2009 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 11-24-2009 

# K eith S t ouch v

. T wp of Irvingt on P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-3264

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_2009

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 2009 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 " Keith S t ouch v

. T wp of Ir vin gt on" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 211. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/211NOT 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 o. 08- 3264 K E IT H S T O U C H ; R O S E M A R Y S T O U C H , h is w if e , A p p e llan ts

v. THE TOWN S HI P OF I RVI NGTON; I RVI NGTON POLI CE DEPA RTM ENT; CH I EF M I CH AEL C HA SE; J OH N D OES 1 -1 0 , all jo in tly , se v e ra llya n d in d iv id u a lly ; M I C H A E L D A M I A N O , D i r ect or APP EAL F ROM THE UNI TE D ST ATE S DI S TRI CT C OURT

FOR TH E DI STRI CT O F NEW J ERSEY ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 03- cv- 06048) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J os eph A . G r eena w ay Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

N ovember18, 2009 B efor e: R E N D E L L , B A R R Y and C H A G A R E S, C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: N ovember24, 2009)

OP I NI ON

B A R R Y , C i r cui tJ udge K ei th S t ou ch ap peals from the o rderof the D i stri ctC ou rtgrant i ng defe nd ants ’- 2-

mo t i o n s f

o rs u mma r yj u d g me n t . W e wi l l a f f i r m. I. S to u c h b e c a m e a m e m b e r o f th e Irv in g to n , N e w Je rse yP o lice D e p a rtm e n t in A ugus t1994, and w as t erm i nat ed on D ece m ber31, 2003 aft erhe w as found t o be psy cho l og i cal l yun fi tfor du ty . In ess ence, St ou ch b el i eves t hat he w as r et al i at ed ag ai nst becau se of h i s speech cri t i ci zi ng the p oli ce dep artm ent, and dis cri m i nated againstbecau se of a di s abi l i ty , i n vi ol at i on of the A m er i cans w i th D i s abi l i t i es A ct( “A D A ”) and the N ew Jerse yL aw A g ains t D iscri m ination (“N JL A D ”). Iti s apparent that St ou ch repeatedl ycom plai ned abo ut var i ou s poli ci es, con dit i on s, and i nci dent s i n t he pol i ce de part m entoverthe y ear s , butforthe mostpart , he has fai l ed to se t f o rth w ith a n ysp e c if

icityth e d a tes , co n ten t, an d c o n tex t o f w h a t h e sa id , an d to w hom . W e ci t e buta fe w of thos e numer ous compl ai nt s . H e compl ai ned, forexampl e, th a t h e w a s a sk e d to f

a lsif yre p o rts o n a t lea st tw o o c c a sio n s, a n d a lth o u g h h e b e liev e d it w as “comm onpl ace ” forot heroffi cer s t o fal s i fythei rr eport s , he coul d noti dent i fyany sp ec ifi c ins tanc es. (A p p . at 60 . ) H e a lso c o m p lai n ed that o ff icers an d su p erv isors fal s i fi ed thei rt i m e s heet s and s l epti n thei rcar s orw at ched t el evi s i on atthe pol i ce s t at i on r atherthan patr ol l i ng, and thatther e w as a pr act i ce of notpr oper l yr es pondi ng t o 911 c a lls. H e c o m p lain e d , as w e ll, th a t o f f ice rs a b u se d th e sic k lea v e p o licyb yb lata n tly i gnor i ng i tand s uffe r i ng no r eper cus s i ons , al though he admi t t ed thathe di d nothave acc es s t o otheroffi cer s ’ m edi cal r ecor ds orper s onnel fi l es . H e w as out s poken aboutt he condi t i ons of the comm uni cat i ons r oom , w her e he w or ked per i odi cal l y , compl ai ni ng t hatS to u c h f iled a c o m p lain t ab o u t th e ro o m ’s c o n d iti o n s w ith th e O c c u p a tio n a l S a f e ty 1 and H eal th A dm i ni s tr at i on ( O SH A ) i n J une orJ ul y2003.

- 3- i tw as m ol dy , uncomfort abl yw arm , and i nfes t ed w i th cockr oache s and mi ce. I n M ar ch 1 2003, he metw i th an FB I agentt o r eportthathe bel i eved thatC hi ef M i chae l C has e had been i nvol ved i n i l l egal act i vi tyconce rni ng s t ol en goods s om et i m e betw een 1980 a nd 1 9 8 5 . St ouch bel i eved thathe w as r et al i at ed aga i ns t , pr i m ar i l ybyenfor cementof the s i ck l eave pol i cy , beca us e he s poke outaboutw hathe per cei ved t o be i m pr opr i et i es i n the p o li ce d ep artm en t. T h e sick leav e p o li cyp rov ides fo r “sick ch ec k s” w h ere b yo ff icers a p p e a ru n a n n o u n c e d a tth e s i c k o f f i c e r ’ s h o me t o e n s u r e th a th e i s a c tu a l l ya th o me r ecupe r at i ng. St ouch t es t i fi ed thatoffi cer s appea r ed athi s hous e atni ghtt o conducts i ck chec ks . H e di d notcl ai m thatthes e vi s i t s vi ol at ed the s i ck l eave pol i cy , butr atherthat th e yv io la te d h is c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts , a n d th a t th e p o lic yw a s e n f o rc e d o n ly ag a in s t h im . H e al s o bel i eved thatthe gr oom i ng pol i cy , w hi ch he purpos eful l yvi ol at ed, w as di s par at el yenfor ced a gai ns thi m . I n a r eportr egar di ng St ouch’ s gr oom i ng pol i cy vi ol at i on, a pol i ce c apt ai n s t at ed: O ffi cerSt ouch i s cons t ant l ydefi antof l aw ful author i tyi n m att er s i nvol vi ng hi s act i ons w i thi n t he age ncy . H e makes a poi ntof hi s defi ance by th r e a t e n i n g l e g a l a c t i o n a n d c l a i mi n g t o b e a c t i n g o n a d v i c e o f c o u n s e l . On o ther o cc asio n s h e h as m ad e e v en w ri tt en d em an d s o f su p erv isors to rep o rt to h im in w riting th e ir re a so n s f o r a c tio n s ta k e n b yth e m a n d g e ts u p o n h is “ so a p b o x ” in g a th e rin g s o f o f f ice rs e x p re ss in g h is p ro w e ss . I b e liev e h e is gener al l ya good and e xtr emel ycompet entpol i ce of fi cerhow everhe t akes pr i de i n hi s open i ns ubor di nat i on t o everyacthe does notper s onal l yagr ee w i th and l ooks t o m ake “ a poi nt ” w heneve rpos s i bl e.- 4-

( A pp. at236. ) Fi nal l y , St ouch bel i eved thathi s as s i gnm entt o the comm uni cat i ons r oom w as i n r et al i at i on forhavi ng “compl ai ned aboutthatr oom cons t ant l y . ” (Id . at 90 . ) S tou ch w en t on sick leav e in J u ly2 0 0 3 af ter an incid en t w ith an o ther o ff icer, d u ri n g w h ich P atrolm an B ri an R ice a ll eg ed lythrea tene d h im . S tou ch ’s ph y sici an , D r. L aw r ence E i s ens t ei n, s enta l ett ert o C hi ef Chase w hi ch s t at ed thatSt ouch had be en di agnos ed w i th pos t - tr aumat i c s tr es s di s or der( “PT SD ”) , w hi ch he be l i eved ha d been trig g e re d b yth e in c id e n t w ith P a tro lm a n R ice . D r. E ise n ste in sta ted th a t S to u c h w a s f it t o carryhi s w eapon a nd r eturn t o w or k as of Sept ember30, 2003. H e r eques t ed thatSt ouch be ex em pted from the si ck leave po l i cyrequi rem ents and be p erm i t t ed to l eave h i s hou se w h ile re c u p e ra tin g . S t o u c h wa s o r d e r e d t o s u b mi tt o a f i tn e s s f o rd u tye x a m. Al v i n Kr a s s , P h . D. eval uat ed St ouch and f

ound t hathe di d nothave a nyof the “f ear s , conce rns orr es pons es thatar e not ed w i th i ndi vi dual s w ho ar e s uffe r i ng fr om Post - T r aumat i c Str es s . ” ( A pp. at 207. ) D r . K r as s found thats om e of St ouch’ s r es pons es t o the ps y chol ogi cal t es t i ng i ndi cat ed a “ s ens e of r es i s t ance t ow ar d author i ty . ” (I d. ) D r . K r as s concl uded thatSt ouch “i s notfi tt o r eturn forw or k as a pol i ce of fi cer ” bec aus e hi s t es tr es ul t s “s uppor tthe i m pr es s i on thathe i s a s i gni fi cant l y , i f notpr ofoundl y , emot i onal l ym al adj us t ed and di s turbed per s on i n need of cont i nui ng pr ofes s i onal car e. ” (I d. at20 9. ) St ou ch w as al so e v a lu a ted b yJo h n M o tley , M .D ., w h o re jec ted th e P T S D d iag n o sis a n d d iag n o se d h im w i th a per s onal i tydi s or derw i th par anoi d and nar ci s s i s t i c tr ai t s w hi ch “i nt er fer e[s ] [w i th] hi s abi l i tyt o w or k cooper at i vel yw i thi n the rul es of hi s depart m ent . ” (I d. at 20 5 . ) D r.- 5-

M ot l eyopi ned thatSt ouch “w i l l cont i nue t o be a c ons t anti rr i t antt o hi s s uper i or s and fel l ow offi cer s . ” (I

d. ) St ouch w as s erved w i th a Pr el i m i naryN ot i ce of D i s ci pl i naryA ct i on w hi ch al ert ed hi m thathe had be en cha r ged w i th i nabi l i tyt o per form hi s dut i es and fa ced r emoval fr om hi s pos i t i on. A hear i ng w as hel d on D ece m ber16, 2003, buthe di d notatt end. T he hear i ng offi cerfound thathe had be en ade quat el ynot i fi ed and c oncl uded thatthe d e p a rtm e n t h a d a p p ro p ria telyd ism iss e d h im b e c a u se h e w a s p sy c h o lo g ica llyu n f it t o s e r v e a s a p o l i c e o f

f i c e r . S t o u c h wa s f

o r ma l l yt e rmi n a t e d a s o f De c e mb e r3 1 , 2 0 0 3 . He appea l ed hi s di s m i s s al , and the di s m i s s al w as uphel d byan admi ni s tr at i ve l aw j udge ( “A L J ”) aft erfourday s of hea r i ngs . T he A L J found that“St ouch’ s hi s t oryof empl oym enti n t he D epart m entdemonstr at es a l ongs t andi ng and cons i s t entpatt ern of unw i l l i ngnes s ori nabi l i tyt o conform hi s conductt o thatr equi r ed of a m uni ci pal pol i ce offi cer . ” ( A pp. at223. ) St ouch appe al ed t o the M er i tSy s t em B oar d, w hi ch af fi r m ed on February1, 2007. M eanw hi l e, on D ece m ber19, 2003, St ouch, j oi ned byhi s w i fe, fi l ed a c om pl ai nt in th e U .S . D istric t C o u rt a g a in st Irv in g to n T o w n sh ip , the Irv in g to n P o lice D e p a rtm e n t, and Pol i ce Chi ef M i chae l C has e, a compl ai ntl at eramended t o al s o name Pol i ce D i r ect or M ic h a e l D a m ia n o a s a d e f e n d a n t. T h e a m e n d e d c o m p la in t s ta te d c la im s o f , in tera lia , Fi r s tA m endmentr et al i at i on, vi ol at i on of St ouch’ s due pr oces s r i ght s , vi ol at i ons of the A D A and N J L A D , and l os s of cons or t i um . O n J une 30, 2008, the D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed defe ndant s ’ m ot i ons fors um m aryj udgm ent . T hi s t i m el yappea l fol l ow ed.- 6- II. T he D i s tr i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . §§ 1331, 1343, and 1367( a) , and w e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. O urr evi ew of an or der gr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm enti s pl enary , and w e appl ythe s ame st andar d as the D i s tr i ct C o u rt to d e te rm in e w h e th e r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t w a s p ro p e r. A cum ed LLCv. A dvance d Sur gi cal Ser vs . , I nc. , 5 6 1 F .3 d 1 9 9 , 2 1 1 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 9 ); s ee Fed. R . C i v. P. 56( c) (sum m aryjud g m en t i s ap p rop ri ate “ if th e p lead ing s, the d isco v eryan d d iscl o su re m at er i al s on fi l e, and anyaff i davi t s s how thatther e i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o anym at er i al fac tand thatthe movanti s ent i t l ed t o j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw ”) . W hi l e w e vi ew t he fac t s i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o St ouch as the non- m ovi ng party , he “musti ntr oduce m ore than a sci nti l l a of e vidence sho w i ng that there i s a genu i ne is sue fo r tri al ; [he] m ust in tr o d u c e e v id e n c e f

ro m w h ic h a ra tio n a l f

in d e r o f f a c t c o u ld f

in d in [ h is ] f

a v o r.” W ol os z yn v. C ount

y of Law r ence , 396 F. 3d 314, 319 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( ci t at i on and i nt ernal q u o tat ion s o m itted). III . A . F i rs t A m endm ent 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, i n c e rta in ci r cumst ance s , t o s peak a s a ci t i zen a ddr es s i ng m att er s of publ i c conc ern. ” G ar cet t iv. C ebal l os , 547 U . S. 410, 417 ( 2006) . I n or dert o s ucce ed on hi s Fi r s tA m endment ret al i at i on cl ai m , S t ou ch m ustdem on strat e “t hat hi s act i vityi s prot ect ed b ythe F i rs t A m endment , and 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 egedI f St ouch s at i s fi ed both fac t or s , the bur den w oul d s hi ftt o the def endant s t o s how 2 that“the s ame act i on w oul d occuri f the s peec h had notoccurr ed. ” G or um , 561 F. 3d at 184. B ec au se n eith er the D istri ct C o u rtn o r th e p arti es a d d resse d w h ethe r S tou ch ’s 3 “speech ” w as m ade as a cit i zen o r i n the cou rs e of h i s duti es as a poli ce of fi cer, for ease of ana l y s i s , w e w i l l al s o as s um e thatSt ouch s poke as a ci t i zen. T o the ext entthatSt ouch has adequa t el yi dent i fi ed the s peec h t o w hi ch he i s r efe rr i ng, pol i ce mi s conducti s i ndeed a m a tte r o f

p u b lic c o n c e rn . See B aldassare , 2 5 0 F .3 d a t 1 9 5 (n o tin g th a t atte m p ts “ to br i ng t o l i ghtactual orpot ent i al w r ongdoi ng orbr eac h of publ i c trus t ” ca n cons t i tut e a m a tter o f p u b lic c o n c e rn ) (in ter n a l q u o tatio n s a n d c itatio n o m itt e d ); Feldm an v. P hi la. H ous . A uth. , 4 3 F .3 d 8 2 3 , 8 2 9 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 4 ) (“ D isc lo sin g c o rru p tio n , fr a u d , an d ill e g a lity in a g o v ern m en t age n cyis a m att er o f sig n ifi ca n t pu b li c c o n ce rn.”).

- 7- r et al i at oryact i on. ” Go r u m v . S e s s o ms , 5 6 1 F .3 d 1 7 9 , 1 8 4 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 9 ). “ A p u b lic 2 em ploy ee’s st at em ent i s prot ect ed acti vityw hen (1) i n m aking i t , the em ploy ee spok e as a ci t i zen, ( 2) the s t at ementi nvol ved a mat t erof publ i c conc ern, and ( 3) the governm ent 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 ju stif ica tio n f o r tre a tin g th e e m p lo y e e d if f e re n tly fr om anyot herm emberof the gene r al publ i c’ as a r es ul tof the s t at ementhe made. ” Hill v . Bo r o u g h o

f Ku t z t o wn , 455 F. 3d 225, 241- 42 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( quot i ng G a rc e tti , 54 7 U. S. a t 4 1 8 ). S to u c h ’s p rim a rya rg u m e n t b e f o re u s is th a t h e w a s te rm in a ted in re talia tio n f o r h is s peec h r egar di ng: ( 1) fal s i fi cat i on of t i m e s heet s ; ( 2) fal s i fi cat i on of r eport s ; ( 3) i m pr oper r es pons es t o 911 cal l s ; and ( 4) r aci al di s cr i m i nat i on and s exual har as s m enti n the dep artm ent. Iti s di ffi cultt o ident i fythe ex actspeech t o w hich Stouch refer s, m uch l ess w h e n a n d in w h a t c o n te x t it to o k p la c e . See B aldas s ar e v. N ew Jer s ey , 250 F. 3d 188, 195 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 1 ) (n o tin g th e im p o rta n c e o f th e “ c o n ten t, fo rm , an d c o n tex t o f th e a c tiv ityin ques t i on”) . E ven as s um i ng ar guendo that St ou ch’s “s peech ” w as prot ect ed b ythe F i rs t A m endment , ther e i s no evi dence thatthi s s peec h w as i n anyw ayr el at ed t o, l etal one a

3- 8-

s ubs t ant i al fac t ori n hi s t erm i nat i on. W hi l e St ouch i s corr ectthatthi s i s a fa ctual q u e s tio n , G or um , 561 F. 3d at184, i n or dert o s ur vi ve a mot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent , he w as r equi r ed t o s etfor th s uffi ci entevi dence thatw oul d perm i ta r eas onabl e j uryt o r eac h th e c o n c lu s io n h e w o u ld h a v e th e m re a c h . Hi l lv. C i t y of Scr ant on , 411 F. 3d 118, 127 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). S to u c h s im p ly d id n o t d o s o . A ccordi ng l y , t o the ext ent that St ou ch en gag ed in act i vit i es prot ect ed b ythe F i rs t A m endment , the D i s tr i ctC our tcorr ect l yfound thatno r eas onabl e j urycoul d concl ude thathi s s peec h w as a “s ubs t ant i al fac t or ” i n hi s t erm i nat i on. B. Di s c r i mi na t i o n o n t he Bas i s o f Di s a bi l i t y T he A D A pr ovi des that“[n] o cover ed ent i tys hal l di s cr i m i nat e aga i ns ta qual i fi ed i ndi vi dual on t he bas i s of di s abi l i tyi n r egar d t o . . . [the] di s char ge of e m pl oy ees . . . and o ther term s, co n d it ion s, an d p ri v il eg es o f e m p loym en t. ” 4 2 U . S . C . § 1 2 1 1 2 (a). To est abli sh a pri m a facie cas e un der the A D A , a plai nti ff m ustshow that he ( 1) has a di s abi l i ty ; ( 2) i s a qual i fi ed i ndi vi dual ; and ( 3) has s uffe r ed an a dver s e empl oym entact i on b e c a u s e o f

th a t d is a b ility. Turne rv. Hers hey Chocol at e U SA , 4 4 0 F . 3 d 6 0 4 , 6 1 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). O n c e a p lain tiff e sta b lish e s a p rim a f

a c ie c a se , the b u rd e n sh if ts to th e e m p lo y e r to a rt ic u la te a le g itim a te , n o n -d is c ri m in a to ry re a s o n f o r t h e a d v e rs e e m p lo ym e n t a c tio n . See McD onnel lD ouglas C or p. v. G r een , 411 U . S. 792, 802- 05 ( 1973) . T he pl ai nt i ff then b e a rs th e b u rd e n o f

e s ta b lis h in g th a t th is p ro f f e re d re a s o n is a p re te x t f o r d is c ri m in a tio n . T he D i stri ctC ou rtfou nd that St ou ch d i d n ot m ake o ut a pr i m a facie cas e beca use- 9-

h e d id n o t d e m o n stra te th a t h e h a d a d isa b ili ty . S to u c h a rg u e s b e f o re u s th a t h e is dis abled becau se hi s neck a nd back surger i es, necessi t at ed b yhis w ork i njur i es, “pr ecl uded [hi m ] fr om doi ng w or k thati nvol ved l i ft i ng and ca rry i ng. ” ( A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at 61. ) H e al s o m ent i ons , w i thoutel abor at i on, hi s di agnos i s of PT SD . H e ar gues thathe w as otherw i s e qual i fi ed t o be a pol i ce of fi ceri n l i ghtof hi s phy s i ci an’ s opi ni on that “ther e w oul d be no pr obl em w i th [St ouch] carry i ng outhi s dai l ydut i es as a pol i ce o ff icer. ” (A p p . at 13 1 . ) B utas s um i ng ar

guendo th a t S to u c h h a s m a d e o u t a p rim a f a c ie c a se , d e f

e n d a n ts have s etfor th l egi t i m at e, non- di s cr i m i nat oryr eas ons forhi s t erm i nat i on. T he cons ul t i ng ps y chol ogi s tfound thatSt ouch w as ps y chol ogi cal l yunfi tforduty , and the cons ul t i ng p sy c h iatris t d iag n o se d h im w ith a p e rso n a lityd iso rd e r th a t in ter f e re d w ith h is a b ili tyto w o rk c o o p era ti v elyas a p o li ce o ff icer. H is t erm ination w as a ff irm ed b ythe A L J af

ter a h e a ri n g a n d b yth e M e ri t S y s te m B o a rd . T her e i s no evi dence thatthe s t at ed r eas ons forSt ouch’ s t erm i nat i on w er e a pr et ext forthe def

endant s t o di s cr i m i nat e aga i ns thi m on the bas i s of a di s abi l i ty . A s w e have expl ai ned: In order t o p rove t he em ploy er’ s explanat i on i s pret extual , the p l ai nti ff m ust “ca s t[ ] s uffi ci entdoubtupon eac h of the l egi t i m at e r eas ons pr offe r ed by the def endants o t hata fa ct fi ndercoul d r eas onabl yconcl ude thateac h r eas on w as a fa br i cat i on . . . or. . . al l ow [ ] the fa ct fi ndert o i nferthat dis cri m i nati on w as m ore l i kelythan no ta m oti vati ng or det erm i nati ve cau se of the adve r s e empl oym entact i on. ” Fu e n tes v . P e rs k ie , 32 F. 3d 759, 762 ( 3d C i r . 1994) . A pl ai nt i ff w ho has m ade outa pr i m a fa ci e ca s e maydefe at a m o ti o n fo r sum m aryjud g m en t byeith er “ (i ) discre d it ing the e m p loy er’sS to u c h a lso a rg u e s th a t h e w a s d isc rim in a ted a g a in st o n th e b a sis o f a d isa b ili tyin 4 vi ol at i on of the N J L A D . N . J . St at . A nn. § 10: 5- 4. 1. A pl ai nt i ff’ s bur den t o es t abl i s h a p r i ma f a c i e c a s e o f

d i s c r i mi n a t i o n u n d e rth e NJ L AD i s l e s s o n e r o u s th a n u n d e rth e ADA, Fa illa v . C ity o

f P a ss a ic , 146 F. 3d 149, 154 ( 3d C i r . 1998) , butthe Supr eme C our tof N ew J er s eyhas ot herw i s e adopt ed the McD on nell D ou glas b u rd e n -s h if

tin g f ra m e w o rk . V is ci k v. Fow l erE qui

p. C or p. , 800 A . 2d 826, 833- 34 ( N . J . 2002) . T her efor e, the D i s tr i ct C o u rt p ro p e rl yg ra n te d s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t o n th is c la im a s w e ll.

- 10- pr offe r ed r eas ons , ei therci r cumst ant i al l yordi r ect l y , or( i i ) adduci ng ev iden ce , w h ethe r circum stan ti al or d ir ec t, that d iscri m ination w as m o re l i kelythan no ta m oti vati ng or det erm i nati ve cau se of t he ad verse empl oym entact i on. ” I

d. at764. W is hki n v. P ot t er , 476 F. 3d 180, 185 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( al t er at i ons i n or i gi nal ) . St ouch has fai l ed t o carr ythi s bur den. 4 C. Re t a l i a t i o n i n Vi o l a t i o n o f t h e ADA a n d NJ LA D T he A D A pr ohi bi t s di s cr i m i nat i on agai ns tan i ndi vi dual w ho has “oppos ed anyact orpr act i ce made unl aw ful by[the A D A ] ” orw ho has “made a cha r ge, t es t i fi ed, as s i s t ed, o r p a rt ic ip a te d in a n ym a n n e r i n a n in v e s tig a tio n , p ro c e e d in g , o r h e a ri n g ” u n d e r t h e A D A . 4 2 U. S . C. § 1 2 2 0 3 ( a ) . T o e s t a b l i s h a p r i ma f a c i e c a s e o f

r e t a l i a t i o n u n d e rth e ADA, St ouch w as r equi r ed t o s how : “( 1) pr ot ect ed empl oy ee a ct i vi ty ; ( 2) adver s e ac t i on byt he empl oy erei theraft erorcont empora neous w i th the empl oy ee’ s pr ot ect ed ac t i vi ty ; and ( 3) a causal conne ct i on betw een the em ploy ee’s prot ect ed acti vityand the em ploy er’ s adverse act i on. ” W

ill ia m s v . P h ila . H

o u s. A u th . P o lice D e

p t. , 380 F. 3d 751, 759 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( i nt ernal quot at i ons and ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . A pl ai nt i ff ne ed notbe “di s abl ed” unde rt he A D A to p re v a il o n a re ta lia tio n c la im . I d. at759 n. 2. T he McD onnel lD ouglas bur dens h if tin g f ra m e w o rk a ls o a p p lie s to A D A re ta lia tio n c la im s . I d. at760 n. 3.B eca us e w e empl oythe s ame t es tt o eval uat e a c l ai m of r et al i at i on underthe 5 N J L A D , Tartagl i a v. U B S P ai neW

ebberI nc. , 9 6 1 A . 2 d 1 1 6 7 , 1 1 9 2 (N . J. 2 0 0 8 ), S tou ch ’s cl ai m of ret al i at i on i n v i olat i on of the N JL A D al so fai l s.

- 11- S tou ch h as n o t exp lai n ed w h yan yo f h is acti v it ies – inclu d ing h is r eq u est fo r a di ffe r entl i ghtdutyj ob, hi s compl ai ntt o O SH A , and hi s r eques tforexempt i on fr om t he s i ck che ck pol i cy– ar e pr ot ect ed underthe A D A . H i s compl ai nt s t o s upervi s or s and O S H A ab o u t th e c o m m u n icati o n s roo m w ere n o t r elated to an yd isab il ityb u t, rathe r, f o c u se d o n h is d iss a tisf

a c tio n w ith th e c o n d iti o n s o f th e ro o m . W ith re sp e c t to h is phy s i ci an’ s r eques tthathe be “ al l ow ed t o l eave hi s hous e fr eel yw i thoutpot ent i al re talia to rya c tio n s b yth e [ p o lice ] d e p a rtm e n t” ( A p p . at 1 3 1 ), h e d o e s n o t ex p lain w h yth is cons t i tut ed a r eques tforacc om m odat i on bas ed on a di s abi l i ty . I n anyevent , as w e have al r eadydes cr i bed, defe ndant s have a s s ert ed l egi t i m at e, non- di s cr i m i nat oryr eas ons for St ouch’ s t erm i nat i on and St ouch has fai l ed t o demonstr at e thatthes e r eas ons w er e a pr et extforunl aw ful r et al i at i on. 5 D . H os t i l e W or k Envi r onment T o e s ta b lis h a c a u s e o f

a c tio n f o r a h o s tile w o rk e n v ir o n m e n t u n d e r t h e N J L A D , a pl ai nt i ff mustdemonstr at e “thatthe compl ai ned- of conduc t( 1) w oul d nothave oc curr ed butforthe empl oy ee’ s pr ot ect ed s t atus , and w as ( 2) s ever e orpervas i ve enough t o m ake a ( 3) r eas onabl e per s on bel i eve that( 4) the condi t i ons of empl oym enthave be en al t er ed and thatthe w or ki ng envi r onm enti s hos t i l e orabus i ve. ” Shepherd v. H unt er don D evel op m entalC tr. , 803 A . 2d 611, 625 ( N . J . 2002) ( ci t i ng Lehm ann v. Toys ‘ R ’U s , I nc. ,- 12-

626 A . 2d 445 ( N . J . 1993) ) . T her e i s s i m pl yno evi dence t o s uppor tSt ouch’ s cl ai m that the s i ck l eave pol i cyw as enfor ced a gai ns thi m beca us e of c om m ent s he made aboutr aci al d is c ri m in a tio n . E . D u e P rocess Fi nal l y , St ouch al l eges thathi s due pr oces s r i ght s w er e vi ol at ed bec aus e, al though he r ece i ved a not i ce of

the di s ci pl i naryhear i ng w hi ch l ed t o hi s t erm i nat i on, he bel i eved that the d ate o f th e h ea ri n g h ad b ee n ch an g ed an d h e the ref o re d id n o t at tend . Itis cl ea r, how ever , thatthe pr ocedur al pr ot ect i ons aff or ded hi m w er e more than ade quat e t o s at i s fy th e d u e p ro c e s s re q u ir e m e n ts o f n o tic e a n d o p p o rt u n ity to b e h e a rd . See Cl eve land B d. of E d u c . v. L o u d e rm ill , 470 U . S. 532, 542 ( 1985) . St ouch r ece i ved not i ce of the D ece m ber 1 6 , 2 0 0 3 h e a ri n g a n d th e c h a rg e s a g a in s t h im , a n d it is u n c le a r w h yh e d id n o t a tte n d . T he hea r i ng w as hel d i n hi s abs ence aft erthe hea r i ng offi cerconcl uded thathe had re c e iv e d a d e q u a te n o tice . H e a p p e a led th e h e a rin g o f f ice r’s d e c isio n u p h o ld in g h is te rm in a tio n to th e O f

f ic e o f A d m in is tr a tiv e L a w , a n d th e A L J h e ld a f o u r- d a yh e a ri n g . S to u c h th e n a p p e a le d th is d e c is io n to th e M e ri t S y s te m B o a rd , w h ic h a f f ir m e d . A c c o rd in g ly, S to u c h ’s d u e p ro c e s s a rg u m e n t is w ith o u t m e ri t. I V. F o r t h e f o re g o in g re a s o n s , w e w ill a f f ir m th e o rd e r o f

th e D is tr ic t C o u rt .