NOT 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. 09- 3069

_____________ J A N E B E N T L E Y , A ppel l ant
v. A T L A N T IC C O U N T Y , N E W JE R S E Y ; TH E O FFI CE O F TH E SH ER I FF O F A T L A N T IC C O U N T Y , N E W JE R S E Y ; J A M E S M C G E T T IG A N , Indi vidual l yand i n h i s offici al capac i t yas S h e rif f o f A tlan tic C o u n ty ; J OSEPH CO NN ELY
A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C
. C i vi l N o. 05- cv- 02942) Di s t r i c tJ u d g e : Ho n o r a b l e Re n e e M . Bu mb
Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ay26, 2010 B efore: M cK E E , C hief J ud ge, R E N D E L L and G A R T H , C i rcui tJudg es. ( Fi l ed: M ay27, 2010)
OPI NI ON O F THE COURTT h e tr ia l w a s a c tu a lly a s e c o n d tr ia l, b u t th a t d o e s n o t a f f e c t o u r r u lin g . 1 2 R E N D E L L , C i r cui tJ udge. J ane Bent l eyappea l s t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s gr antof part i al s um m aryj udgm entand i t s pr e- tr i al and tr i al rul i ngs . T he D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof A t l ant i c C ount y , N ew J er s ey , Sher i ff J ames M cG ett i gan, and U nderSher i ff J os eph C o n n e lly(c o llec tiv e ly , D e f e n d a n ts) o n C o u n ts II th ro u g h V o f B e n tley ’s c o m p lain t, al l egi ng di s cr i m i nat i on bas ed on B ent l ey ’ s r ace and gende r . T he D i s t r i ctC our thel d a tr ial o n C o u n t I , in w h ich B en tl eyu rge d that h er p roc ed u ral du e p roc ess righ ts w ere
v io late d w h e n sh e w a s s u sp e n d e d f ro m h e r e m p lo ym e n t. 1 B eca us e w e w r i t e fort he part i es w ho ar e fa m i l i arw i t h t he fa ctual cont extand p ro c e d u ra l h is to ry o f

th is c a s e , w e re c ite o n ly th e f a c ts th a t a re re le v a n t to o u r a n a lysis
. Be n t l e ywa s e mp l o y e d a s a S h e r i f f ’ s Of f i c e ri n At l a n t i c Co u n t y , Ne w J e r s e y . On N ovember5, 2003, B ent l eyw as s us pended w i t h paypendi ng a ps y chol ogi cal eval uat i on,
a f te r a n in c id e n t th a t le d h e r s u p e ri o rs to q u e s tio n h e r a b ility to p e rf o rm h e r j o b
. H ow ever , B ent l eyw as noti nform ed as t o w hetherhers us pens i on w as di s ci pl i naryor
non- di s ci pl i naryi n natur e. O n D ece m ber2, 2003, aft era ps y chol ogi s tfound herunfi tfor duty , B ent l eyw as s us pended w i t houtpayand w as r equi r ed t o compl et e the r ecomm ended tr e a tm e n t b e f

o re re tu rn in g to a c tiv e d u ty. O n N ovember13, 2003, B ent l eyfi l ed a gr i evanc e and s oughtarbi t r at i on thr ough the Publ i c Em pl oym entR el at i ons C om m i s s i on of the St at e of N ew J er s ey . H ow ever , t heB ecause the r ecord as a w ho l e supp ort s the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s rul i ng s, w e exp res s 2 no opi ni on as t o w hethert he D i s t r i ctC our tw as corr ecti n hol di ng thata s t andar d of “s ever e” e m ot i onal di s t r es s w as r equi r ed, orw hetherthe pr opers how i ng s houl d have 3 appea l s pr oces s forempl oy ees underthe N ew J er s eyA dm i ni s t r at i ve C ode di ffe r s for di s ci pl i naryand non- di s ci pl i narys us pens i ons . B eca us e B ent l ey ’ s s us pens i on w as not di s ci pl i nary , t he pr operpr ocedur e t o cont es tthe s us pens i on w as t o appea l t o t he N ew Je rse yM e rit S y ste m B o a rd . O n N o v e m b e r 1 2 , 2 0 0 4 , B e n tleya p p e a led to th e M e rit B o a rd . O n Ju ly2 8 , 2 0 0 5 , the M e rit B o a rd ru led th a t: W h e re , a s h e re , an e m p lo y e r h a s le g iti m a te c o n c e rn s re g a rd in g a p u b lic s a f e ty empl oy ee’ s ps y chol ogi cal fi t nes s forduty , t he empl oy eri s ent i t l ed, perhaps r equi r ed, t o acti n t he bes ti nt er es t s of the publ i c that it serv es. Thus, t he B oar d fi nds t hatt he appe l l ant ’ s i ni t i al s epar at i on fr om dut y w i t h pay , pendi ng h e r p sy c h o lo g ica l e v a lu a tio n , w a s w a rra n ted u n d e r th e c irc u m sta n c e s a n d d id notcons t i tut e di s ci pl i naryact i on. A p p . 4 9 2
. T h e D istri ct C o u rtd eterm ined that the D ef en d an ts ha d v iolated B en tl ey ’s pr ocedur al due pr oces s r i ght s byfai l i ng t o gi ve herpr om ptnot i ce thatthe s us pens i on w as notdi s ci pl i narys o t hats he w oul d know t o appea l t o t he M er i tB oar d. H ow ever , the D i s tr i ctC our tal s o rul ed that , beca us e B ent l eydi d have a m eani ngful oppor tuni t yt o be hear d i n fr ontof the M er i tB oar d, and hers us pens i on w as uphel d, the onl ypr ocedur al due pr oces s vi ol at i on w as t he D efe ndant s ’ fai l ur e t o pr ovi de pr om ptnot i ce of the type of
su sp e n sio n . T h e D istric t C o u rt a lso ru led th a t in o rd e r to re c o v e r d a m a g e s B e n tleyw o u ld h a v e to sh o w th a t sh e su f f e re d se v e re e m o tio n a l d istre ss f ro m th e d e lay of

th e M e rit B oar d appea l , as oppos ed t o fr om t he s us pens i on i t s el f. T he C our thad the j urydeci de, 2been “ actual i nj ur y ” r es ul t i ng fr om the deni al of pr ocedur al due pr oces s and the r es ul t i ng

d e la yin a d

ju d ic a tin g B e n tle y ’s c h a lle n g e to h e r s u s p e n s io n . See Carey v. P i phus , 435 U . S
. 2 4 7 (19 7 8 ); B olden v. Se. P a. Trans p. A uth. , 2 1 F .3 d 2 9 , 3 4 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). 4 as a pr el i m i narym att er , t he dat e thatB ent l ey ’ s at t orney , St even Cohen, w as t ol d t hatt he Sher i ff c ons i der ed the s us pens i on t o be non- di s ci pl i nary . T hi s dat e w oul d end the del ay thatal l egedl ycaus ed B ent l eyemot i onal di s t r es s . T he j uryfound thatC ohen l earned that the Sher i ff c ons i der ed the s us pens i on non- di s ci pl i narys om et i m e betw een N ovember13, 2003 and J anuary2004. G i ven thatfi ndi ng, B ent l eyconce ded thats he coul d notpr ove the del aycaus ed hers ever e emot i onal di s t r es s . T he D i s t r i ctC our tthen ent er ed j udgm ent i n h e rf a v o rf o r$ 1
. 0 0 a s n o m i n a l c o m p e n s a t i o n f o rth e v i o l a t i o n o f

B e n t l e y's
cons t i tut i onal r i ghtt o pr ocedur al due pr oces s . W e w i l l aff i r m the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s rul i ngs on B ent l ey ’ s due pr oces s cl ai m s ubs t ant i al l yforthe r eas ons s etfor t h bythe D i s t r i ct C o u rt. T h e D istric t C o u rt g ra n ted su m m a ryju d g m e n t in th e D e f e n d a n ts’ f

a v o r o n C o u n ts II th ro u g h V b e c a u se B e n tleyd id n o t ad d u c e su f f icie n t ev id e n c e to su p p o rt a re a so n a b le in f e re n c e o f d isc rim in a tio n b a se d o n h e r ra c e o r g e n d e r. O n a p p e a l, B e n tleyre f e rs to i nt ernal i nves t i gat i on fi l es of otherSher i ff’ s O ffi cer s w hom s he al l eges w er e tr eat ed di ffe r ent l y . T he fi l es w er e neve rm ade pa r tof the r ecor d i n t he D i s t r i ctC our t( oron
a p p e a l) a n d th e re f

o re c a n n o t b e c o n s id e re d o n a p p e a l. See, e. g. , B r ow n v. J. Kaz, I nc. , 581 F. 3d 175, 179 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( quot i ng G i l es v. Kear ney , 5 7 1 F . 3 d 3 1 8 , 3 2 2 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 9 ) (“ A c o u rt m a yg ra n t su m m a ryju d g m e n t on l y w h en the reco rd sho w s th a t th e re isA s not ed byt he D i s t r i ctC our t , even though the i nves t i gat i on fi l es w er e pr oduced 3 s ubj ectt o a pr ot ect i ve or der , B ent l eycoul d have i ncl uded them i n t he r ecor d s i m pl yby f ilin g th e m u n d e r s e a l. See L . A
. R . 1 0 6
. 1 (a). 5 no gen uine i ssue of m at eri al factand that the m ov i ng partyi s ent i t l ed to j ud gm ent as a
m at t erof l aw . ”) ( emphasi s added)
. T hus , w e agr ee thatthe evi dence adduce d w as 3 insu ff ici en t and w il l aff

irm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s gra n t of su m m aryjud g m en t on C o u n ts I I th ro u g h V o f

B e n tle y ’s c o m p la in t. A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l aff i r m al l of the or der s of the D i s t r i ctC our tthatB ent l ey
c h a llen g e s o n a p p e a l.