. El l i o t tGr e e n l e a f

& Si e d z i k o ws k i , P
. C. U n ion M ee ti n g C o rpo rate C en ter V 925 H arves tD r i ve B l ue B el l , PA 19422 Paul J
. D el l as ega, E s q. T hom as , T hom as & H afe r 305 N or th Fr ontSt r eet P. O
. B ox 999 H arr i s bur g, PA 17108 C ouns el f orAppel l ee G ennar o M ar i no , M ayor o f Ku t z t o wn Ro b yn F
. M c Gr a th , E s q . ( AR GUE D) S we e n e y& Sh e e h a n , P
. C. 1515 M arketSt r eet , 19 Fl oor th Phi l adel phi a, PA 191023 M i chae l T
. Sel l er s , E s q. K ar dos , R i ckl es , Sel l er s & H and 626 Sout h St at e Str eet N ew t ow n, PA 18940 Co u n s e lf

o rAp p e l l e e Bo r o u g h o

f Ku t z t o wn

__________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

__________ G A R T H , C i r cui tJudge
. O n this ap p ea l w e re v iew w h ethe r th e D istri ct C o u rt err ed w hen i tdi s m i s s ed K ei th A
. H i l l ’ s compl ai ntchar gi ng G ennar o M ar i no ( the form erM ay orof the B or ough of K u tzto w n ), an d th e B o ro u g h itse lf , w ith v io latin g h is rig h ts u n d e r th e U n ited S tate s C o n stitu tio n , fe d e ra l an d sta te s t atut es , and the comm on l aw of Penns y l vani a. T he D i s tr i ct C o u r td i s m i s s e d H i l l ’ s 6
- c o u n tc o m p l a i n ti n i t s e n t i r e ty . We w ill a f f irm in p a rt, an d re v e rse in p a rt.A l l par agr aph ci t at ion s in t hi s opi ni on r efe rt o the 1 c o m p lain t. H i l l ’ s empl oym entw as the r es pons i bi l i tyof the 2 B or ough C ounci l
. H e coul d onl ybe appoi nt ed and f i r ed bythe B or ough C ounci l
. 53 P A . C ON S . S TAT . §46141. 4 I. A ppel l antH i l l , a l i cens ed pr ofes s i onal engi neer , w as appoi nt ed B or ough M anage rof K ut zt ow n i n ear l y1991. ¶¶4, 7
. In th is c a p a c ity , h e re p o rte d to th e B o ro u g h C o u n c il 1 (w h ich c o n sis ted o f

six e lec ted m e m b e rs) a n d , “in re sp e c t to s om e s ubj ect s , ” t o G ennar o M ar i no, the el ect ed M ay orof the B or ough. A s B or ough M anage r , H i l l w as r es pons i bl e forthe admi ni s tr at i on of al l depart m ent s w i thi n the B or ough. ¶¶10- 1 1
. I n s hor t , H i l l ’ s compl ai ntal l eges thatM ay orM ar i no har as s ed hi m and otherB or ough empl oy ees . W hen he r eport ed the M ay or ’ s har as s m entt o the B or ough C ounci l , the M a y o r in ten sif

ied h is a ttac k s o n H ill a s re talia tio n f o r th is r eport i ng ( and forpos i t i ons H i l l t ook thatw er e contr aryt o the M ay o r’s po sit ion s). A s a re su lto f th e M ay o r’s co n d u ct, H il l’ s w o rk p lac e b e c a m e so in to ler a b le th a t h e h a d n o c h o ice b u t to r es i gn. 2 M o re sp e c if

ica lly , the c o m p lain t alle g e s a s f o llo w s:5 Shor t l yaft erhe t ook offi ce i n 2002, M ay orM ar i no “bega n o ra llyto sp re a d th e w o rd th a t h e in ten d e d to g e t rid o f ” H ill and “otherhi gh- pr i ced s eni ors t aff empl oy ees . ” ¶19. T he B or ough C ounci l beca m e aw ar e of, and di s appr oved of, the th in g s M a rin o w a s s a y in g . B o ro u g h C o u n c il P re sid e n t E ric E ly w ro te a le tte r t o a lo c a l n e w s p a p e r, The P atr i ot , that appea r ed i n A pr i l , 2002 and s t at ed: A notherw ayM r . M ar i no has hur tthe bor ough i s i n the m ann er i n w hich he h as cond ucted hi m sel f i n the bars, cl ubs and comm uni tyw i th t al k s m ear i ng the r eput at i on of g oo d p eop l e. H e has m ade m anyst at em ents i n those p lac e s o f h o w h e is g o in g to g e t rid o f c e rta in c o u n c il m ember s and pl ans t o have thi s orthatbor ough em ploy ee repl aced . .
. H i s st at em ents con cerni ng these in d iv id u a ls a re h u rt in g th e b o ro u g h b e c a u s e th e y. . . are b ase d o n fa lse o p inion s . . . [T ]ho se statem en ts are hur t i ng the good r eput at i on of ourhar d- w or ki ng em ploy ees. ¶ 2 3
. M a ri n o ’s c o n d u c t a n d b e h a v io r n e v e rt h e le s s c o n tin u e d
. H e to ld th e C h ief

o f P o lice th a t h e “ w o u ld m a k e life d if f icu lt f o r h im a s a m e a n s to g e t h im to re s ig n a s c h ie f.” ¶ 3 7
. Fur ther , he beha ved i n a hos t i l e and i nt i m i dat i ng m anner t ow ar d s ever al otherB or ough empl oy ees , eac h of w hom appr oache d H i l l and t ol d hi m aboutthi s tr eatm entatthe hands6 o f th e M a y o r. ¶ ¶ 2 4 -2 7 , 3 0 -3 5
. In a d d iti o n to h is th re a ts to “ g e t rid o f ” – a n d h is ho st i l e t reatm ent of – B oroug h em ploy ees, M ay or M ari no al so m ade s ever al fal s e ac cus at i ons agai ns tH i l l
. A ta meet i ng of the B or ough C ounci l on A pr i l 23, 2002, M ay orM ar i no
“ d e m a n d e d [ H ill ’s] re sig n a tio n , p u rp o rte d lyb e c a u se o f h is i nvol vementi n cert ai n appoi nt m ent s by[the] C ounci l w hi ch the M ay ordes cr i bed as a ‘ pl ot ’ thatw as corruptand cr i m i nal
. ” ¶22. M ay orM ar i no al s o t ol d B or ough empl oy ee F rank C aruso that H i l l w as “i l l egall ym ov i ng fun ds t o co nfu se every one. ” ¶28. “[A ] s partof hi s dut i es as M anage r , ” H i l l r eport ed M ay orM ar i no’ s conductt ow ar ds hi m and t ow ar ds the other B o ro u g h e m p lo y e e s to th e B o ro u g h C o u n c il. ¶ 3 6
. A ppar ent l yatthe s ame t i m e thatal l of the above w as o cc u rri n g , M ay o r M arino b eg an “to a tt ac k the B o rou g h ’s t el ecomm uni cat i ons pr oj ect , ” w i th w hi ch H i l l w as i dent i fi ed, and w hi ch had tr adi t i onal l yenj oy ed the s uppor tof the B or ough C ounci l
. T he M ay or“made cl earhi s ut t erdi s t as t e” forthe pr oj ect
. I n r es pons e, H i l l “advoc at ed for[the pr oj ect ’ s ] cont i nuat i on. ” ¶¶ 39- 41. A s retali ati o n (1) f

o r H il l’ s rep o rt ing the M ay o r’s c o n d u c t to th e B o ro u g h C o u n c il, (2 ) f o r H ill ’s a d v o c a c yin su p p o rto f th e teleco m m u n icati o n s p rojec t, an d (3) f o r H il l’ s7 s uppor tof otheruns peci fi ed pos i t i ons thatw er e as s oci at ed w ith th e p re v io u s m a y o r, M a y o r M a rin o c o n tin u e d h is per s ecut i on of H i l l
. ¶¶43, 110. Speci fi cal l y , the M ay or engage d i n a s er i es of “ha r as s i ng, i nt i m i dat i ng and oppr es s i ve c o n f ro n tatio n s w ith [ H ill ] a t h is w o rk p lac e a n d a t C o u n c il m e e tin g s,” a n d d e f

a m e d H ill to B o ro u g h e m p lo y e e s, a n d to c o n s u lta n ts p re s e n t a t H ill’ s w o rk p la c e , a n d to th e p u b lic
. ¶ 4 4
. H i l l s enta numberof l ett er s t o the B or ough Sol i ci t or and had mul t i pl e conve r s at i ons w i th the Per s onnel C om m i t t ee of the B or ough C ounci l , as ki ng eac h t o “r emedythe cour s e of conductbyD efe ndantM ar i no. ” ¶45. I n J ul y2002, H i l l m ade or al compl ai nt s t o t he Penns y l vani a H um an R el at i ons C om m i s s i on ( “PH R C ”) and the Equal E m pl oym ent O ppor tuni tyC om m i s s i on ( “EE O C ”)
. H e s ubs equent l yfi l ed a w r i t t en compl ai ntw i th the PH R C
. ¶¶48- 49. T h e M a y o r ’ s c o n d u c tn e v e r th e l e s s p e r s i s t e d
. On A ugus t22, 2002, M ay orM ar i no publ i s hed a “ new s paper comm ent ary ” i n w hi ch he a ccus ed H i l l of “i rr egul aror i l l egal ” al l ocat i ons of funds , and of “ r eckl es s l yhandl i ng our m oney . ” ¶50. T hi s acc us at i on w as fal s e. T he B or ough of K u tzt o w n ac tuallyp o sses sed a A A A cre d itrati n g . M o reo v er, a bond att orney , a bond underw r i t erand B or ough audi t or s had v e rif ied th e B o ro u g h ’s s o lid f in a n c ial c o n d iti o n a n d its eff i ci entm anage m ent
. ¶51.T he M ay o rappar ent l yacknow l edged the conne ct i on 3 b e tw e e n th e M a y o r’s c o n d u c t an d H ill ’s r e sig n a ti o n . A t a Sept ember17, 2002 m eet i ng of the B or ough C o u n ci l , M ay or M ar i n o s t a t e d th a th e d e s e r v e d “ c r e d i t ” f o rHi l l ’ s d e p a r tu r e. ¶62. H il l’ s b ri ef m ak es re fe ren ce to an A u g u st 20 0 4 rep o rt

4 th a tthe B oroug h C ou ncil com m i ssi on ed a S pecial C ou nsel to w rite. T h e re p o rt a p p a re n tlyc o rro b o ra tes a n d a d d s f u rth e r d e tail t o H i l l ’ s al lega ti ons aboutthe w ayM ay orM ar i no behave d to w a rd h im
. 8 P rio r to M a y o r M a rin o ’s p u b lic a ttac k s o n h im , H ill had enj oy ed a r eput at i on forhones ty , i nt egr i tyand pr ofes s i onal i s m . ¶52. A ft erM ar i no’ s att acks , H i l l w as “s ubj ect ed t o s corn and r i di cul e, ” i ncl udi ng one i nci dent w her e H i l l ’ s s on’ s empl oy erconfr ont ed H i l l and H i l l ’ s w i fe and t ol d them t hathe, the empl oy er , had hea r d the M ay or
“ w a s p u rs u in g [ H ill] c o n c e rn in g c o rr u p tio n .” ¶ 5 4
. T h e M ay o r’s co n d u ct, an d the B o rou g h C o u n cil ’s fai l ur e t o s t op i t , m ade l i fe s o i nt ol er abl e forH i l l thathe eventual l yhad no choi ce butt o r es i gn. ¶55. H i l l s ubm i t t ed a 3 l ett erof r es i gnat i on on A ugus t29, 2002, w hi ch s t at ed thathe w oul d cea s e w or k on O ct ober12, 2002. ¶57. 4 T he B or ough C ounci l cont i nued t o be ups etaboutT w o n ew sp ap er a rt icl es f rom S e p tem b er 2 0 0 2 rep o rt 5 C ounci l Pr es i dentE l yas s ay i ng that“the fa l s e ac cus at i ons m ade (b yM a ri no ) are detr i m ental t o r esi den t s and the boroug h as a w hol e, ” an d “[f] orthe counc i l the bi gges tthi ng i s the m isin f o rm a tio n g iv e n o u t b y[ M a y o r M a rin o ] . . . It’s h a rd to deal w i th. I ’ ve bee n on ( counci l ) for27 y ears an d I’ve never s een a nythi ng l i ke i t
. ” ¶¶ 63- 64. T he co m plai nt al l eges t hat M ari no con t i nu ed t o h aras s 6 and def ame H i l l even a ft erhe had c eas ed to be B or ough

9 M ay o r M arino ’s co n d u ct, an d the e ff ec t i t w as h av ing
. It 5 a s k e d H ill to re c o n s id e r a n d s ta yo n a s B o ro u g h M a n a g e r. H ill re f u se d , b u t d id a g re e to p o stp o n e h is d e p a rtu re u n til O c to b e r 2 7 , 2 0 0 2 . ¶ ¶ 6 6 -6 7
. H i l l then ac cept ed a pos i t i on w i th “the engi neer i ng cons ul t i ng fi r m thathad fory ear s s erved i n the r ol e of B or ough engi neer . ” The B or ough C ounci l ( byunani m ous vot e) i ni t i at ed and w or ked outa part - t i m e emer gency “cons ul t i ng” arr angementw i th thatfi r m s o thatH i l l coul d be m ade av ai l able t o assi stw i th cert ai n u rgentB oroug h tas ks, s uch as budgetpr epar at i on, i n the per i od of tr ans i t i on t o the new M anage r . ¶¶68- 73. H i l l w or ked i n thi s capa ci ty , w i thout r ece i vi ng anyaddi t i onal s al aryfori t , unt i l J anuary2003, w hen the B or ough hi r ed a r epl ace m ent
. ¶¶74- 76. T he r epl ace m entw as tw enty - s even y ear s ol d, ¶76, s om e fi ft een or s i xt een y ear s y oungerthan H i l l , w ho w as over40 y ear s of age w hen he l eftthe B or ough’ s empl oy . ¶4. 6M a n a g e r . I ta l l e g e s t h a t t h e M a y o rf i l e d c o mp l a i n t s wi th two s t at e age nci es bas ed on H i l l ’ s tr ans i t i onal s ervi ce t o the B or ough, and w r ot e l ett er s t o var i ous g o v ernm ent al agenc i es a n d o f f icia ls – a s w e ll as p riv a te in d iv id u a ls a n d m e d ia or gani zat i ons – i n w hi ch he i m pl i ed thatH i l l had mi sh an d l ed f u n d s. T h e se a lleg a tio n s a re irre lev a n t to th is a p p e a l – w h ich is bas ed on cl ai m s ar i s i ng outof H i l l ’ s cons truct i ve di s char ge – as theydet ai l event s thatoccurr ed af t erthe cons truct i ve di s char ge. “U n d er the cons truct i ve di s char ge doctr i ne, an 7 em p l oy ee’ s r eas onabl e dec i s i on t o r es i gn beca us e of unendur abl e w or ki ng condi t i ons i s as s i m i l at ed t o a form al di s char ge forr emedi al purpos es . ” P enns ylvani a Stat e Pol i ce v . Su de rs , 542 U
. S. 129, 141 ( 2004) ( di s cus s i ng cons truct i ve d isch arg e in th e c o n text o f a T it le V II sex u al ha rassm en t suit ). “T he inquiryi s object iv e: D i d w orki ng con dit i on s becom e so i nt ol er abl e that a r eas onabl e per s on i n the empl oy ee’ s pos i t i on w oul d have f

el tcompel l ed t o r es i gn?” I d. T he D i s tr i ctC ourtdi d notaddr es s the ques t i on of w h e th e r H ill h a s a lleg e d c o n d iti o n s so in to ler a b le th a t a re a so n a b le p e rso n in h is p o sitio n w o u ld h a v e f e lt c o m p e lled to re s ig n , i.e ., w h e th e r h e , in f a c t, w as cons truct i vel ydischar ged. I tw oul d have be en i nappr opr i at e for the D i s tr i ct C our tt o deci de that fac t - i nt ens i ve quest i on i n the cont extof a 12( b) ( 6) m ot i on. 10 H ill b ro u g h t th is la w su it ag a in st M a y o r M a rin o (in h is i ndi vi dual and off

i ci al capa ci t i es ) and the B or ough of K ut zt ow n. T he compl ai ntal l eged thatthe M ay or ’ s campai gn o f h a ra ss m e n t, de f

a m a tio n a n d re talia tio n d e p riv e d H ill o f h is jo b (th ro u g h c o n stru c tiv e d isc h a rg e ), an d d id d a m a g e to h is 7T hus , for the purpos e of t hi s opi ni on, w e cr edi tal l al l egat i ons of H i l l ’ s compl ai ntand ac ceptw hatH i l l al l eges : thathe w as cons truct i vel ydi s char ged. “Sect i on 1983 i m pos es ci vi l l i abi l i tyupon anyper s on 8 w ho, act i ng underthe col orof s t at e l aw , depr i ves another i ndi vi dual of any r i ght s , pr i vi l eges , ori m m uni t i es s ecur ed bythe C onsti tuti on orl aw s of the U ni t ed St at es . ” Sh u m a n ex re l. S h e rtz e r v . P e n n Ma n o r S c h . D ist. , 422 F. 3d 141, 146 ( 3d C ir
. 2 0 0 5 ). See 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 . M a y o r M a rin o d o e s n o t d isp u te th a t h e w a s a c tin g u n d e r c o lo r o f sta te la w w h e n h e e n g a g e d in the conduc tati s s ue her e. 11 r eput at i on and hi s abi l i tyt o earn a l i vi ng as a l i cens ed p ro f e ss io n a l en g in e e r a n d a p u b lic s e rv a n t S e e , e .g ., ¶ ¶14, 58, 106. H e furtheral l eged thatthe B or ough C ounci l “di d not hal t , r ever s e orl es s en orotherw i s e mat er i al l yaff ectthe al l eged of

fendi ng conductof the M ay or . ” S e e , e .g ., ¶16. H ill ’s c o m p lain t as se rte d § 1 9 8 3 c laim s a g a in st b o th 8 the M ay orand the B or ough forvi ol at i on of hi s ( 1) pr ocedur al due pr oces s r i ght s , ( 2) s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s r i ght s , ( 3) equal pr ot ect i on r i ght s and ( 4) Fi r s tA m endmentr i ght s under the U
. S. C ons t i tut i on. T he compl ai ntal s o as s ert ed aga i ns tthe B o ro u g h (5 ) a c laim u n d e r th e A g e D isc rim in a tio n in E m p lo ym e n t A c t ( “ A D E A ” ), 2 9 U .S .C . § 6 2 1 , et s eq. , and s t at e l aw cl ai m s for( 6) vi ol at i on of the Penns y l vani a H um an R el at i ons A ct( “PH R A ”) , 43 P A . C ON S . S TAT . § 9 5 1 , et s eq. and ( 7) i ndemni fi cat i on and r es t i tut i on. Fi nal l y , the compl ai nt12 as s ert ed aga i ns tthe M ay ora ( 8) s t at e l aw m al i ci ous p ro s e c u tio n c la im
. Pur s uantt o R ul e 12( b) ( 6) , the D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed al l of the fe der al cl ai m s agai ns tboth the M ay orand the B or ough, and the PH R A cl ai m agai ns tthe B or ough. I tthen decl i ned t o exer ci s e j ur i s di ct i on overthe r emai ni ng pendent s ta te c o m m o n la w c la im s . II. T he D i s tr i ctC our texer ci s ed j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U
. S. C
. §§1331, 1343 and 1367. W e have j ur i s di ct i on p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1
. O urr evi ew of the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s di s m i s s al of the c o mp l a i n ti s p l e n a r y . “ W h e n c o n s i d e r i n g a n a p p e a l f r o m a di s m i s s al of a c om pl ai ntpur s uantt o R ul e 12( b) ( 6) , w e ac cept as true all w ell -pled fa ctua l al lega ti o n s. W e e x am ine w h ethe r, underanyr eas onabl e r eadi ng of the compl ai nt , the pl ai nt i ff m aybe ent i t l ed t o r el i ef. ” D e la w a re N a tio n v . P e n n sy lva n ia , 4 4 6 F
. 3 d 4 1 0 , 4 1 5 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 6 ) (cit ati o n s o m itted). III
. A. W e fi r s taddr es s H i l l ’ s §1983 cl ai m s agai ns tM ay orH i l l bri ng s cl ai m s agai nstM ay or M ari no “i n h is 9 i ndi vi dual and off

i ci al capa ci ty . ” Sect i on I I IA of thi s opi ni on addr es s es the §1983 i ndi vi dual capa ci ty cl ai m s agai ns tM ar i no. T he §1983 offi ci al capa ci tycl ai m s agai ns tM ar i no ar e, eff ect i vel y , i dent i cal t o the §1983 cl ai m s ag ai ns tthe B or ough, w h ic h a re a d d re s s e d in S e c tio n II IB (1 ) o f th is o p in io n . S e e , e .g ., K ent ucky v. G r aham , 473 U
. S. 159, 1 65 ( 1985) ( “O ffi ci al

- capa ci tys ui t s . . . gener al l yr epr esentonl yanother w ayof pl eadi ng an ac t i on agai ns tan ent i tyof w hi ch an of fi cer is a n a g e n t”) ( q u o tatio n a n d c itatio n o m itt e d ); A .M. ex re l. J. M

. K

. v. L uzerne C ou nty Juvenile D et
. C tr. , 372 F. 3d 572, 581 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( “A s ui t agai ns t a governm ent al offi ci al i n hi s or heroffi ci al capa ci tyi s tr eat ed as a s ui tagai ns tthe governm ent al e n tity its e lf.” ). W e have hel d thata r es i g n at i on w i l l be dee m ed 10 i nvol unt ary( i
. e. , deemed a cons truct i ve di s char ge) and w i l l thus tr i ggerthe pr ot ect i ons of the due pr oce s s cl aus e, and form the b a s i s o f a § 1 9 8 3 d u e p r o c e s s c l a i m, u n d e ro n l ytwo circu m stan ce s: ( 1 ) w h e n the e m p loy er f o rce s the em p loy ee ’s r es i gnat i on orr et i r ementbycoer ci on or dur es s , or ( 2) w hen the empl oy erobt ai ns t he r es i gnat i on orr et i r ementbydece i vi ng or m i s r epr es ent i ng a m at er i al fac tt o the empl oy ee. L e h e ny v . C ity of P i t t s bur gh , 183 F. 3d 2 2 0 , 228 ( 3d C i r . 1999)
. A tl eas tone othercou rtthat appl i ed thi s Leheny sta n d a rd h a s re c e n tl y h e ld th a tth e l e s s s tr i c tc o n s tru c t i v e d i s c h a r g e s t a n d a r d th e S u p r e me 13 M a ri n o , a n d M a ri n o ’s im m u n ity d e f e n s e s . 9 1
. P r o c e d u r a l Du e P r o c e s s Cl a i ms 10C our tart i cul at ed i n P enn sylvan i a S tate Po l i ce v. Su ders , 542 U .S . 1 2 9 , 1 4 1 (2 0 0 4 ), s ee f o o tn o te 7 , is n o w “ e q u a lly a p p lic a b le ” in th e c o n te x t o f a d u e p ro c e s s c la im , se e L e v e n ste in v. Salaf s ky , 4 1 4 F .3 d 7 6 7 , 7 7 4 (7 th C ir
. 2 0 0 5 ).

14 T o s t at e a c l ai m under§1983 fordepr i vat i on of pr ocedur al due pr oces s r i ght s , a pl ai nt i ff mustal l ege that( 1) he w as depr i ved of a n i ndi vi dual i nt er es tthati s encompas s ed w i thi n t he Four t eenth A m endment ’ s pr ot ect i on of “l i fe, lib e rty , o r p ro p e rty ,” a n d (2 ) th e p ro c e d u re s a v a ilab le to h im di d notpr ovi de “due pr oces s of l aw . ” A lvi n v. Suz uki , 227 F
. 3 d 1 0 7 , 1 1 6 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 0 ). H ill a d v a n c e s tw o p ro c e d u ra l d u e p ro c e s s c la im s . ¶¶100- 106, 114- 120. H e fi r s tr ai s es a cl as s i c pr oper t y- bas ed pr ocedur al due pr oces s cl ai m , ar gui ng thatw hen M ay or M a rin o c o n stru c tiv e lyd isc h a rg e d h im , h e w a s d e p riv e d o f h is r i ghtt o cont i nued empl oym entw i thoutdue pr oces s . H e then r ai s es a s o- cal l ed “s t i gm a- pl us ” cl ai m , ar gui ng thatw hen M ar i no defa m ed hi m i n the cour s e of di s char gi ng hi m , he w as dep ri ved of h i s l i bert

y i nter est

i n hi s r eput at i on “w i thout oppor tuni tyforanym eani ngful pr ocedur e. ” ¶105, 119.

a. P ropertyInt eres t T he D i s tr i ctC our tpr oper l yconcl uded thatH i l l fai l ed t o s t at e a c l ai m fordepr i vat i on of hi s r i ghtt o r et ai n hi s j ob w i thoutdue pr oces s beca us e H i l l ’ s i nt er es ti n r et ai ni ng hi s j ob53 P A . C ON S . S TAT . §4 61 41 st at es: 11 T he counci l of anybor ough m ay , ati t s di s cr et i on, atany t i m e, cr eat e byor di nance the off i ce of bor ough m anage r a n d m a yin lik e m a n n e r a b o lish th e sa m e . W h il e sa id offi ce e xi s t s , the counc i l s hal l , fr om t i m e t o t i m e, and w hen ev er ther e i s a vac ancy , el ect , bya vot e of a m a jo rityo f a ll th e m e m b e rs, o n e p e rso n to f ill sa id offi ce, s ubj ectt o r emoval bythe co u n ci l atanyt i m e by a vo t e of the m aj ori tyof all the m em bers. W e no t e t ha tthe Bor ou gh of K ut z t own C od e a l so in c lu d e s a p ro v isio n th a t r e in f o rc e s th e B o ro u g h M a n a g e r’s a tw ill e m p lo ym e n t sta tu s. S e c tio n 2 9 -7 o f th a t C o d e sta tes , in p e rtin e n t p a rt, T he B or ough M anage r( her ei naft err efe rr ed t o as the “M anage r ”) s hal l be appoi nt ed foran i ndefi ni t e t erm by a maj or i tyof al l m ember s of t he C ounci l
. T he M anage r s hal l s erve atthe pl eas ur e of the C ounci l , and he maybe 15 w as n o t “en co m p asse d w ith in the F o u rt ee n th A m en d m en t’ s pr ot ect i on of pr operty . ” “To have a pr opertyi nt er es ti n a j ob

. . . a per s on m us thave mor e than a uni l at er al expec t at i on of c o n tin u e d e m p lo ym e n t; rath e r, sh e m u st h a v e a leg iti m a te ent i t l ementt o s uch cont i nued empl oym ent
. ” E lm or e v. C l eary , 399 F. 3d 279, 282 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( ci t i ng B d. of R eg e n ts v . R o th , 4 0 8 U
. S
. 5 6 4 , 5 7 7 (19 7 2 )). W h ethe r a p e rso n h a s a leg iti m a te e n tit lem e n t to – a n d h e n c e a p ro p e rty i nt er es ti n – hi s governm entj ob i s a ques t i on ans w er ed by s ta te la w . Id
. P u rsu a n t to P e n n sy lv a n ia la w , H ill w a s a n a t-w ill e m p lo y e e . “ T h e d e c isio n a l law is c lea r th a t an a t-w ill

11r emoved atanyt i m e bya maj o ri tyvot e of a l l of the m e m b e rs o f

th e C o u n c il. H i l l ’s cl ai m that hi s subst an t i ve du e proce ss ri g h ts w ere 12 vi ol at ed w hen he w as cons truct i vel ydi s char ged, fai l s fors i m i l ar re a so n s. T o p re v a il o n a su b sta n tiv e d u e p ro c e ss c la im chall eng i ng a st at e act or’ s cond uct, “a p l ai nti ff m ustest abli sh a s a th re sh o ld m a tter th a t h e h a s a p ro tec ted p ro p e rty in ter e st to w hi ch the Four t eenth A m endment ' s due pr oces s pr ot ect i on appl i es . ” Ni cholas v. P enns ylvani a Stat e U

ni v. , 227 F. 3d 133, 139- 140 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ( A l i t o, J
. ) ( quot at i on m arks and ci t at i on om i t t ed)
. W hether a prope r ty i nt er es t i s pr ot ect ed forpurpos es of subst an t i ve du e proce ss i s a ques t i on that i s not ans w er ed by r efe r ence t o s t at e l aw . R ather , fora pr opertyi nt er es tt o be pr ot ect ed forpurpos es of subst an t i ve du e proce ss , i t mus tbe
“ f u n d a m e n ta l” u n d e r t h e U n ite d S ta te s C o n s titu tio n . Id

. at140. T h is c o u rt h a s h e ld e x p licitlyth a t p u b li c e m p lo ym e n t is n o t a fundament al r i ghtent i t l ed t o s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s pr ot ect i on. I d. a t 1 4 2 -1 4 3
. T o the ext entH i l l ’ s s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s cl ai m w as b ase d n o t on ly o n loss o f h is j o b , b u t al so o n rep u tat ion al i n jury th a t d e c re a s e d h is “ a b ility to e a rn a liv in g ,” it a ls o f a ils
. See B o y a n o w sk i v. C a

p ita l A r e a In ter m e d ia te U n it , 215 F. 3d 396, 3 9 9 -4 0 4 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 0 ) (d e f a m a to rysta tem e n ts th a t cu rta il a p lain tiff ’ s b u sin e ss o p p o rtu n iti e s d o n o t su f f ice to su p p o rt a su b stan ti v e d u e p roc ess c lai m ). 16 empl oy ee doe s nothave a l egi t i m at e ent i t l ementt o cont i nued em ploym ent because [h e] s erves s olel yatthe p l easure of [h i s] empl oy er . ” E lm ore , 399 F. 3d at282. H i l l thus l acke d a pr opertyi nt er es ti n r et ai ni ng hi s pos i t i on as B or ough M anage r thatw as “s uffi ci entt o tr i ggerdue pr oces s conce rns . ” I d. 12 W e ther efor e nee d notcons i derw hetherthe pr ocedur es avai l abl e t o hi m pr ovi ded due pr oces s i n or dert o concl ude17 thatthe D i s tr i ctC our ts houl d be af fi r m ed on H i l l ’ s cl ai m that he w as depri ved of em ploym ent w i tho ut due process.

b. L i bertyInt eres t In h is s e c o n d p ro c e d u ra l d u e p ro c e ss c laim , H ill a lleg e s th a t h e su f

f e re d h a rm to h is re p u tatio n a n d a b ili tyto earn a l i vi ng i n hi s chos en pr ofes s i on as a r es ul tof the defa m at oryst at em ents M ari no m ade ab ou thim i n the process o f c o n stru cti v elyd isch arg ing h im ; he c lai m s M arino ’s scurr i l ou s and f

al se charges dep ri ved him of a li bertyi nter est p rotec ted b ythe d u e p roc ess c laus e. T h e D istri ct C o u rt di s m i s s ed thi s cl ai m forthi s s ame r eas on i tdeni ed H i l l ’ s other p ro c e d u ra l d u e p ro c e ss c laim : b e c a u se H ill lac k e d a p ro p e rty in te re s t in re ta in in g h is jo b
. R el y i ng on Sat t er

f i eld v. B or ough of

Schylki l lH

aven , 1 2 F
. S u p p . 2 d 4 2 3 , 4 3 3 -43 4 (E
. D
. P a. 19 9 8 ), the D istri ct C o u rt hel d t hatdefa m at i on s uch as thatw i th w hi ch H i l l char ges M ar i no, does noti m pl i cat e a l i bertyi nt er es tpr ot ect ed bythe d u e p ro c e ss c lau se u n les s it “ o c c u rs in th e c o u rse o f o r is acc om pani ed by
. . . ext i ngui s hm entof a r i ghtors t atus guar ant eed byl aw orthe C ons t i tut i on. ” B eca us e H i l l l acke d a pr opertyi nt er es ti n r et ai ni ng hi s j ob unders t at e l aw , the D i s tr i ctC our thel d, H i l l w as notdepr i ved of s uch a r i ghtor s t a tu s w h e n h e w a s c o n s tru c t i v e l y d i s c h a r g e d
. A c c o r d i n g l y, H i l l ’ s due pr oces s cl ai m fai l ed. T h is co u rth as y et t o d ec ide th e q u esti o n o f w h ethe r a publ i c empl oy ee w ho i s defa m ed i n the cour s e of be i ng d isc h a rg e d , fa ils to sta te a c laim f o r d e p riv a tio n o f

a lib e rty in ter e st m e re lyb e c a u se h e lac k e d a p ro p e rtyin ter e st inT he di s tr i ctcourti n Sa tter fieldv . B o ro u g h o

f Sc hy lkill 13 H aven , i t s el f r ecogni zed t hat
. 12 F. Supp. 2d 423, 434 ( E
. D
. Pa. 1998) ( “the Thi r d C i r cui thas notdeci ded w hetherso m ethi ng l es s than a true pr opertyi nt er es t , i ndepende nt l ypr ot ect ed bythe D ue Pr oces s C laus e, ca n s at i s fythe r equi r ementof a ‘ r i ghtor s t atus ’ guar ant eed by the C ons t i tut i on”) ( quot i ng P a u l v. D a v is , 4 2 4 U
. S
. 6 9 3 , 7 1 1 (19 7 6 )). A ccor di ng t o the Supr eme Court , damage t o r eput at i on 14 a lo n e is b e s t v in d ic a te d w ith a s ta te d e f a m a tio n c la im
. P aulv. D a v is , 424 U
. S. 693, 712 ( 1976)
. W e re cogni ze, how ever , that s t at e l aw i m m uni ty doctr i nes oft en pr event s uch cl ai m s from 18 cont i nued empl oym entthati s i ndepende nt l ypr ot ect ed bythe d u e p ro c e s s c la u s e . S e e G ra h a m v . C ity o f P h ila d e lp h ia , 402 F. 3d 139, 142 n. 2 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( “w e have noty etdeci ded th is iss u e ” ); E rs e k

v . T o w n sh ip o

f S p rin g field , 102 F. 3d 79, 83 n .5 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 7 ) (“ F o rtu n a tely , w e n e e d n o t re a c h th is di ffi cul tques t i on her e. ”)
. H i l l ’ s appea l now pr es ent s that 13 i s s u e s q u a r e l y. T h e S u p re m e C o u rt h e ld in W is cons i n v. C ons tant i neau , 40 0 U
. S
. 43 3 (197 1) that an i nd i vidual has a pr ot ect abl e i nt er es ti n r eput at i on. “W her e a pe r s on' s good name, r eput at i on, honor , ori nt egr i tyi s ats t ake be caus e of w hatthe governm enti s doi ng t o hi m , not i ce a nd an oppor tuni tyt o be hea r d ar e es s ent i al
. ” Id
. at437. C our t s have s ubs equent l ycl ar i fi ed, how ever , that “r eput at i on al one i s notan i nt er es tpr ot ect ed bythe D ue Pr oces s C l aus e. ” V

ers ar ge v. Tow ns hi

p of C l i nt on, N

ew Jer s ey , 984 F. 2d 1359, 1371 ( 3d C i r . 1993) ( ci t i ng P aulv. D a v is , 4 2 4 U
. S
. 6 9 3 , 7 0 1 -71 2 (19 7 6 )) ( em p h asis ad d ed ). 14b e in g b ro u g h t a g a in s t g o v e rn m e n t ac to rs . See, e. g. , Li ndnerv. Mol lan , 677 A
. 2d 1194, 1195- 1196 ( Pa. 199 6 ) ( doctr i ne of a b so lu te p riv ileg e e x e m p ts a h ig h p u b lic o f f icia l f ro m a ll civ il su its f o r da m a g e s ar isin g o u t o f f a lse d e f a m a to r y sta tem e n ts p rov ided the stat em en ts are m ad e in th e c o u rse o f th e o ff ici al’s d u ti es o r po w ers a n d w ith in the sco p e o f h is au tho ri ty ). C odd v. V

el ger , 4 2 9 U .S . 6 2 4 , 6 2 7 (1 9 7 7 ); G r aham , 15 4 02 F. 3d at144; E rs ek , 102 F. 3d at84 ; Doe v . U. S

. Dep t
. of 19 R ather , t o m ake outa due pr oces s cl ai m fordepr i vat i on of a lib e rtyin ter e st in re p u tatio n , a p lain tiff m u st s h o w a stig m a to hi s r eput at i on pl us depr i vat i on of s om e addi t i onal r i ghtor in te re s t. P a u l v. D a v is , 4 2 4 U .S . 6 9 3 , 7 0 1 (1 9 7 6 ). A ccord, e. g. , Si eger tv. G i l l ey , 5 0 0 U
. S
. 2 2 6 , 2 3 3 -23 4 (19 9 1 ); E dw a rd s v . C a lif o rn ia U n iv. o f P e n n sy lva n ia , 156 F. 3d 488, 4 9 2 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 8 ); Ke lly v . B o ro u g h o f Sa y re v ill e , 107 F. 3d 1 0 7 3 , 1 0 7 7 -1 0 7 8 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 7 ); E rs ek , 1 0 2 F .3 d a t 8 3 n . 5 ; C lark v . T

o w n sh ip o

f Fa lls , 8 9 0 F
. 2 d 6 1 1 , 6 1 9 -62 0 (3d C ir
. 1 9 8 9 ); Sturm v. C lark , 8 3 5 F
. 2 d 1 0 0 9 , 1 0 1 2 -10 1 3 (3d C ir
. 1 9 8 7 ). W e h a v e re f

e rr e d to th is a s th e “ s tig m a -p lu s ” te s t. See, e. g. , G r aham , 4 0 2 F .3 d a t 1 4 2 n .2 ; E rs ek , 102 F. 3d at83 n. 5. In the p ub l i c em ploym ent cont ext, the “st i gm a-pl us” t es thas been appl i ed t o m ean thatw hen an e m pl oy er“cr eat es and di s s emi nat es a fa l s e and de famat oryi m pr es s i on aboutthe empl oy ee i n connec t i on w i th hi s t erm i nat i on, ” i tdepr i ves the e m p lo y e e o f

a p ro te c te d lib e rt yin te re s t. C odd v. V el ger , 429 U
. S. 624, 628 ( 1977)
. T he cr eat i on and di s s emi nat i on of a fal s e and de famat oryi m pr es s i on i s the “s t i gm a, ” and the t erm i nati on i s the “p l us. ” W hen such a d epri vati on occu rs , the empl oy ee i s ent i t l ed t o a name- cl ear i ng hear i ng. 15Jus t i ce , 753 F. 2d 1092, 1112- 1114 ( D
. C
. C i r . 1986)
. W e have n o t i n the p ast d ec ided – an d d o n o t hav e o cc asio n to d ec ide h ere
– w hether a pl ai nt i ff w ho pr evai l s on a “s t i gm a- pl us ” cl ai m m ay b e e n title d to re m e d ie s o th e r th a n a n a m e -c le a ri n g h e a ri n g . See E rs ek , 102 F. 3d at84 n. 6. T he M ay ors ugges t s thath is st at ement s aboutw hi ch 16 H i l l com plai ns c o u ld no tbe suf fi ci entl yst i gm at i zi ng becau se theyad d resse d “m att ers o f p u b li c c o n ce rn” (a p h ra se o f a rt relev an t i n the F ir st A m en d m en t co n text), o r be ca u se th eyw ere o n e p u b li c se rva n t’ s statem en ts ab o u t ano ther p u b li c se rv an t’ s p e rf o rm a n c e o f

h is p u b lic jo b
. T h e sta tem e n ts a b o u t w h ich H ill compl ai ns ar e not s t at ement s of opi ni on aboutthe i s s ues of the d a y , h o w e v e r, o r sta n d a rd c o m m e n ts m a d e a m o n g p o lit icia n s in the r ough- and- tum bl e thati s l ocal pol i t i cs . H e compl ai ns about fac tual al l egat i ons of i l l egal conduct , thatal l egedl yw er e fa l s e, 20 T o s at i s fythe “s t i gm a” pr ong of the t es t , i tm us tbe all eg ed that the p u rpo rt ed lysti g m ati zing stat em en t( s) (1) w ere m a d e p u b lic ly, B is hop v. W ood , 4 2 6 U
. S
. 3 4 1 , 3 4 8 (19 7 6 ); C habalv. R eagan , 8 4 1 F
. 2 d 1 2 1 6 , 1 2 2 3 -12 2 4 (3d C ir
. 1 9 8 8 ); A nders on v . C ity o

f P h ila d e lp h ia , 845 F. 2d 1216, 1222 ( 3d C ir .1 9 8 8 ), a n d (2 ) w e re f a ls e . C odd , 429 U
. S. at627- 629; Fr at er nal O r derof

P ol i ce v . Tucker , 868 F. 2d 74, 82- 83 ( 3d C ir .1 9 8 9 ). H i l l has cl ear l yal l eged thatM ar i no defa m ed hi m by acc us i ng hi m of w r ongdoi ng. H e al l eges thatthe ac cus at i ons w er e made publ i cl y– befor e hi s col l eague s and bef or e the g e n e ra l p u b lic (a t B o ro u g h C o u n c il m e e tin g s a n d in n ew sp ap er a rt icl es). H e a ll eg es th at th e a cc u sati o n s w ere fal s e, and thattheyt arni s hed hi s r eput at i on and “s ubj ect ed [ h im ] to sc o rn a n d rid icu le.” H is c o m p lain t th u s a d e q u a tely 16s e e , e .g ., ¶28, and thatthe M ay oral l egedl yk n ew w er e fa l s e. S e e , e .g ., ¶51. T heyar e notpr ot ect ed as a m att er of l aw byany e x cepti on for “m at t ers of p ub l i c con cern” or “pub l i c serva n t” exce pt i on. 21 a lleg e s th e “ stig m a ” p ro n g o f th e “ stig m a -p lu s” tes t. W hat i s r equ i red t o sat i sfythe “p l us” pron g o f t he tes t i n t he publ i c empl oym entcont exti s m or e equi vocal
. T he Supr eme C our tpr ece denti s notcry s t al cl earon w hether t erm i nati on from go vernm ent em ploym ent const i tutes a s uffi ci ent“pl us ” w hen, as a mat t erof s t at e l aw , the pl ai nt i ff la c k e d a p ro p e rt yin te re s t in re ta in in g h is jo b
. I n P a u l v. D a v is , the C our ts t at ed, s om ew hat eni gm at i cal l y , thatthe “pl us ” had t o be an a l t er at i on or ext i ngui s hm entof “a r i ghtors t atus pr evi ous l yr ecogni zed by s t at e l aw . ” 424 U
. S. at711. T hatC our t ’ s tr eatm entof B oa rd o f R eg e n ts v . R o th , 4 0 8 U .S . 5 6 4 , 5 7 3 (1 9 7 2 ) su g g e sts th a t, underthi s s t andar d, a per s on’ s l os s of empl oym entt o w hi ch he d i d n ot hol d a st at e l aw -cr eat ed p ropertyi nter esti s a s uffi ci ent“pl us . ” I n R o th , a non- t enur ed pr ofes s orw ho had notbeen r eappoi nt ed af

t erhi s i ni t i al one- y eart erm ended c l ai m ed he had bee n depr i ved of a r i ghtt o cont i nued empl oym entw i thout due pr oces s . T he C our tdeni ed hi s cl ai m , fi ndi ng thatthe p ro f e ss o r, b e c a u se h e w a s n o t ten u re d , d id n o t h a v e a p ro p e rty r i ghtt o cont i nued empl oym ent
. I tnot ed, how ever , thathad the U ni ver s i tydefa m ed the pr ofes s ori n the cour s e of decl i ni ng t o r ehi r e hi m , i tw oul d have de pr i ved the pr ofes s or o f a lib e rt yin te re s t. I

d. at573. I tcame t o thi s concl us i onW e pr evi ous l ypoi nt ed t o thi s i m pl i cat i on of P aulv. 17 D a v is i n E rs e k

v . T o w n sh ip o

f S p rin g field , 1 0 2 F .3 d 7 9 , 8 3 n .5 (3d C ir
. 1 9 9 7 ). I n C oddv. Vel

ger , the C our tdeni ed the cl ai m of the 18 p e tit io n e r – a p ro b a ti o n a rye m p lo y e e w h o lac k e d a p ro p e rty i nt er es ti n hi s j ob – notbeca u se h e w as pr obat i onary , but beca us e he fai l ed t o al l ege thatthe i nform at i on thathad bee n di s cl os ed w as fal s e. 429 U
. S. at627- 628. 22 d e sp ite th e f

a c t th a t th e p ro f

e ss o r la c k e d a p ro p e rtyin ter e st in hi s j ob. T he C our ti n P a u l v. D a v is – and then i n l at er opi ni ons – i m pl i edl yendor s ed thi s concl us i on. 424 U
. S. at 709- 710. See a l

so Siegert , 5 0 0 U .S . at 2 3 3 ; O w en v. C i t y of 17 I ndepende nce , 4 4 5 U .S . 6 2 2 , 6 3 3 n .1 3 (1 9 8 0 ). T h o u g h i th a s n e v e ra g a i n t a k e n th i s i s s u e o n d i r e c t l y, the C ou rti n sub sequen top i nions has rei t erat ed thatthe “p l us” i n “s t i gm a- pl us ” cl ai m s ar i s i ng outof publ i c empl oym ent deci s i ons , m aybe l os s of a j ob i n w hi ch the pl ai nt i ff he l d no pr opertyi nt er es tunders t at e l aw . I n O w en , the E ig h th C irc u it had hel d thatthe pol i ce c hi ef pe t i t i oner“pos s es s ed no p ro p e rtyin ter e st in c o n tin u e d e m p lo ym e n t,” b u t th a t alle g e d ly fal s e ac cus at i ons the ci tym ade i nci dentt o hi s di s char ge “ha d bl acke ned pet i t i oner ’ s name and r eput at i on, thus depr i vi ng h im o f lib e rt yw ith o u t d u e p ro c e s s o f la w .” 4 4 5 U .S . a t 6 3 1
. C i t i ng R oth and P a u l v. D a v is , the S u p re m e C o u rt h e ld th a t it h a d “ n o d o u b t th a t th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls” w a s c o rre c t in th is c o n c lu s io n . I

d. at633 n. 13. Si m i l ar l y , i n C odd v. V el ger , the C our ts t at ed that“w her e a non- t enur ed empl oy ee ha s been stig m a tize d in th e c o u rse o f a d e c isio n to ter m in a te h is empl oym ent , ” he i s ent i t l ed t o a name- cl ear i ng hear i ng. 429 U
. S. at627. 1823 W e, t oo, have ne vercl ear l yans w er ed the ques t i on w hethert erm i nati on from a go vernm ent j ob con st i tutes a suffici ent “pl us” un der the “st i gm a-pl us” t estw hen , as a m a tter o f sta te la w , the p lain tiff

lac k e d a p ro p e rtyin ter e st in r et ai ni ng the j ob. O n atl eas tone occ as i on w e have s ugges t ed th a t it m ig h t. Se e Mc Knigh tv . SEPTA , 583 F. 2d 1229, 1235- 1242 ( 3d C i r . 1978) ( hol di ng thata compl ai nts t at ed a “s t i gm a- pl us ” due pr oces s cl ai m w her e the pl ai nt i ff w as defa m ed i n t he cour s e of be i ng di s char ged, though i tw as not cl ear u n d e r sta te la w w h e th e r h e h a d a p ro p e rtyin ter e st in co n ti n u ed em p loym en t)
. W e have i n s ever al cas es us ed l anguage thatcoul d be re a d b ro a d lyto re q u ire th a t th e “ p lu s” b e lo ss o f a jo b in w h ic h th e p la in tif

f h a d a p ro te c tib le p ro p e rt yin te re s t. See E rs ek , 1 0 2 F
. 3 d at 83 n . 5 (no ti n g this). T h ese ca ses, ho w ev er, ar e al l fac tual l ydi s t i ngui s habl e. I n eac h of them, w e hel d that th e d e p riv a tio n th e p lain tiff su f f e re d a lo n g w ith stig m a to h is reput at i on w as not s uff

i ci entl yw ei gh tyt o sat i sfythe “p l us” r equi r ement
. W e s o hel d beca us e the pl ai nt i ff di d notlo se h is j ob, and i ns t ead c om pl ai ned abouts om e adve r s e empl oym ent a c tio n le s s d ra s tic th a n d is c h a rg e . See Edw ar ds , 156 F. 3d at 4 9 2 (plainti ff

w as su sp en d ed w ith p ay , b u t w as n o t fi red ); Ke lly , 107 F. 3d at1077- 1078 ( pl ai nt i ff w as r epr i m anded a nd di s ci pl i ned, butw as nevers us pended, r emoved, fi ned or re d u c e d in ra n k ); C lark , 8 9 0 F
. 2 d at 61 7 -62 0 (plainti ff ’s dut i es w er e cha nged, buthe di d notl os e hi s j ob, and nei ther h is g ra d e n o r h is p a yw a s lo w e re d ); R obb , 733 F. 2d at294 ( pl ai nt i ff w as tr ans ferr ed and de ni ed a pr om ot i on, but r e ma i n e d e mp l o y e d b yth e Ci tyo f P h i l a d e l p h i a a tth e s a me c la s s if ic a tio n le v e l a n d p a ys c a le th a t h e h a d p re v io u s ly h a d ). See al s o V ers ar ge , 984 F. 2d at1370- 1371 ( pl ai nt i ff l os tj ob as24 f ire f ig h ter , b u t jo b w a s o n lya v o lu n tee r p o sitio n to b e g in w ith ). H e re , h o w e v e r, H ill d id lo s e h is jo b . T h e “ p lu s ,” c o n sis tin g o f

H ill ’s c o n stru c tiv e d isc h a rg e w a s s u b sta n tial – so su b sta n tial, in f

a c t, th a t w e c a n c o m f

o rta b lyh o ld th a t H ill has m etal l r equi r ement s of “s t i gm a- pl us . ” W e ther efor e conc l ude t odaythata publ i c empl oy ee w ho i s defa m ed i n t he cour s e of be i ng t erm i nat ed or cons truct i vel ydi s char ged s at i s fi es the “s t i gm a- pl us ” t es teven i f, as a mat t erof s t at e l aw , he l acks a pr opertyi nt er es ti n the jo b h e lo s t. W e not e thatothercourt s have c om e t o thi s concl us i on, m os t l ybas ed on Supr eme C our tl anguage i n P a u l v. D a v is
. See, e. g. , D oe v. U

. S. D ept
. of Jus t i ce , 753 F. 2d 1092, 1104- 1 1 1 2 (D .C . C ir. 1 9 8 5 ); D e n n is v. S&S Consol

. R ur alHigh Sc h . D ist. , 5 7 7 F .2 d 3 3 8 , 3 4 2 -3 4 3 (5 th C ir. 1 9 7 8 ); C olai z z iv. W alker , 5 4 2 F
. 2 d 9 6 9 , 9 7 3 (7th C ir
. 1 9 7 6 ). W e bel i eve thatthi s concl us i on m akes good s ens e, and i s l ogi cal
. T o hol d otherw i s e – thata governm entempl oy ee m u st b e d e p riv e d o f

a sta te la w -c re a ted p ro p e rtyin ter e st in cont i nued empl oym enti n or dert o s at i s fythe “pl us ” i n a
“ stig m a -p lu s” c laim – w o u ld equat e the i nt er es t s pr ot ect ed bythe p ro p e rty cl aus e of the [f our t eenth] amendm entw i th thos e pr ot ect ed bythe lib e rty cl aus e . . . [T]he l i bertycl aus e w oul d be s tr i pped of any i ndepende ntm eani ng i n the cont extof governm entdefa m at i on. G overnm entempl oy ees w ho enj oyan i ndepende ntpr opertyi nt er es ti n cont i nued em ploym ent, of co urse, m ustbe af forded du e processIt is n o t cle a r f ro m th e c o m p lain t w h e th e r H ill 19 r eques t ed anys or tof name- cl ear i ng hear i ng, butw e have not h e ld th a t h e w a s re q u ir e d to d o s o . See Ers ek , 102 F. 3d at84 n. 8. 25 u p o n term ination reg ard less o f w h ethe r th eyare d is c h a rg e d in c o n n e c tio n w ith s tig m a tiz in g a lle g a tio n s . T hatpr oces s w i l l or di nar i l yaff or d thos e empl oy ees an oppor tuni tyt o r efut e s t i gm at i zi ng al l egat i ons . T he l i bertycl aus e, bycontr as t , pr ot ect s r eput at i on, notj ob te n u re , in th e g o v e rn m e n t e m p lo ym e n t c o n te x t. A l though P aulr e q u i r e s th e a l t e r a t i o n o f s o me g o v e rn m e n tallyre c o g n ize d sta tu s in a d d iti o n to defa m at i on, the P aulc o u rt p lain lyd e c lin e d to e q u a te th a t ad d iti o n a l co m p o n e n t w ith a n in d e p e n d e n t, c o n stitu tio n a llyp ro tec ted p ro p e rtyin ter e st. D oe , 753 F. 2d at1108 n. 15. H ill h a s a lleg e d th a t M a rin o ’s d e f a m a tio n o c c u rre d in c o n n e c tio n w ith h is d isc h a rg e . U n d e r o u r h o ld in g to d a y , this i s suffi ci ent t o sat i sfythe “p l us” pron g o f t he “st i gm a-pl us” tes t, de sp ite th e f

a c t th a t H ill w a s a n a t-w ill e m p lo y e e a n d d id nothave a pr opertyi nt er es ti n cont i nued empl oym entunder s t a t e l a w. H i l l has t hu s al l eged dep ri vati on of a li bertyi nter est pr ot ect i bl e underthe due pr oces s cl aus e. H i l l w as notgi ven the pr oces s he w as due – a na m e- cl ear i ng hear i ng. H e has 19 c o n se q u e n tlysta ted a c laim f o r d e p riv a tio n o f

h is lib e rty i nt e r e s ti n h i s r e pu t a t i on w i tho utthe pr oc e s s the U
. S. c o n s titu tio n re q u ir e s .26 2 . E q u a l P ro tec tio n C laim H i l l al s o cl ai m s thathi s r i ght s underthe Equal P ro tec tio n c lau se w e re v io late d w h e n M a rin o c o n stru c tiv e ly d isch arg ed h im
. ¶1 0 3
. H e inv o k es th e “ class o f o n e” theo ry announce d i n V

i l lage of W i l low br ook v. O l ech , 528 U
. S. 562 ( 2000) ( percur i am). A ccor di ng t o thattheory , a pl ai nt i ff st at es a cl ai m for vi olat i on of the E qu al P rot ect i on cl ause w hen he “ al l eges thathe has been i nt ent i onal l ytr eat ed di ffe r ent l yfr om ot her s s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed and thatther e i s no r at i onal bas i s forthe di ffe r ence i n tr eatm ent
. ” I d. a t 5 6 4
. Th e Di s tr i c tCo u r td i s mi s s e d th i s c l a i m, a n d we wi l l a f f i r m, b u t o n a d if

f e re n t b a s is
. O urcourthas nothad the opportuni tyt o cons i derthe equal pr ot ect i on “cl as s of one” theoryatanyl ength. Fr om the t extof O l ech itse lf

, h o w e v e r, itis c lea r th a t, at th e v e rylea st, t o s t at e a c l ai m underthattheory , a pl ai nt i ff mustal l ege that (1 ) th e d e f

e n d a n t trea ted h im d if

f e re n tlyf ro m o th e rs s im ilarly situ ated , (2) the d ef

en d an t did so inten ti o n all y , an d (3) the re w a s n o ra tio n a l b a s is f

o r t h e d if f e re n c e in tr e a tm e n t. H i l l ’ s cl ai m m us tfai l beca us e he doe s notal l ege the exi s t ence of s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed i ndi vi dual s – i
. e. , B or ough M anage r s – w ho M ar i no tr eat ed di ffe r ent l ythan he tr eat ed H ill. See, e. g. , Levens t ei n v. Salaf s ky , 4 1 4 F .3 d 7 6 7 , 7 7 6 (7 th C i r . 2005) ( aff

i r m i ng a gr antof j udgm entforthe def endanton the equa l pr ot ect i on “cl as s of one” cl ai m of a pr ofes s orw ho al l eged he had bee n cons truct i vel ydi s char ged, beca us e the pr ofes s orfai l ed t o i dent i fyanothers i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed in d iv id u a l w h o h a d b e e n tre a ted d if f e re n tly ). In f

a c t, th e o n ly o ther B o rou g h em p loy ee s H il l m en ti o n s in h is co m p lai n t w ere27 a ls o h a ra s s e d a n d th re a te n e d b yM a y o r M a ri n o . ¶ ¶ 2 5 -3 5
.

3
. F i r s tAme n d me n tCl a i ms H i l l al l eges thatthe M ay or ’ s har as s m entand defa m at i on w er e r et al i at i on forH i l l ’ s s peec h and pol i t i cal a ss o c iatio n . F irst, H ill a lleg e s, M a rin o re talia ted a g a in st h im b e c a u se H ill re p o rte d M a rin o ’s m istre a tm e n t o f h im a n d h is coll eagu es t o the B oroug h C ou ncil
. In addit i on , H i l l al l eges, M ar i no r et al i at ed aga i ns thi m foradvoca t i ng and s uppor t i ng i deas , pr i nci pl es and pr oj ect s M ar i no di s favor ed, i ncl udi ng the t el ecomm uni cat i ons pr oj ect
. Fi nal l y , H i l l al l eges , the M ay orr et al i at ed aga i ns thi m beca us e he s uppor t ed the pr evi ous m ay or ’ s pol i ci es and pr ogr ams. H i l l cl ai m s that M ar i no’ s r et al i at i on i nt er fer ed w i th hi s Fi r s tA m endment r i ght s t o expr es s i on, t o as s oci at i on and t o pet i t i on governm ent forr edr es s of gr i evanc es . ¶110.

a. W ith o u t ci tat ion to an yau tho ri ty , the D istri ct C o u rt di s m i s s ed thi s cl ai m on the gr ound thatM ar i no coul d not r et al i at e aga i ns t , orcons truct i vel ydi s char ge, H i l l beca us e he l acke d the pow ert o fi r e hi m – a pow erw hi ch, under53 P A . C ON S . S TAT . § 4 6 1 4 1 , o n ly th e B o ro u g h C o u n c il p o s s e s s e d
. “H il l cou ld n o t be re tal iat ed [a g ains t] b ythe M ay o r fo r H il l’ s s t at ement s , ” the D i s tr i ctC our thel d, “bec aus e as a mat t erof P e n n s y lv a n ia a n d lo c a l la w , th e M a y o r h a d n o a u th o ri ty . . . w hat s oeveroverH i l l ’ s empl oym ents t atus . ” If it w e re tru e th a t M a rin o c o u ld n o t co n stru c tiv e ly d isc h a rg e H ill b e c a u se h e lac k e d th e p o w e r to f ire H illSee al s o W agner v. D evi ne , 12 2 F
. 3d 53 , 55 n. 4 (1st 20 C ir. 1 9 9 7 ) (d e f

e n d a n t ci tyc o u n c il m e m b e rs h a d th e p o w e r to cons truct i vel ydi s char ge pl ai nt i ff p ol i ce c hi ef though they l acke d the pow er t o fi r e hi m beca us e theyhad the pow ert o s et h is salary , b en ef

it s an d w o rkin g co n d it ion s).

28 o u tr ig h t, a ll o f

H ill ’s c laim s a g a in st M a rin o w o u ld f a il fo r th is r eas on beca us e theyar e al l pr emi s ed on M ar i no’ s cons truct i ve di s char ge of H i l l
. H ow ever , M ar i no c o u ld c o n stru c tiv e ly d isc h a rg e H ill e v e n th o u g h h e lac k e d th e sta tu to rya u th o rityto f ire H ill o u trig h t. A su p e rv iso r w h o lac k s th e p o w e r to t erm i nate a s ub ordi nate’ s em ploym ent m ayno nethel ess abuse hi s pow erw i th r es pectt o thats ubor di nat e, and mayeven cons truct i vel ydi s char ge the s ubor di nat e, pr ovi ded he ( the supervi sor) exerci ses s om e p o w e r o v e r t h e e m p lo y e e . B o n e n b e rg e r v . P lym o u th T o w n sh ip , 132 F. 3d 20, 23- 25 ( 3d C ir
. 1 9 9 7 ). 20 I n B onenber

ger , a po l i ce of

fi cer w ho w orked a s a di s pat chers ued a Ser geantw hos e r epea t ed s exual har as s m ent of the off

i cerdr ove hert o r es i gn. T he Ser geant“had no authori tyt o h i re, fi re orm ake an yem ploym ent deci si on [s] re g a rd in g ” th e d isp a tch e r, b u t h e d id o u tra n k h e r, an d d id s o m e tim e s s u p e rv is e h e r w o rk
. I d. at22- 23. W hen the S e rg e a n t su p e rv ise d th e d isp a tch e r’s w o rk , h e “ h a d so le c o n tr o l o v e r h e r w o rk e n v ir o n m e n t, d e te rm in in g w h e n s h e . . . m i ghtt ake a br eak a nd w hi ch t as ks [s he] w oul d per form . ” I d. at22. H e “c oul d al t erherw or kl oad w heneve rhe s upervi s ed hers hi ft
. ” I

d. at24. I f s he “f

ai l ed t o fol l ow hi s or der s , the pol i ce de part m entw oul d vi ew thatfai l ur e as i ns ubor di nat i on for w hich [she] pr op erl ycou l d b egin a di sci pli naryprocess thatm i ghtr es ul ti n herdi s char ge. ” I d.T h e c o u rt a rticu late d its h o ld in g in ter m s o f sta te 21 pow er : i t hel d thatbeca us e the Ser geantl acke d s uffi ci entpow er o v e r th e p o lice o f

f ice r, h e c o u ld n o t m e e t th e “ c o lo r o f sta te law ” re qui r ementof §1983. H ow ever , i t s hol di ng w as es s ent i al l ythe s ame as the D i s tr i ct C our t ’ s hol di ng i n thi s cas e, e v e n th o u g h h e re th e d istric t co u rt a rticu late s its h o ld in g in t erm s of the “author i ty overempl oym ents t atus . ” B oth di s tr i ct court s found thata pl ai nt i ff c ould n o t su e a de fenda ntfor c o n stru c tiv e d isc h a rg e w h e re th e d e f e n d a n t lac k e d th e p o w e r to ter m in a te th e p lain tiff

o u trig h t. 29 T h e D istric t C o u rt (in th e c o n tex t o f “ c o lo r o f

sta te l aw ”) gr ant ed s um m aryj udgm entforthe Ser geanton the gr ound thathe di d nothave the pow ert o m ake e m pl oym ent deci s i ons r egar di ng the pol i ce of fi cer . T hi s courtr ever s ed, 21 not i ng A st at e em ploy ee m ay , un der cert ai n cir cum st ances, w i el d co nsi derabl e con trol ov er a s ub ordi nate w ho se w or k he r egul ar l ys upervi s es , even i f he doe s nothi r e, fire, or i ssu e re g u lar ev alua ti o n s o f h er w o rk . .
. T h ere i s s i m pl yno pl aus i bl e j us t i fi cat i on fordi s t i ngui s hi ng betw een a bus e of s t at e author i tybyone w ho hol ds the form al t i t l e of su pervi sor, on the o ne h and , and abu se of s t at e author i tybyone w ho bear s no s uch t i t l e but w h o se re g u lar d u ties n o n e th e les s in c lu d e a v irtu a lly i dent i cal s upervi s oryr ol e, on the other
. . . [T]he e ss e n c e o f

se c tio n 1 9 8 3 ' s c o lo r o f law re q u ire m e n t is thatthe al l eged of

fende r , i n comm i t t i ng the ac t compl ai ned of, abus ed a pow erorpos i t i on gr ant ed by the s t at e. I d. at23- 24.T he Penns y l vani a s t atut e l i s t i ng the dut i es of a Borough 22 M ay ors t at es that“i ts hal l be the dutyof the may or. . . t o exac t a f a ith f u l p e rf o rm a n c e o f th e d u tie s o f th e o f f ic e rs a p p o in te d .” 53 P A . C ON S . S TAT . §46029( 1)
. Pur s uantt o 53 P A . C ON S . S TAT . §46142 , “the m ay or m ay del egat e t o the bor ough m anage rany o f h is n o n leg isla tiv e a n d n o n ju d icia l p o w e rs a n d d u ties ,” w ith th e a p p ro v a l o f

th e B o ro u g h C o u n c il. It is th e B o ro u g h C o u n c il – and notthe M ay or – h o w ever , w hi ch s et s the B or ough M a n a g e r ’ s ’ h o u r s a n d c o mpe n s a t i o n. 53 P A . C ON S . S TAT . §46101. B ut the M ay or w or ks as a m ember of the B or ough C o u n c il u n d e r c e rt a in c ir c u m s ta n c e s . S e e , e .g ., 53 P A . C ON S . S TAT . §§46007 ( “Passag e, appr oval and vet o of or di nance s ”) and 46003 ( “W hen the may orm aypr es i de overcou n ci l and vo t e; [prov i ding fo r] at t end ance o f m ay or atcou ncil m eet i ng s; b rea k ing ti e v o tes”). 30 H ill a lleg e d th a t h e “ re p o rte d to th e B o ro u g h C o u n c il cons i s t i ng of s i x el ect ed C ounci l m ember s ( w hi ch s erved as Pl ai nt i ff’ s s upervi s or ) and, i n r es pectt o s om e s ubj ect s , t o one el ect ed may or( D efe ndantM ar i no) of the B or ough of K ut zt ow n. ” ¶10. H e has thus al l eged – a tl eas tforthe purpos e of thi s m ot i on – thatM ar i no w i el ded s uffi ci entpow er w ith re sp e c t to H ill , tha t M a rin o c o u ld c o n stru c tiv e ly d isc h a rg e H ill , ev e n th o u g h o n lyth e B o ro u g h C o u n c il co u ld f ir e H ill o u tr ig h t. Penns y l vani a s t atut es ar e notal l thati nform at i ve about the pow er s m ay or s have ove rempl oy ees hol di ng the pos i t i on of B or ough M anage r– the pos i t i on thatH i l l hel d. 22 D i s coveryw i l l r evea l w hetherM ar i no had s uffi ci ent su p e rv iso ryp o w e r o v e r H ill d a y -to -d a y , tha t h e c o u ld cons truct i vel ydi s char ge H i l l underthe author i tyof B onenber

ger . F o r n o w , H ill ’s a lleg a tio n s a b o u t th e m a n n e r inA d e f e n d a n t ma y d e f

e a t th e p l a i n t i f

f ’ s c l ai m by 23 d e mo n s tr a t i n g th a t t he d e f e n d a n two u l d h a v e t a k e n th e s a me a d v e rse a c tio n in th e a b s e n c e o f p lain tiff ' s p ro tec ted c o n d u c t. See Mt. He a lth

y C ity S c h . D ist. B d . o

f E d u c . v. D o

y le , 42 9 U. S. 2 7 4 , 2 8 7 (19 7 7 ). 31 w hi ch M ar i no exer ci s ed hi s m ay or al pow er s ar e more than s uffi ci entt o w i ths t and di s m i s s al of H i l l ’ s compl ai ntunder 1 2 (b)(6 ). H en ce w e a re sa ti sfied that p u rsua n t t o H il l’ s a lleg a tio n s, w h ich w e m u st c re d it, M a rin o h a d th e “ p o w e r” to c o n stru c tiv e lyd isc h a rg e H ill
. b. W e turn n o w to ex am ine w h ethe r H il l’ s all eg ati o n s are s uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h thathi s cons truct i ve di s char ge occ urr ed i n r et al i at i on forH i l l ’ s exer ci s e of hi s Fi r s tA m endment ri g h ts
. T o s ta te a F ir s t A m e n d m e n t r e ta lia tio n c la im , a p lain tiff m u st a lleg e tw o th in g s: (1 ) th a t th e a c tiv ityin ques t i on i s pr ot ect ed bythe Fi r s tA m endment , and ( 2) thatthe pr ot ect ed ac t i vi tyw as a s ubs t ant i al fac t ori n the al l eged r et al i at oryact i on. See, e. g. , P hyl l is Hi l lv. C i t y of Scr ant on , 41 1 F
. 3d 11 8, 12 5 (3d C i r. 20 05 ). T he fir stfact or i s a 23 q u e s tio n o f

la w ; th e s e c o n d f

a c to r i s a q u e s tio n o f

f a c t. C ur i nga v. C i t

y of C lai r t on , 3 5 7 F
. 3 d 3 0 5 , 3 1 0 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 4 ). i
. H i l l ’ s Speech A p u b lic e m p lo y e e ’s s tate m e n t is p ro tec ted a c tiv ity w hen ( 1) i n m aki ng i t , the empl oy ee s poke as a ci t i zen, ( 2) the32 s t at ementi nvol ved a mat t erof publ i c conc ern, and ( 3) the governm entempl oy erdi d nothave “ an ade quat e j us t i fi cat i on fortr eat i ng the empl oy ee di ffe r ent l yfr om anyotherm ember o f th e g e n e ra l p u b lic ” a s a re s u lt o f th e s ta te m e n t h e m a d e . G ar cet t iv. C abal l os , - - - U
. S. - - - - , - - - - , 126 S. C t
. 1951, 1958 ( 2006)
. A publ i c empl oy ee doe s nots peak “ as a ci t i zen” w hen he makes a s t at ement“pur s uantt o [hi s ] offi ci al dut i es . ” Id

. at19 60
. “W hetheran em ploy ee’s speech add res ses a m a tter o f p u b lic c o n c e rn m u st b e d e ter m in e d b yth e c o n ten t, form , and cont extof a gi ven s t at ement , as r evea l ed bythe w hol e r ecor d. ” R anki n v. McPhers on , 483 U
. S. 378, 384 ( 1987) ( quot i ng C on nick v. M yers , 461 U
. S. 138, 147- 148 (19 8 3 )). H i l l ’ s compl ai nts t at es that“[h] avi ng r ece i ved compl ai nt s fr om empl oy ees [of the B or ough] abouthos t i l e, i nt i m i dat i ng, oppr es s i ve and ha r as s i ng act i ons byD efe ndant M ar i no, Pl ai nt i ff as par tof his dut i es as M

anagerand otherw ise d u lyre p o rte d th e m , as w e ll as h is o w n c o m p lain ts aboutthe s ame ki nd of beha vi or , t o B or ough C ounci l
. ” ¶36 (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). In h is b rie f , H ill sta tes th a t h e “ re layed h is a n d o th e r w o rk e rs’ c o m p lain ts [ to th e B o ro u g h C o u n c il] in ful fi l l m entof hi s r es pons i bi l i t i es as m anage rand appoi nt ed enfor cerof the B or ough’ s A ffi r m at i ve A ct i on/ E qual E m pl oym entO ppor tuni tyPol i cyand Pr ogr am. ” B r i ef a t 3
. I ns ofaras i ti s bas ed on thi s r eportt o the B or ough C ounci l , H i l l ’ s Fi r s tA m endmentcl ai m m us tfai l beca us e, as H i l l hi m s el f conc edes , he r eport ed M ar i no’ s conductand h a ra ss in g a c tio n s to th e B o ro u g h C o u n se l “p u rsu a n t to h is o ff ici al du ti es.” U n d er G a rc e tti , then, he w as nots peaki ng “as a ci t i zen” w hen he m ade these r epo rt s, and , thu s, as aH i l l appears t o al l ege thathi s r eportt o the B or ough 24 C ounci l coul d be pr ot ect ed bythe Fi r s tA m endmentnotonl yas expr es s i ve sp eec h, butal s o as “pet i t i oni ng act i vi ty . ” ¶110. W hen a publ i c empl oy ee’ s act i vi ty qual i fi es as “pet i t i oni ng the governm ent ” – s uch as fi l i ng a gr i evanc e pur s uantt o a col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng agr eement , ors ui n g h is empl oy er– i ti s pr ot ect ed a c tiv ity so lo n g a s th e p e titio n w a s n o t f ri v o l o u s , o r a “ s h a m ,” re g a rd les s o f

w h e th e r th e p e tit io n in v o lv e d a m a tter o f p u b lic c o n c e rn . B r ennan v. N

or t on , 3 5 0 F
. 3 d 3 9 9 , 4 1 7 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 3 ); San F i l i ppo v. B ongi ovanni , 3 0 F
. 3 d 4 2 4 , 4 3 4 -44 3 (3d C ir
. 1994)
. W e have neverhel d, how ever , thata r eport o f a s uper i or ’ s m i s conduct t o a l egi s l at i ve bodyw hen the l egi s l at i ve bodyi s al so the r eport er ’ s empl oy ercons t i tut es “pet i t i oni ng act i vi ty . ” H i l l ’ s compl ai nt s t o the P H R C and the EE O C , ¶¶48- 49, m ig h t w e ll q u a lify a s “p e tit io n in g ,” an d th u s w o u ld c o n stitu te p ro te c te d a c tiv ity. S e e , e .g ., He rr v . P e q u e a T o w n sh ip , 274 F. 3d 109, 115 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( “The Fi r s tA m endmentr i ghtt o pet i t i on e x ten d s to a ll d e p a rtm e n ts o f g o v e rn m e n t . . . T h e p ro tec tio n it aff or ds thus appl i es . . . t o pet i t i oni ng s t at e age nci es ”)
. H i l l has not , how ever , al l eged thatM ar i no r et al i at ed aga inst h i m for thes e compl ai nt s . ¶110. 33 m att erof l aw , the r eport s ar e notpr ot ect ed s peec h. 24 W e nextcons i derH i l l ’ s Fi r s tA m endmentr et al i at i on cl ai m i ns ofaras i ti s pr emi s ed on hi s advoca t i ng and s uppor t i ng i deas , pr i nci pl es and pr oj ect s M ar i no di s favor ed, in c lu d in g th e te le c o m m u n ic a tio n s p roje c t. F irst, th e c o m p lain t d o e s n o t in d ica te th a t w h e n H ill expr es s ed s uppor tforthe t el ecomm uni cat i ons pr oj ect– as w hen he c om pl ai ned t o the B or ough C ounci l – he w as s peaki ng pur s uantt o hi s offi ci al dut i es , s o w e r ead the“A publ i c empl o y ee’ s s peec h i nvol ves a mat t erof 25 publ i c conc ern i f i tcan be fai r l ycons i der ed as r el at i ng t o any m a tte r o f p o litic a l , s o c i a l o r o th e r c o n c e rn to th e c o m m u n ity.” B r ennan , 350 F. 3d at412. I ts eem s li k el ythatadvoca cyand s uppor tfori deas , pr i nci pl es an d p r oj ect s a B or ough M ay or d isf a v o re d w o u ld in v o lv e a m a tter o f p u b lic c o n c e rn u n d e r th is s t andar d. 34 compl ai ntt o al l ege thatH i l l w as s peaki ng “as a ci t i zen. ” See D elaw ar e N

at i on , 446 F. 3d at415 ( on a 12( b) ( 6) m ot i on, the c o u rt e x a m in e s “ w h e th e r, underany r eas onabl e r eadi ng of the com plai nt , the pl ai nt i ff maybe ent i t l ed t o r el i ef. ”) (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). S ec o n d , w e c an n o t determ ine in this pro ce d u ral po sture w hetherthe s peec h i nvol ved a mat t erof publ i c conc ern. 25 T hatdet erm i nat i on m us tbe made aft eran exa m i nat i on of “the cont ent , form , and cont extof [the] s t at ement , as r evea l ed by the w hol e r ecor d. ” R a n k in , 4 8 3 U .S . a t 3 8 4
. N orcan w e r es ol ve atthi s s t age of thi s cas e the ques t i on of w hetherM ar i no had “a n adequa t e j us t i fi cat i on for tr eat i ng the empl oy ee di ffe r ent l yfr om anyotherm emberof th e g e n e ra l p u b lic ” b yre s tr ic tin g h is s p e e c h
. G a rc e tti , 126 S. C t
. at1958. Fi nal l y , H i l l has al l eged the r equi s i t e ca us al i tyby cl ai m i ng thathi s s uppor tforthe t el ecomm uni cat i ons pr oj ect and otherpr oj ect s and i deas the M ay oroppos ed, w as one of th e re a s o n s th a t M a y o r M a ri n o re ta lia te d a g a in s t h im
. See, e .g ., ¶ 1 1 0 , 1 1 3
.In o u r c a se s in th is a re a , “ p o lit ica l af f ili a tio n ” u su a lly 26 re f e rs to p a rtya f

f ili a tio n , b u t s o m e tim e s re f e rs to a f f ili a tio n w ith a part i cul arpol i t i ci an orcandi dat e. 35 A ccor di ngl y , H i l l ’ s Fi r s tA m endmentcl ai m , i ns ofaras i ti s prem i sed on H i l l ’s adv ocacyand supp ortfor i deas, pr i nci pl es and pr oj ect s M ar i no di s favor ed, s houl d nothave been di s m i s s ed atthi s s t age of the pr ocee di ng. i i
. H i l l ’ s pol i t i cal as s oci at i on H ill a lso b a se s h is F irst A m e n d m e n t re talia tio n c laim on hi s s uppor tfor“the pol i ci es and pr ogr ams of the pr evi ous m ay or . ” To m ake outa cl ai m of di s cr i m i nat i on bas ed on pol i t i cal as s oci at i on, a publ i c empl oy ee mustal l ege ( 1) that the empl oy ee w or ks fora publ i c empl oy eri n a pos i t i on that does notr equi r e a pol i t i cal aff i l i at i on, ( 2) thatthe empl oy ee m a i n t a i n e d a p o l i t i c a l a f f i l i a t i o n , a n d ( 3 ) th a tth e e m p l o ye e 's p o lit ica l af

f ili a tio n w a s a su b sta n tial o r m o tiv a tin g f a c to r in the adve r s e empl oym entdeci s i on. ” G oodm an v. P e n n s y lv a n ia T

u r n p ike C o m 'n , 293 F. 3d 655, 663- 664 ( 3d C i r . 2002)
. W e nee d nots pend t i m e ana l y zi ng thi s i s s ue

26 b ec au se H il l’ s all eg ati o n s in h is co m p lai n t can n o t sup p o rt s u c h a c l a i m. 4. I m m uni tyD efe ns es T he M ay orar gues thathe i s ent i t l ed t o var i ous ki nds of im m u n iti e s f

ro m § 1 9 8 3 liab ili ty . T h o u g h H ill b a re ly r es ponded t o thes e ar gum ent s i n hi s br i ef, w e have exami ned them ou rs el ves.36 Fi r s t , w e hol d thatthe abs ol ut e i m m uni tyw hi ch s hi el ds lo c a l o f f ic ia ls f ro m lia b ility f

o r t h e irle g is la tiv e a c tiv itie s , s ee B o g a n v . Sc o tt-H

a rr is , 5 2 3 U .S . 4 4 (1 9 9 8 ), d o e s n o t sh ield M ar i no beca us e the conduc tw i th w hi ch he i s char ged – cons truct i ve di s char ge thr ough har as s m ent , defa m at i on, and acc us at i ons of i l l egal i ty– w as not“l egi s l at i ve ac t i vi t i es . ” See Y ou ng blood v. D eW

eese , 3 5 2 F
. 3 d 8 3 6 , 8 3 9 -84 0 (3d C ir
. 2003) ( di s cus s i ng the s cope of w hatcons t i tut es “l egi s l at i ve a c tiv itie s ” ). W e f u rth e r h o ld th a t M a rin o is n o t en tit led to pet i t i oni ng i m m uni tyunderthe N oer r - P enni

gt on doctr i ne beca us e the conduc tw i th w hi ch he i s char ged ca nnotbe c o n stru e d a s “ p e tit io n in g a c tiv ity ” u n d e r a n yre a so n a b le in te rp re ta tio n o f

th a t te rm . S e e A .D . B e d e ll W h o le s a le C o ., I nc. v. P hi l i

p Mor r is I

nc. , 263 F. 3d 239, 252 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( di s cus s i ng var i ous ki nds of ac t i vi tythatqual i fi es as “p eti ti o n ing ” f

o r N oer r - P enni ngt on p u rpo ses). M or eover , w e hol d thatthe doctr i ne of hi gh offi ci al i m m uni tyunderPenns y l vani a l aw does nots hi el d M ar i no f ro m su it u n d e r § 1 9 8 3 . T h a t d o c trin e sh ield s h ig h o f f icia ls f ro m s ta te la w c la im s , n o t c o n s titu tio n a l c la im s . Fi nal l y , w e turn t o M ar i no’ s as s ert ed qual i fi ed i m m uni tydefe ns e. “[G ] overnm entoffi ci al s per form i ng di s cr et i onaryfunct i ons gener al l yar e gr ant ed a qua l i fi ed i m m uni tyand ar e ‘ s hi el ded fr om l i abi l i tyforci vi l damages i ns ofaras thei rconductdoes notvi ol at e cl ear l yes t abl i s hed s t atut oryorcons t i tut i onal r i ght s of w hi ch a r eas onabl e per s on s houl d have know n. ’ ” W i l s on v. Layne , 526 U
. S. 603, 609 ( 1999) ( quot i ng H

a rlo w v . F itzg e ra ld , 457 U
. S. 800, 818A s w e n o ted i n footnot e 15, w e do nother e dec i de 27 w hethera pl ai nt i ff w ho i s s ucce s s ful on a “ sti g m a- pl us ” due pr oces s cl ai m i s ent i t l ed t o damages i n addi t i on t o ori ns t ead of a name- cl ear i ng hear i ng. A s s um i ng forth e s ake of ar gum ent that he i s s o ent i t l ed, M ar i no w oul d be pr ot ect ed b yqual i fi ed im m u n ityo n H ill ’s “ stig m a -p lu s” c laim to th e e x ten t t h a t H ill re q u e s ts d a m a g e s . W hi l e, as expl ai ned above, a vi ol at i on of a c ons t i tut i onal rig h t m a yh a v e o c c u rre d h e re , tha t r ig h t w a s n o t cle a rly es t abl i s hed i n thi s C i r cui tbefor e thi s opi ni on. B efor e t oday , the l aw i n thi s C i r cui thad been uncl ear on the ques t i on of w hether 37 (1 9 8 2 )). “ A c o u rt e v a lu a tin g a c laim o f q u a lifie d im m u n ity
‘ m us tfi r s tdet erm i ne w hetherthe pl ai nt i ff ha s al l eged the depr i vat i on of an a ctual cons t i tut i onal r i ghtatal l , and i f s o, p ro c e e d to d e ter m in e w h e th e r th a t rig h t w a s c lea rly es t abl i s hed atthe t i m e of the al l eged vi ol at i on. ’ ” Id

. ( quot i ng C on n v. G ab bert , 5 2 6 U
. S
. 2 8 6 , 2 9 0 (19 9 9 )). W e hol d t hatM ar i no i s notent i t l ed t o qual i fi ed i m m uni tyon H i l l ’ s “s t i gm a- pl us ” due pr oces s cl ai m t o the extentthat cl ai m request s a nam e-cl eari ng heari ng , becau se the def ens e of qua l i fi ed i m m uni tyi s avai l abl e onl yfor damages cl ai m s – notforcl ai m s r eques t i ng pr os pect i ve in ju n c tiv e re lie f
. V

a n c e v . B a rr e tt , 345 F. 3d 1083, 1091 n. 10 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 ); N

e w m a n v . B u rg in , 93 0 F
. 2d 95 5, 95 7 (1st C ir . 1 9 9 1 ) ( B re y e r, J .). See al s o Toris ky v

. Schw ei ker , 446 F. 3d 438, 448 n. 6 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( s t at i ng thati f the D i s tr i ct C our tdet erm i ned on r emand t hatpl ai nt i ffs , w ho s ought damages and an i nj unct i on, had aba ndoned thei rdamages c la im , “ th e D is tr ic t C o u rt w ill h a v e n o o c c a s io n to d e v o te
. . . ef fo rt s to reso lving the q u esti o n o f w h ethe r de fe n d an ts .
. . are en ti tl ed to q u ali fied im m u n ity . ”). 27a publ i c empl oy ee w ho w as defa m ed i n the p roces s of bei ng di s char ged mays t at e a “ s t i gm a- pl us ” due pr oces s cl ai m , though he l acke d a pr opertyi nt er es ti n cont i nued empl oym ent
. W e had re f e rr e d to th is la c k o f

c la ri ty o n tw o o c c a s io n s . G ra h a m v . C ity o f P h ila d e lp h ia , 4 0 2 F .3 d 1 3 9 , 1 4 2 n .2 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ); E rs ek v

. T o w n sh ip o

f S p r in g field , 1 0 2 F
. 3 d 7 9 , 8 3 n . 5 (3d C ir
. 1 9 9 7 ). T he l ack of

cl ar i tyw as fur therevi dentfr om the fac t thatdi s tr i ct cou rt s w i thin this C i rcui thad decided the q uest i on i n b oth w ay s. C om par e, e. g. , Far berv. C i t y of P at ers on , 327 F. Supp. 2d 401, 4 1 2 n . 1 4 (D
. N
. J. 2 0 0 4 ) (rev ’d o n o ther g rou n d s) and G r aham v. Johns on , 2 4 9 F .S u p p .2 d 5 6 3 , 5 6 5 -5 6 8 (E .D .P a . 2 0 0 3 ) (b o th an sw ering the q u esti o n “y es” ) w ith Sa tter field v. B or ough of Schylki l lH

aven , 12 F. Supp. 2d 423, 433- 434 ( E
. D
. Pa. 1998) and the d i stri ctcou rtop i nion i n thi s case ( both ans w er i ng the ques t i on “no”)
. For thi s r eas on, the quest i on w as a ques t i on of fi r s ti m pr es s i on i n thi s C i r cui t
. N o m att erw hatfur therfac t devel opm entr evea l s , then, the l aw w as notcl ear l yes t abl i s hed on the poi nt i n ques t i on, and, i f damages w ere in ques t i on, M a r i n o w o u l d b e e n t i t l e d t o q u a l i f i e d i m m u n i ty. 38 W e f u rth e r h o ld th a t itis n o t p o ss ib le a t th is ju n c tu re to d e ter m in e w h e th e r M a rin o is e n tit led to q u a lifie d im m u n ity o n Hi l l ’ s F i r s tAm e n d me n tc l a i m. As e x p l a i n e d a b o v e , we cannotdet erm i ne on the bas i s of the compl ai ntal one w hether H ill sta ted a c laim f

o r a c o n stitu tio n a l v io latio n ; w e sim ilarly ca n n o t t ell w ith o u t fac tual d ev elop m en t th rou g h d isco v ery w h e th e r th e rig h t at iss u e w a s c lea rlye sta b lish e d . T h is d ef en se m ayw ell lend it self to re so luti o n at su m m ary ju d g m e n t. B. W e nextaddr es s H i l l ’ s cl ai m s agai ns tthe B or ough of39 K ut zt ow n. 1
. § 1 9 8 3 Cl a i ms H i l l br i ngs agai ns tthe B or ough al l the §1983 cl ai m s he br oughtagai ns tthe M ay or . B eca us e w e w i l l aff i r m the di s m i s s al of the cl ai m s agai ns tthe M ay oral l egi ng depr i vat i on of a pr opertyr i ghtw i thoutdue pr oces s , vi ol at i on of s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s r i ght s and vi ol at i on of equa l pr ot ect i on r i ght s , w e di s m i s s thos e cl ai m s agai ns tthe B or ough as w el l
. “Ther e ca nnotbe an ‘ aw ar d of damages agai ns ta muni ci pal corpor at i on bas ed on the ac t i ons of one of i t s offi cer s w hen i n fac t
. . . the off i ceri nfl i ct ed no cons t i tut i onal harm . ’ ” G r az i erex r el

. W hi t e v. C i t

y of P h ila d e lp h ia , 328 F. 3d 120 , 124 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( quot i ng C ity of Los Angel es v. Hel l er , 4 7 5 U
. S
. 7 9 6 , 7 9 9 (19 8 6 )). W e w il l no t, h o w ev er, aff irm the d ism issal of

H il l’ s c laim s a g a in st th e B o ro u g h a lleg in g d e p riv a tio n o f a lib e rty i nt er es ti n r eput at i on w i thoutdue pr oces s , and vi ol at i on of the F i rs tA m end m ent, becau se H i l l has st at ed these cl ai m s agai nst M ar i no, and M ar i no w as a fi nal pol i cy - m akercapa bl e of b in d in g th e B o ro u g h w ith h is c o n d u c t w h e n it ca m e to c o n stru c tiv e lyd isc h a rg in g H ill
. A m uni ci pal i tym aynotbe hel d l i abl e under§1983 for the cons t i tut i onal t or t s of i t s empl oy ees byvi r tue of r es pondeat s uper i or . R a th e r, a m u n icip a litym a yb e h e ld l i abl e forthe conduc tof an i ndi vi dual empl oy ee oroffi cer onl yw hen thatconducti m pl ement s an off i ci al pol i cyor p ra c tic e . Mon el lv. N

ew Y ork C i t y D ept. of Soci al Servi ces, 4 3 6 U .S . 6 5 8 , 6 9 0 (1 9 7 8 ); McG r eev y v. Str oup , 413 F. 3d 359,40 3 6 7 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). A n i ndi vi dual ’ s conducti m pl ement s offi ci al pol i cyor pr act i ce unde rs ever al types of ci r cumst ance s , i ncl udi ng w hen ( 1) the i ndi vi dual act ed pur s uantt o a form al governm ent p o licyo r a sta n d a rd o p e ra tin g p ro c e d u re lo n g a c c e p ted w ith in the governm entent i ty , ( 2) the i ndi vi dual hi m s el f has fi nal p o licy -m a k in g a u th o ritysu c h th a t h is c o n d u c t re p re se n ts offi ci al pol i cy , or( 3) a fi nal pol i cy - m akerr ender s the i ndi vi dual ’ s conductoffi ci al forl i abi l i typurpos es byhavi ng d e leg a ted to h im a u th o rityto a c t o r sp e a k f o r th e g o v e rn m e n t, o r b yra tif

y in g th e c o n d u c t o r s p e e c h a f te r i t h a s o c c u rr e d
. S e e g e n e ra lly P e m b a u r v . C ity o f C in c in n a ti , 475 U
. S. 469, 478- 484 ( 1986) ; McG r eev y , 4 1 3 F .3 d a t 3 6 7 ; Laver dur e v. C ou nty of

Mon t go m ery , 3 2 4 F
. 3 d 1 2 3 , 1 2 5 -12 6 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 3 ). H e re , it is n u m b e r ( 2 ) a b o v e th a t is m o s t r e le v a n t. O n lyif M a y o r M a rin o w a s a f

in a l p o licy -m a k e r w a s h is cons truct i ve di s char ge of H i l l eff ect i vel yoffi ci al B or ough p o licysu c h th a t th e B o ro u g h m a yb e h e ld liab le f o r it. H ill has al l eged e xpl i ci t l ythatM ay orM ar i no w as a fi nal p o lic ym a k e r. S e e , e .g ., ¶ ¶ 9 7 , 1 0 1 , 1 0 8 , 1 1 5
. I n o r d e rt o a s c e r t a i n i f

a n o f f i c i a l h a s f

i n a l p o l i c ym a k in g a u th o rity , an d c a n th u s b in d th e m u n icip a lityb yh is conduct , a courtm us tdet erm i ne ( 1) w hether , as a mat t erof s t a t e l a w , th e o f

f i c i a l i s r e s p o n s i b l e f

o rm a k i n g p o l i c y i n the par t i cularar ea o f

m u n ic ip a l b u s in e s s in q u e s tio n , McMi l l i an v . Mo n ro e C o u n ty , 5 2 0 U
. S
. 7 8 1 , 7 8 5 (19 9 7 ) a n d C ity o f S t. L o u is v . P ra

p ro tn ik , 485 U
. S. 915, 924 ( 1988) , and ( 2) w h e th e r th e o f

f icia l’s a u th o rityto m a k e p o licyin th a t ar e a isI ndeed, the B or ough not es i n i t s br i ef thatthe “Borough 28 C o u n c il h a s n o m o re p o w e r to sile n c e th e m a y o r th a n it d o e s to s i l ence a pr i vat e ci t i zen. ” B r i ef at26. 41 fin a l a n d

u n re v iew a b le
. P ra

p ro tn ik , 48 5 U. S. at926; P em baur , 4 7 5 U .S . at 4 8 3 ; McG r eev y , 413 F. 3d at369; B r ennan , 3 5 0 F
. 3 d at 42 8 (“if a m u n ici p al em p loy ee ’s deci s i on i s s ubj ectt o r evi ew . . . i ti s notfi nal and that empl oy ee i s ther efor e nota pol i cym akerforpurpos es of im p o s in g m u n ic ip a l lia b ility u n d e r § 1 9 8 3 ” ). H e re , H ill a lleg e s th a t M a rin o c o n stru c tiv e ly d i s c h a r g e d h i m. As Hi l l p o i n t s o u t , a s a ma t t e ro f s t a t e l a w, no g o v e r n m e n te m p l o ye e o rb o d y is p e rm itte d to cons truct i vel ydi s char ge an e m pl oy ee bym aki ng hi s w or ki ng envi r onm enti nt ol er abl e. A s w e di s cus s ed, how ever , H i l l has all eg ed that the M ay o r had the pow ert o c o n stru c tiv e ly di s char ge hi m , though he ( M ar i no) l acke d the pow eras M ay ort o fi r e hi m outr i ght
. M or eover , M ar i no’ s cons truct i ve di s char ge of H i l l w as fi nal i n the s ens e thati tw as not re v iew a b le b ya n yo th e r p e rso n o r a n yo th e r b o d yo r a g e n c yin the B or ough. T hati s , ther e w as no one “a bove” the M ay or w ho had the pow ert o curt ai l hi s conductorpr eventhi m fr om har as s i ng H i l l t o the poi ntw her e H i l l had no al t ernat i ve but t o l eave hi s pos i t i on. I n thi s s ens e, M ar i no w as a fi nal 28 pol i cy - m akerforthe purpos e of c ons truct i vel ydi s char gi ng H ill. T he B or ough conce des thatas the hi ghes tel ect ed o f f icia l, M a y o r M a rin o m a yw e ll b e a f in a l p o licy m a k e r in otherar eas of B or ough bus i nes s . H ow ever , i tar gues ( and the D i s tr i ctC our thel d) , thatbeca us e onl ythe B o ro u g h C o u n c ilH i l l di d not b ri n g an A D E A cl ai m agai ns tM ay or 29 M ar i no hi m s el f, norcoul d he have beca us e the A D E A does not p ro v id e f o r i n d iv id u a l lia b ility. See H or w i t zv. B d. of

E duc. of A v o c a Sc h . D is t. N

o . 3 7, 2 6 0 F
. 3 d 6 0 2 , 6 1 0 n . 2 (7th C ir
. 2 0 0 1 ); Medi na v. R am s ey Steel C o. , I nc. , 2 3 8 F
. 3 d 6 7 4 (5th C ir
. 2 0 0 1 ); Sm i th v. Lom ax , 4 5 F .3 d 4 0 2 , 4 0 3 n . 4 (1 1 th C ir .1 9 9 5 ) (a ll h o lding that th ere is no ind ividu al l iabili tyu n d er the A D E A ). 42 has the pow ert o fi r e the B or ough M anage r , i ti s the B or ough C o u n c il ( and notthe M ay or ) w hi ch i s the fi nal pol i cy - m aker i n t he ar ea of

the B or ough M anage r ’ s empl oym ent
. M ar i no did not, ho w ever, fi re H i l l ; rather, throug h M ari no ’s act i on s, conductand har as s m ent , M ar i no cons tr uct i vel y dis char

ged H i l l
. Forthe r eas ons di s cus s ed above , the M ay orhad fi nal pol i cy - m aki ng author i tyt o do s o. H i l l has al l eged thatthe muni ci pal i tyi s bound by M a ri n o ’s c o n d u c t. W e a g re e . See Barthol om ew v. F is chl , 782 F. 2d 1148, 1153 ( 3d C i r . 1986) ( hol di ng thata may or w h o , li k e M a rin o , d id n o t h a v e th e a u th o rityto f ire a p u b lic empl oy ee di r ect l y , butw ho, l i ke M ar i no, eff ect i vel yfi r ed the e m p lo y e e in a n in d ire c t w a y– b yp e rsu a d in g c ityc o u n c ils to di s s ol ve the age ncyhe w or ked for– w as “a gove rnm ent offi ci al w i th pol i cy - m aki ng pow er s ” forw hos e w r ongful term ination o f th e p u b li c e m p loy ee the c ityw as li ab le). 2 . A D E A C laim H ill c laim s th a t M a y o r M a rin o c o n stru c tiv e ly di s char ged hi m beca us e of hi s age, and thatthi s cons t i tut es an A D E A v io latio n f

o r w h ich th e B o ro u g h sh o u ld b e h e ld lia b le
. T h e A D E A p ro v id e s , in p e rt in e n t p a rt ,

29See al s o Kachm arv. SunG ar d D ata Sys

. , I nc. , 1 0 9 F. 3 d 1 7 3, 1 8 4 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 7 ) (h o ld in g th a t C o n g re ss d id n o t in ten d to h o ld in d iv id u a l em p lo y e e s lia b le u n d e r T itl e V II, w h ich is p a ra llel to the A D E A in m an yw ay s). T he A D E A i ncl udes i n it s d efi ni t i on of empl oy er“a 30 S tat e o r p o li ti ca l su b d ivisi o n o f a S tat e.” 2 9 U
. S
. C
. § 6 3 0 (b)(2 ). T he Supr eme C our thel d i n K im e l v. F lo rida B d . o f R eg e n ts , 528 43 I ts hal l be unl aw ful foran empl oy er. . . t o fai l or r efus e t o hi r e ort o di s char ge anyi ndi vi dual or o th e rw ise d isc rim in a te a g a in st a n yin d iv id u a l w ith r es pectt o hi s compensa t i on, t erm s , condi t i ons , or p r i v i l e g e s o f

e m p l o ym e n tb e c a u s e o f s u c h i n d i v i d u a l 's age. 2 9 U .S .C . § 6 2 3 (a ). O nce a gai n, the D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed H i l l ’ s age di s cr i m i nat i on cl ai m agai ns tthe B or ough on the gr ound that M ar i no coul d notcons truct i vel ydi s char ge H i l l beca us e he l acke d the pow ert o fi r e hi m , s o the B or ough coul d notbe hel d l i abl e fors uch a di s char ge. T he D i s tr i ctC our tal s o not ed thatthe B or ough l acke d the author i tyt o contr ol w hatM ar i no, the “i ndepende nt l yel ect ed may or , ” di d and s ai d, and thus c o u ld n o t b e h e ld re sp o n sib le f o r h is c o n d u c t, es p e c ially w h e re m e m b e rs o f

th e B o ro u g h C o u n c il h a d s u p p o rt e d H ill. W e hav e al ready(i n the con t ext of H i l l ’s F i rs t A m endmentcl ai m s ) expl ai ned w hyM ar i no c o u ld , in f a c t, c o n stru c tiv e lyd isc h a rg e H ill . T h e B o ro u g h m a yb e h e ld l i abl e forthe al l eged di s char ge bec aus e a pl ai nt i ff maybr i ng a n A D E A c laim a g a in st a p o lit ica l su b d iv isio n o f a sta te 30U
. S. 62 ( 2000) th a t in th e A D E A , C o n g re ss d id n o t v a lid ly abr ogat e the s tat es ’ so v e re ig n im m u n ityto su its b yp riv a te i ndi vi dual s . I tdoes n o t fol l ow , how ever , thats over ei gn i m m un i typrot ect s po l i t i cal s ub divisi on s of states fr om s ui tby in d iv id u a ls
. S ee , e.g., L a ke C o u n try Estates, I n c. v. Ta h o e R eg ’l P lanni ng A gency , 440 U
. S. 391, 401 ( 1979) ( “the C our thas c o n sis ten tlyre f

u se d to c o n stru e th e [ E lev e n th ] A m e n d m e n t to aff or d pr ot ect i on t o pol i t i cal s ubdi vi s i ons s uch as count i es and m uni ci pal i t i es , even though s uch ent i t i es exer ci s e a ‘ s l i ce of stat e p o w er.’ ”). S e e , e .g ., Fa so ld v . J

u s tic e , 409 F. 3d 178 ( 3d C i r . 2005) 31 ( t erm i nat ed form er det ect i ve i n the offi ce of the D ist r i ct A tto rn e yin M o n tg o m e ryC o u n ty , P e n n sy lv a n ia b r o u g h tAD EA claim s ag ains t sev era l def en d an ts i n clud ing M o n tgo m ery C o un ty , P enn sylv a n ia) ; P o ten c e v . H a zle to n A re a Sc h . D ist. , 357 F. 3d 366 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( uns ucce s s ful appli ca ntfor pl um bi ng/H V A C i ns tru ctor b rou g h t A D E A claim ag ains ts chool dis tri ct ); N

a rin v . L o w e r Me rio n Sc h . D ist. , 206 F. 3d 323 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ( uns ucce s s ful appl i cantfort eac hi ng pos i t i ons b ro u g h t A D E A c laim a g a in st s c h o o l d istric t); Stanz i al e v. Jar gow s ky , 2 0 0 F. 3d 101 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ( Sani t at i on I ns pect or w ho dr ew a sm al l er s al ary than hi s y oungercol l eague s br ought A D E A cl ai m agai ns ts ever al defe ndant s i ncl udi ng the C ountyof M o n m o u th a n d th e M o n m o u th C o u n tyB o a rd o f H e a lth ); Sm ith v. B orou gh of W

i lki nsbu rg , 147 F. 3d 272 ( 3d C i r . 1998) ( form er bor ough m anage rw hos e cont r actw as notr enew ed br ought A D E A c la im a g a in s t d e f e n d a n t b o ro u g h ). 44 bas ed on the ac t i ons of i t s empl oy ee( s )
. I tdoes notm att er 31 thatone ent i tyw i thi n the B or ough ( the C ounci l ) m ayhave s uppor t ed H i l l ; the C ounci l ’ s al l eged s uppor tof H i l l does not
“ c o u n ter a c t” n o r c u re th e M a y o r’s a lleg e d h a ra ss m e n t, w ith the r es ul tof i m m uni zi ng the B or ough of K ut zt ow n fr omC o ns truct i ve di s char ge i s an adve r s e empl oym ent 32 d ec isi o n that m ay fo rm the ba sis o f an A D E A claim
. D uf f y v. P aperM agi c G r oup, I

nc. , 2 6 5 F
. 3 d 1 6 3 , 1 6 7 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 1 ). 45 l i a b i l i ty. T o s t at e a c l ai m forage di s cr i m i nat i on underthe A D E A , a pl ai nt i ff mustal l ege that( 1) he i s overfor ty , ( 2) he i s qual i fi ed forthe pos i t i on i n ques t i on, ( 3) he s uffe r ed fr om an adve r s e empl oym entdeci s i on, and ( 4) hi s r epl ace m ent 32 w as s uffi ci ent l yy oungert o perm i ta r eas onabl e i nfer ence of a g e d is c ri m in a tio n . P o ten c e v . H a zle to n A re a Sc h . D ist. , 357 F .3 d 3 6 6 , 3 7 0 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). H ill’ s a lle g a tio n s s a tis f

yth e s e re q u ir e m e n ts
. See ¶127. A m ong otherthi ngs , H i l l w as overfor tyw hen he w as d isch arg ed , an d h is r ep lace m en t w as 2 7
. H il l has there fo re s ta te d a n A D E A c la im th a t s u rv iv e s d is m is s a l u n d e r 1 2 (b )( 6 ). T he s ame l egal s t andar d appl i es t o a cl ai m underthe PH R A as a p p lie s to a n A D E A c la im
. Kau t z v. Met -Pro C orp . , 412 F. 3d 4 6 3 , 4 6 6 n . 1 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 5 ). I V. W e w il l aff

irm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s dism issal of H il l’ s § 1 9 8 3 p r o c e d u r a l d u e p r o c e s s ( p r o p e r tyi n t e r e s t ) c l a i ms agai ns tM ar i no and the B or ough, hi s §1983 s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s cl ai m s agai ns tM ar i no and the B or ough, hi s §1983 equal pr ot ect i on cl ai m s agai ns tM ar i no and the B or ough, and hi s §1983 Fi r s tA m endmentr et al i at i on cl ai m s agai ns tM ar i no an d the B o rou g h inso fa r as the yare p rem ised o n H il l’ s rep o rt t o t he B or ough C ounci l , and H i l l ’ s s uppor tfor“the pol i ci es46 an d p rog ram s o f th e p rev iou s m ay o r. ” W e w il l al so af firm th e d ism iss a l o f

H ill ’s § 1 9 8 3 “ stig m a -p lu s” d u e p ro c e ss c laim agai ns tM ar i no t o t he ext entthatcl ai m s eeks damages beca us e M ar i no i s ent i t l ed t o qual i fi ed i m m uni tyon that c l a i m. W e w il l r ev erse the D istri ct C o u rt ’s dism issal of H il l’ s §1983 “s t i gm a- pl us ” due pr oces s cl ai m agai ns tM ar i no t o the ext entthatcl ai m s eeks a name cl ear i ng hear i ng, H i l l ’ s §1983 “s t i gm a- pl us ” due pr oces s cl ai m agai ns tthe B or ough, and H i l l ’s §1 98 3 F i rs tA m end m ent r et al i at i on cl ai m s agai nst M ar i no and the B or ough, i ns ofaras theyar e pr emi s ed on H i l l ’ s s uppor tfori deas , pr i nci pl es and pr oj ect s thatM ar i no d i s f a v o r e d , i n c l u d i n g th e t e l e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s p r o j e c t
. We w il l al so rev erse the D istri ct C o u rt ’s dism issal of H il l’ s A D E A and PH R A cl ai m s agai ns tthe B or ough. W e w ill re m a n d f

o r f u rth e r p ro c e e d in g s c o n sis ten t w ith th is o p in io n . O n re m a n d , the D istric t C o u rt w ill h a v e to add res s the st at e cl ai m s over w hich i tdecli ned t o ex erci se j ur i s di ct i on.