2007 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 Third C irc uit 3-29-2007 

# M uz sl a y v . O ce an C ity P re c e de nt i al or N on-P re c e de nt i al : N on-P re c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-1335

F o llow thi s and a ddit ion al works at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vill anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s brou ght t o you for f re e and ope n a c c e s s by 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 Third C irc uit at V ill 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 2007 D e c i sion s by an authori z e d a dmini s trat or of V ill anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

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

w . vill anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " M uz sl a y v . O c e an C ity " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1412. http://di git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2007/1412NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL 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 os . 05- 1335, 05- 1429

___________ OL I VE R MUZ S L AY, A ppel l antatN o. 05- 1335

v. C IT Y O F O C E A N C IT Y ; H E N R Y K N IG H T , M ay o r; D O M I N I C L O N G O , Publ i c Safe tyD i r ect or

__________ OL I VE R MUZ S L AY

v. C IT Y O F O C E A N C IT Y ; H E N R Y D . K N IG H T , M ay o r; D O M IN IC L O N G O , P u b li c S af etyD ir ec tor, A ppel l ant s atN o. 05- 1429

___________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 01- cv- 04838) D i s tr i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e Fr eda L. W ol fs on

___________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

N ovember6, 20062 B efore: S L O V ITE R , C H A G A R E S , and N Y G A A R D , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed M ar ch 29, 2007)

___________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

___________ N Y G A A R D , C i r cui tJ udge. O liv e r M u z sla yc laim s th a t O c e a n C ity , M a y o r H e n ryK n ig h t an d P u b lic S a f e ty D i r ect orD om i ni ck Longo t erm i nat ed hi m beca us e he e ngaged i n pr ot ect ed s peec h and beca us e of hi s age. T he D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof the defe ndant s on al l butM uzs l ay ’ s age di s cr i m i nat i on cl ai m underthe N ew J er s eyL aw A gai ns tD i s cr i m i nat i on ( N J L A D ) , and di s m i s s ed the ac t i on forl ack of fede r al s ubj ect m a tter ju risd ictio n . W e w ill re v e rse in p a rt, a n d a f f ir m th e re m a in d e r. I. O l i verM uzs l ays erved the O cea n C i tyB eac h Patr ol forover44 y ear s , i ncl udi ng 17 as C apt ai n. B egi nni ng i n 1998, how ever , a s er i es of di s agr eement s ar os e betw een M uzs l ayand the C i tyD i r ect orof Publ i c Safe ty , D om i ni ck Longo. Fi r s t , L ongo or der ed M u z sla yto e x p re ss L o n g o ’s s tro n g d isp lea su re w ith A ss ista n t C a p tain E d w in Y u st’s v o te to d en ya p en sion w aive r t o P atrol m ed ic K athyB o rbe au . L o n g o lat er e li m inated Y u st’ s pos i t i on and demot ed hi m . W hen M uzs l aypr ot es t ed Longo’s tr eatm entof Y us t , L ongo r emoved M uzs l ay ’ s author i tyoverthe hi r i ng and pr om ot i on of Patr ol l i fegua r ds and1 . A 1 3 ye a r - o l d g i r l d r o w n e d o n J u l y 3 , 1 9 9 9 , w h i l e l i f e g u a r d s w e r e o f

f - d u ty. L ongo agr eed t o ext end hour s forJ ul y4, butr efus ed t o ext end them bey ond thatdat e. A notherdr ow ni ng occurr ed atthe s ame l ocat i on on J ul y5. C i tyoffi ci al s hel d an e me r g e n c yme e t i n g a n d d e c i d e d t o p o s tn e w wa rn i n g s i g n s a tth e b e a c h . M u z s l a yc l a i ms L o n g o to ld h im to “ s h u t u p ” a t th e m e e tin g . An o th e rd r o wn i n g o c c u rr e d i n S e p t e mb e rwh i l e l i f e g u a r d s we r e o f

f - d u ty . On M ay11, 2000, the C i tyext ended l i fegua r d hour s bas ed upon a pl an s ubm i t t ed by A ssist an t C ap tai n B u d M cK inley . M u zslayd id n o t parti cipa te i n p rep aring M cK inley ’s pl an. 3 excl uded hi m fr om negot i at i ons w i th the l i fegua r d uni on. Second, M uzs l ayr eques t ed ext ended l i fegua r d hour s ora s hi ftchange t o deal w i th s ever al aft er - hour s dr ow ni ngs , but L o n g o a n d o th e r o f

f icia ls d e n ied h is re q u e sts . T h ird , L o n g o o rd e re d M u z sla yto v a c a te 1 h is o f f ice a t th e P a tro l b o a t sh o p , w h e re P a tro l v e h icle s a n d sa f e tye q u ip m e n t w e re k e p t, to m a k e w a yf

o r a n e w c a rp e n tern a m e d H a rv e yJo n e s. L o n g o late r o rd e re d M u z sla yto st ayaw ayfrom the b oat s ho p b etw een the ho urs of 9A M and 5P M , becau se of Jon es’ per s onal ani m os i tyt ow ar d hi m . I n a mem or andum addr es s ed t o L ongo and M ay or K n ig h t, M u z sla ye x p re ss e d d isb e lief a t th e o rd e r, co m p lain e d th a t L o n g o lef t h im

“ p o w e rl e s s ,” a n d d e m a n d e d a m e e tin g w ith K n ig h t. A few m onths l at er , L ongo r ecomm ended thatM uzs l ay ’ s pos i t i on be el i m i nat ed. T he l ocal new s paperpubl i s hed an a r t i cl e on M uzs l ay ’ s t erm i nat i on. I n the art i cl e, M u zslaysp ec u lat ed that h e w as b eing term inated b ec au se o f h is objecti o n s to L o n g o ’s d e c isio n s re g a rd in g Y u st a n d th e d ro w n in g s. M a y o r H e n ryK n ig h t ex p lain e d th a t th e C ity so u g h t “s o m e y o u n g e r p e o p le” to tak e c o m m a n d o f th e P a tro l. S h o rtlyth e re a f ter , the C ity2. I n Fo r d Mo t o rCo . v . EE OC , the U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our thel d thatan empl oy eracc us ed of Ti t l e V I I di s cr i m i nat i on m ayt ol l the ac crual of bac k payl i abi l i tyby o f f e ri n g u n c o n d itio n a l r e in s ta te m e n t o f th e e m p lo y e e . Fo r d

Mo t o rCo . , 458 U . S. at232. 4 offe r ed M uzs l ayan uncondi t i onal r ei ns t at ementas C apt ai n forthe 2000 s eas on pur s uant to T h e C ivil R igh ts A ct of 1 9 6 4 , 4 2 U . S . C . § 2 0 0 0 e (2 0 0 6 ) et . s eq . , and For d Mot orC o. v. EE OC , 4 5 8 U .S . 2 1 9 , 2 3 2 (1 9 8 2 ). M u z s la ya c c e p te d , a n d re m a in e d C a p ta in . 2 Fol l ow i ng hi s r ei ns t at ement , M uzs l aycl ai m s , L ongo s t aged a s um m er - l ong campai gn t o har as s hi m and w eake n hi s i nfl uence overPatr ol oper at i ons . Fi r s t , L ongo a s s i g n e d p o l i c e d e t e c t i v e M a x H u r s tt o a c ta s a n i n t e r m e d i a ry b e tw e e n h i m a n d M u z s l a y. H ur s tt ol d M uzs l aythathe coul d notbegi n w ork unt i l he compl et ed a phy s i cal exam and qual i fy i ng run and s w i m , t ol d otherl i fegua r ds nott o gi ve M uzs l ayacc es s t o the Patr ol payr ol l s y s t em, and deni ed M uzs l aya keyt o the boats hop. W hen H ur s tand Longo r efus ed t o m eetw i th hi m , M uzs l ayfi l ed a Tor tC l ai m s N ot i ce a l l egi ng thatK ni ghtand L o n g o term inated h im b ec au se o f h is ag e a n d b ec au se o f h is objecti o n s to L o n g o ’s deci s i ons . A ft erw ar ds , M uzs l ayal l eges , L ongo pr event ed hi m fr om m anagi ng empl oy ee gr i evanc es and as s i gnm ent s , r emoved hi s tr adi t i onal author i tyoverm edi a r el eas es , deni ed hi m acc es s t o the comput erand equi pm enti n the boats hop, or der ed hi m t o conduct phonyr es ear ch as s i gnm ent s , and r epea t edl yr efus ed t o m eetw i th hi m . M uzs l ayexpr es s ed hi s frus tr at i ons i n s ever al l ett er s t o K ni ghtand Longo. M uzs l ay ’ s s eas onal pos i t i on w as t erm i nat ed on Sept ember4, 2000, and fourm onths l at erhe w as i nform ed hi s pos i t i on w as3. M uzsl ayal so assert ed a § 19 85 cl ai m , subst anti ve an d p rocedu ral du e process

c laim s, a n d c laim e d L o n g o a n d K n ig h t w e re in d iv id u a llyliab le u n d e r th e N JL A D . H e d id n o t r a is e th e s e c la im s in h is in itia l a p p e lla te b ri e f , a n d w e c o n s id e r t h e m w a iv e d . U ni t ed S ta tes v . P e lu llo , 3 9 9 F .3 d 1 9 7 , 2 2 2 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ); s ee F ED . R . A PP . P . 2 8 ( a ) ( 2 0 0 6 ) . We al s o cons i derhi s T i t l e V I I cl ai m w ai ved bec aus e he ne verr ai s ed i tbefor e the D i s tr i ct C o u rt . B r ennan v. N

or t on , 3 5 0 F .3 d 3 9 9 , 4 1 8 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). 5 el i m i nat ed. T he C i tyhi r ed C har l es B ow m an, a y oungeri ndi vi dual , t o m anage B eac h P a tr o l a n d o th e r p u b lic s a f e ty o p e ra tio n s y e a r- ro u n d .

B . M uzs l ayfi l ed a c om pl ai ntagai ns tM ay orK ni ght , L ongo and O cea n C i ty , al l egi ng thatthe def

endant s ( 1) unl aw ful l yr et al i at ed aga i ns thi m forengagi ng i n act i vi typr ot ect ed bythe Fi r s tA m endment , N J L A D and the N ew J er s eyC ons ci ent i ous E m pl oy ee Pr ot ect i on A c t (C E P A ); a n d (2 ) v io late d th e N JL A D b yd isc rim in a tin g a g a in st h im b a se d u p o n h is age. T he D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof the def endant s on al l but 3 M u z s l a y ’ s NJ LAD a g e d i s c r i mi n a t i o n c l a i m. Ex e r c i s i n g i t s d i s c r e t i o n u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. §1367( c) ( 3) , the D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed hi s N J L A D age di s cr i m i nat i on cl ai m forl ack of su b jec t m a tter ju risd ictio n . E a c h p a rtyf iled a tim e lya p p e a l.

II.6 A. 1. §1983 R et al i at i on T h e F irst A m e n d m e n t p ro tec ts a p u b lic e m p lo y e e ’s r ig h t to sp e a k a s a p riv a te c iti z e n o n m a tters o f

p u b lic c o n c e rn w ith o u t f e a r o f re talia tio n . A sta te c a n n o t law f u lly te rm in a te a n e m p lo y e e f o r r e a s o n s th a t in f

ri n g e u p o n h is f

re e d o m o f

s p e e c h . B aldassare v. N ew Jer s ey , 2 5 0 F .3 d 1 8 8 , 1 9 4 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 1 ). T h e F irst A m e n d m e n t p ro tec ts a p u b lic empl oy ee’ s s t at ementw hen ( 1) the empl oy ee s poke as a ci t i zen; ( 2) the s t at ement in v o lv e d a m a tter o f

p u b lic c o n c e rn ; an d (3 ) h is e m p lo y e r d id n o t h a v e “ a n a d e q u a te j us t i fi cat i on fortr eat i ng hi m di ffe r ent l yfr om anyotherm emberof the gene r al publ i c” a s a re s u lt o f

h is s ta te m e n t. Hi l lv . Bo r o u g h o f Ku t z t o wn , 4 5 5 F . 3 d 2 2 5 , 2 4 1 -42 (3d C ir . 2006) . A publ i c empl oy ee’ s s t at ementi nvol ves a mat t erof 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 anym att erof pol i t i cal , s oci al orotherconce rn t o the c o m m u n ity. B r ennan v. N or t on , 350 F. 3d 399, 412 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons o m itted). M uzs l ayal l eges thatL ongo and K ni ght“s ethi m up” t o be t erm i nat ed, and u lt im atelyfired h im , b ec au se h e (1 ) objected to L o n g o ’s i n terfere n ce in the p en sion b o ard m att er; (2) o b

jected to L o n g o ’s de m o ti o n o f Y u st; (3) req u ested ex tens ion o f li fe g u ard hour s ; ( 4) obj ect ed t o l i m i t at i ons on hi s author i ty ; and ( 5) fi l ed a Tor tC l ai m s N ot i ce a g a in s t L o n g o , K n ig h t a n d th e C ity.7

T he D i s tr i ctC our tcorr ect l yconcl uded thats om e of M uzs l ay ’ s obj ect i ons w er e not pr ot ect ed bythe Fi r s tA m endment . H e w as nei thera form al w i tnes s , northe aggr i eved p a rtyin Y u st’s g rie v a n c e p ro c e e d in g . T o th e e x ten t h e a d v ise d L o n g o n o t to e lim in a te Y ust ’s adm i nis trat i ve p osi t i on , he spo ke p ursuantt o h i s duti es as Pat rol C aptai n, no tas a p ri v a te c itiz e n . G ar cet t iv. C ebal l os , 126 S. C t . 1951, 1960 ( 2006) . Si m i l ar l y , he advi s ed th e C ity to e x te n d lif

e g u a rd h o u rs p u rs u a n t to h is o f f ic ia l d u tie s . Id . Fi nal l y , hi s obj ect i ons to th e a b ro g a tio n o f

h is a u th o ri ty in v o lv e d o n ly h is o w n p e rs o n a l e m p lo ym e n t s itu a tio n . 

### T h e D istrict C o urt, h o w ev er, erredw ithresp ect to tw o o f M u zslay ’s claim s. F irst, th e D istrict C o urt co n clu d edth at M u zslay f ailedto ad du ce any

ev id en ce th at h e actu ally p ro testedL o n g o ’s interf

eren ce inth e p en sio nb o ardm atter. B o thM u zslay an dYu st sub mittedstatem ents, wh ich , inco m b in atio nw ithL o n g o ’s letter to M u zslay , se e Ap p en d ixat 1 2 2 8 , sup p o rt a reaso n ab le in f eren ce th at M u zslay

inf act o b j ectedto Lo ng o’s order s. Other e vidence may sugg es t Muzsl ay

did n ot think that outsi de pres sure up o nth e b o ard ’s m em

b ers w as illeg al, b ut it is th e f act-f in d er’s duty

to w eig hth is ev id en ce. Phy lli

sHi ll v . Ci t yof Sc ranton , 4 1 1 F .3 d1 1 8 , 1 2 5 (3 dC ir. 2 0 0 5 ). Second, the D i s tr i ctC our tacknow l edged thatM uzs l ay ’ s T or tC l ai m s N ot i ce w as pr ot ect ed bythe Fi r s tA m endment , butconcl uded Longo’s al l eged r et al i at oryact i ons w er e d e m in im is . H ow ever , the C i ty ’ s deci s i on nott o r ehi r e M uzs l ayfol l ow i ng the 2000 s um m ers eas on cannotbe cons i der ed d e m in im is . T he r ecor d cont ai ns evi dence of ongoi ng ant agoni s m , and the C i tychos e t o el i m i nat e M uzs l ay ’ s pos i t i on w i thi n m onths of4 . M u z sla yd o e s n o t co n ten d C ityo f f icia ls v io late d C E P A b yre talia tin g a g a in st h im forhi s T or tC l ai m s N ot i ce f i l i ng. 8 h is f ilin g o f th e T o rtC la im s N o tic e . See Bre nnan , 350 F. 3d at420 ( ci t i ng A br am s on v. W i l l i am P at ers on C ol l ege , 2 6 0 F .3 d 2 6 5 , 2 8 8 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 1 )). A re a so n a b le ju ryc o u ld fin d M u zslay ’s objecti o n s to L o n g o ’s pre ssu re u p o n Y u st an d h is T o rtC lai m s fili n g w ere s ubs t ant i al fac t or s i n the C i ty ’ s tr eatm entof hi m . W e w i l l ther efor e r ever s e the D i s tr i ct C o u rt ’s ju d g m e n t w ith re s p e c t to th e s e c la im s u n d e r § 1 9 8 3 . 2. N J L A D R et al i at i on N ext, t o est abli sh a pri m a facie r et al i at i on cl ai m un der the N JL A D , M uzsl aym ust s how : ( 1) he enga ged i n pr ot ect ed empl oy ee a ct i vi ty ; ( 2) the empl oy ert ook adver s e ac t i on a g a in st h im a f

ter , o r c o n tem p o ra n e o u s w ith , h is a c tiv ity ; an d (3 ) a c a u sa l li n k e x ists b e tw e e n h is a c tiv ity a n d th e e m p lo y e r’ s a c tio n a g a in s t h im . A br am s on v. W i l l i am P at ers on C ol l ege , 2 6 0 F .3 d 2 6 5 , 2 8 6 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). A s w e e a rl ie r c o n c lu d e d , a rea so n ab le j u ryco u ld f

ind a c au sal co n n ec ti o n b etw ee n the C ity ’s de cisi o n n o t t o re-h ir e hi m and hi s obj ect i ons t o L ongo’ s pr es s ur e on Y us tand hi s T or tC l ai m s fi l i ng. 3. C E PA R et al i at i on M u z sla ya lso c o n ten d s C ityo f f icia ls v io late d th e C E P A b yre talia tin g a g a in st h im beca us e of hi s obj ect i ons t o L ongo’ s tr eatm entof Y us t , the C i ty ’ s r efus al t o ext end l i f e g u a r d h o u r s a n d a b r o g a t i o n o f h i s d u t i e s . To e s t a b l i s h a p r i ma f a c i e CEP A c l a i m, 4 M uzs l aym us ts how ( 1) he r eas onabl ybel i eved hi s empl oy er ’ s conductw as unl aw ful ; ( 2)5 . T h e D istric t C o u rt c o rre c tlyp o in ted o u t th a t M u z sla y ’s a u th o rityw a s s u b jec t to L o n g o ’s a u th o ri ty to “ a s s ig n a n d .... m o d if yth e f u n c tio n s a n d d u tie s o f

s u b o rd in a te s .” O rd in a n c e 9 0 -2 0 , A rt ic le 4 , 2 -1 .2 2 (c )( 3 ). See A p p e n d ix a t 1 1 1 2 . 9 he “bl ew the w hi s t l e” on the empl oy er ’ s conduct ; ( 3) hi s empl oy ert ook adver s e ac t i on agai ns thi m ; and ( 4) a ca us al connec t i on exi s t s betw een hi s w hi s t l e- bl ow i ng act i vi tyand h is e m p lo y e r’ s a c tio n . B lackburn v. U ni t ed Parce lSer vi ce, I

nc. , 1 7 9 F . 3 d 8 1 , 9 2 (3d C ir . 19 99 ). If the d efen dan t s offer som e l egit i m at e reas on for theiract i on s, the p l ai nti ff m ust then convi nce the fa ct - fi nderboth thatthe def endant s ’ pr offe r ed r eas on i s fal s e, and that re ta lia tio n w a s th e irre a l m o tiv a tio n . Id . T h e re is n o e v id e n c e th a t M u z sla y“ b lew th e w h istle” o n th e C ity ’s r e f u sa l to e x t e n d l i f

e g u a r d h o u r s . H e o n l y r ecom m ended th e ye x ten d life g u a rd h o u rs, a n d h e o n ly m a d e th a t r e c o m m e n d a tio n a c c o rd in g to h is o f f ic ia l d u tie s , n o t a s a p ri v a te c itiz e n . See G a rc e tti , 1 2 6 S .C t. at 1 9 6 0 . F u rth e r, alth o u g h h e o b jec ted to L o n g o ’s d e m o tio n o f Y u st, ther e i s no evi dence he thoughtthi s deci s i on w as unl aw ful . Si m i l ar l y , he pr ot es t ed r e m o v a l o f

s o m e o f h i s r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , b u tth e r e w a s n o “ c l e a rm a n d a t e o f p u b l i c p o l i c y” th a t p re v e n te d L o n g o f

ro m re a s s ig n in g h is d u tie s to o th e rs . N .J . S T AT . A NN . 34: 19 – 3 (c)(3) (2 0 0 6 ). 5 T her e i s evi dence , how ever , thatw oul d perm i ta r eas onabl e j uryt o concl ude that M uzs l ay“bl ew the w hi s t l e” on Longo’ s i nt er fer ence i n the pens i on boar d m att er , and that M uzsl ayreas on ablybeli eved L on go ’s act i on s w ere unl aw ful. T he C i tyt oo k ad verse empl oym entact i on agai ns tM uzs l aybydeci di ng nott o r e- hi r e hi m forthe 2001 s eas on.10

A g ain, giv en the o n -go ing an tago n ism b etw ee n M u zslayan d L o n g o , a re aso n ab le j u ry cou l d find a cau sal con necti on exis t ed b etw een these even t s. A ccordi ng l y , w e w i l l rever se th e Di s tr i c tCo u r t ’ s j u d g me n twi th r e s p e c tt o th i s l a t t e rc l a i m u n d e rth e CE P A. B . N J L A D A ge D i s cr i m i nat i on N ext , M uzs l ayal l eges the def endant s di s cr i m i nat ed aga i ns thi m beca us e of hi s age. T o pr evai l on an age di s cr i m i nat i on cl ai m underei therfede r al l aw orN J L A D , M uzs l ay m u st s h o w h is a g e “ a c tu a llym o tiv a ted ” a n d “ h a d a d e ter m in a tiv e in f lu e n c e o n ” h is e m p lo y e r’ s d e c is io n to f ir e h im . Monaco v. A m . G en. A s s ur ance Co. , 359 F. 3d 296, 300 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). W e agr ee w i th the D i s tr i ctC our tthatM uzs l ay ’ s age di s cr i m i nat i on cl ai m s urvi ves s u mma ryj u d g me n t . M a y o rKn i g h t ’ s s t a t e me n tt o th e S e n t i n e l th a tth e Ci tys o u g h t“ s o me y o u n g e r p e o p le” to tak e o v e r B e a c h P a tro l o p e ra tio n s p ro v id e d d ire c t ev id e n c e th a t h is empl oy erpl ace d s ubs t ant i al negat i ve r el i ance on hi s age i n deci di ng t o fi r e hi m . T hi s w as nota vague s t at ement , “r andom offi ce ba nt er ” or“an i nnocuous conver s at i onal j ab i n a s oci al s ett i ng. ” Fakete v. A etna, I nc. , 308 F. 3d 335, 339- 40 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . W e further ag ree w ith the D istri ct C o u rtthat the C ity ’s ex p lana ti o n lack ed co n sist en cy . T h e re co rd p rese n ts suf

ficien t fac ts from w h ich a rea so n ab le j u ryco u ld d isbe li ev e the C ity ’s expl anat i on. W e w i l l aff i r m the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deni al of s um m aryj udgm enton M u z s l a y ’ s NJ LAD a g e d i s c r i mi n a t i o n c l a i m.6. M uzs l aydoes notcl ai m he i s ent i t l ed t o s eek puni t i ve damages under§1983. 11 C . P un i t i ve D am ages T o b e aw arded p un i t i ve d am ages un der N ew Jer seyl aw , M uzsl aym ustest abli sh 6 that( 1) upper - m anage m entact i vel ypart i ci pat ed i n, orw as w i l l ful l yi ndi ffe r entt o, dis cri m i nati on againsthim , and (2) the o ffen ding con du ctw as “i ntent i on al , m al i ci ou s, and evi l - m i nded. ” H

u rley v . A tla n ti c C it

y P o li ce D ep ’t , 174 F. 3d 95, 124 ( 3d C i r . 1999) (in ter n a l cita tio n s o m itt e d ). W e a g re e w ith th e D istric t C o u rt th a t M u z sla yf a iled to p ro f f e r e v id e n c e th a t C ityo f f icia ls e n g a g e d in “ e v il-m in d e d ” c o n d u c t. D . A t t orney s ’ Fees Fi nal l y , w e r ej ectM uzs l ay ’ s cl ai m for$26, 962. 50 i n att orney ’ s fee s i ncurr ed w hen he s ucce s s ful l yoppos ed the appe l l ees ’ r eques tforperm i s s i on t o fi l e an ove r - l ength br i ef. Itw as M u zslay ’s ow n fa il u re to c o m p lyw ith the F ed era l R u les o f A p p ell ate P roc ed u re thatpr om pt ed the appe l l ees t o s eek pe r m i s s i on t o fi l e an ove r - l ength br i ef. I n hi s i ni t i al b ri e f , M u z s la yf

a ile d to in c lu d e a p ro p e r s ta te m e n t o f th e f a c ts , F ED . R . A PP . P. 28( a) (2 0 0 6 ), a n d im p ro p e rl ya d d e d a n e x te n s iv e s ta te m e n t o f th e f a c ts in h is re p ly. See F ED . R. A PP . P . 2 8 (c ) ( 2 0 0 6 ). II I. I n s um m ary , w e w i l l aff i r m the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deni al of s um m aryj udgm ent r egar di ng M uzs l ay ’ s N J L A D age di s cr i m i nat i on cl ai m . H ow ever , w e w i l l r ever s e the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s j udgm entr egar di ng M uzs l ay ’ s cl ai m s under§1983, the N J L A D andC E PA , vaca t e the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s di s m i s s al of hi s N J L A D age- di s cr i m i nat i on cl ai m , and

re m a n d th e c a u s e f

o r f u rt h e r p ro c e e d in g s .

13