Palardy v. Twp. of Millburn

• Decision Date: 02 May 2016
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 15-02089(SDW)(LDW)
• Parties: MICHAEL J. PALARDY, JR., Plaintiff, v. TOWNSHIP OF MILLBURN, TIMOTHY P. GORDON, and JOHN DOES 1-5, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

MICHAEL J. PALARDY, JR., Plaintiff, v. TOWNSHIP OF MILLBURN, TIMOTHY P. GORDON,and JOHN DOES 1-5, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 15-02089(SDW)(LDW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

May 2, 2016

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

OPINION

WIGENTON, District Judge

Before this Court is the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings of Defendants Township of Millburn and Timothy P. Gordon (collectively, "Defendants"), pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). This Court, having considered the parties' submissions decides this matter without oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78. For the reasons stated below, Defendants' Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

This Court has jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Michael J. Palardy, Jr. ("Plaintiff") filed the operative Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 28) in this matter on February 22, 2016, against Defendants Township of Millburn and Timothy P. Gordon, alleging a number of claims arising out of Plaintiff's employment as a police officer for the Department of Police in the Township of Millburn. (See Am. Compl. ¶ 1.) According to Plaintiff, while employed by the Department of Police, he was an active member of the Police Benevolent Association ("PBA") and the Superior Officers Association ("SOA"), both of which acted as collective bargaining representatives for individuals in the "police bargaining unit." (Id. ¶¶ 6-7.) In his roles with the PBA and SOA, Plaintiff represented employees "in matters of discipline, in matters of terms and conditions of employment, and in contract negotiation with Millburn." (Id. ¶ 7)

According to Plaintiff, as a result of his activities with the PBA and SOA, Defendants "labeled [Plaintiff] a thorn in their side, thwarting the unilateral desire of senior Millburn municipal staff in the manner, method, and means (and cost) of labor service to be provided by Millburn employees in the covered unit." (Id. ¶¶ 8-9.) As a result, Plaintiff claims, Defendants "took affirmative steps to derail, stymie, and thwart [P]laintiff's career." (Id. ¶ 10.) In addition to hiring an expert to determine whether the captain position in the Department of Police was needed (Plaintiff was the only captain), Defendants also denied Plaintiff credit for his last year of employment in calculation of his retirement annuity. (Id. ¶¶ 10-12.) Specifically, Plaintiff claims he was entitled to a retroactive wage increase which should have increased his pension entitlement. (Id. ¶ 13.) However, Plaintiff claims, Defendants denied him this entitlement in retaliation for his union activities. (Id. ¶ 14.)

Plaintiff's Amended Complaint includes eight counts: "unconstitutional interference with the employment contract between plaintiff and defendant" ("Count One"); retaliation for Plaintiff's free speech and association under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and in violation of the New Jersey Constitution ("Count Two"); violation of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment ("Count Three"); violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment ("Count Four"); violation of the "Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment" ("Count Five"); violation of the Free Speech Clause of the New Jersey Constitution ("Count Six"); violation of the "Equal Protection Clause" of the New Jersey Constitution and the Fifth Amendment ("Count Seven"); and conspiracy to deprive Plaintiff of his civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) ("Count 8"). (Id. ¶¶ 21-59.) On February 26, 2016, Defendants filed their Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings seeking dismissal of all eight counts. (Dkt. No. 29.)

III. LEGAL STANDARD

When a party makes a motion for judgment on the pleadings based on the defense of failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the Court "appl[ies] the same standards as under Rule 12(b)(6)." Turbe v. Gov't of Virgin Islands, 938 F.2d 427, 428 (3d Cir. 1991); see Caprio v. Healthcare Revenue Recovery Grp., LLC, 709 F.3d 142, 146 (3d Cir. 2013); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(2)(B). Under the Rule 12(b)(6) standard, the movant bears the burden of establishing that the complaint has failed to sufficiently state a claim. Animal Sci. Products, Inc. v. China Minmetals Corp., 654 F.3d 462, 470 (3d Cir. 2011), as amended (Oct. 7, 2011). In addition, "[a] court must accept all factual allegations in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff." N.J. Carpenters & the Trustees Thereof v. Tishman Const. Corp. of N.J., 760 F.3d 297, 302 (3d Cir. 2014) (citing Phillips v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 231 (3d Cir. 2008)). Furthermore, the question before the Court on such a motion is "not whether a plaintiffwill ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims." Semerenko v. Cendant Corp., 223 F.3d 165, 173 (3d Cir. 2000).

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a plaintiff's complaint need only contain "'a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief' in order to 'give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'" Burtch v. Milberg Factors, Inc., 662 F.3d 212, 220 (3d Cir. 2011) (quoting Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 555 (2007)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Although the plaintiff is not required to make "detailed factual allegations," the complaint must state a claim that is "plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 663 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555) (internal quotation marks omitted). In other words, "the pleaded factual content [must allow] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 662.

In addition, a defendant may move to dismiss a complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction by challenging jurisdiction facially or factually. Constitution Party of Pennsylvania v. Aichele, 757 F.3d 347, 357 (3d Cir. 2014). A facial challenge to subject-matter jurisdiction "considers a claim on its face and asserts that it is insufficient to invoke the subject-matter jurisdiction of the court because, for example, it does not present a question of federal law." Id. at 358. In contrast, a factual challenge "is an argument that there is no subject matter jurisdiction because the facts of the case . . . do not support the asserted jurisdiction." Id. Drawing this distinction is important because it "determines how the pleading must be reviewed." Id. at 357-58 (citing In re Schering Plough Corp. Intron, 678 F.3d 235, 243 (3d Cir. 2012)). In analyzing a facial challenge, "the court must only consider the allegations of the complaint and documents referenced therein and attached thereto." Constitution Party of Pennsylvania, 757 F.3d at 348(citing In re Schering Plough Corp. Intron, 678 F.3d at 243). Whereas in considering a factual challenge to subject-matter jurisdiction, the court "may look beyond the pleadings to ascertain the facts." Constitution Party of Pennsylvania, 757 F.3d at 348. Furthermore, in considering a factual challenge to subject matter jurisdiction, "the plaintiff's allegations enjoy no presumption of truthfulness, and [the plaintiff] bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction." Meehan v. Taylor, No. CIV. 12-4079 RBK/KMW, 2013 WL 4517943, at *2 (D.N.J. Aug. 26, 2013) (first citing CNA v. United States, 535 F.3d 132, 139 (3d Cir. 2008); then citing Mortensen v. First Fed. Saving and Loan Assoc., 549 F.2d 884, 891 (3d Cir. 1977)).

IV. DISCUSSION

A. Count One

In Count One of the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff claims that Defendants' refusal to pay Plaintiff additional money for his time as an employee of the Millburn Department of Police constitutes "unconstitutional interference with the employment contract between plaintiff and defendant." (Am. Compl. ¶ 22.) In response, Defendants' argue that Count One should be dismissed because Plaintiff failed to follow the grievance procedures in the applicable collective bargaining agreement. (Defs.' Br. Supp. Mot. J. Pleadings ("Defs.' Br. Supp.") 14-17.)

According to Defendants, the "employment contract" Plaintiff references in Count One is the collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") between the Township of Millburn, the PBA, and the SOA. (DelGaudio Cert. Ex. 2.) In addition, Defendants point out that the "retroactive wage increase" to which Plaintiff claims he is entitled, (See Am. Compl. ¶ 13), is outlined in the April 21, 2014 Memorandum of Agreement which supplemented the CBA. (See DelGaudio Cert. Ex. 3.) Plaintiff does not dispute either of these claims. (See generally Pl.'s Mem. L. Opp. Defs.' Mot. ("Pl.'s Br. Opp.").)

Article X of the CBA governs salaries, including the salaries of police officers with the rank of captain. (See DelGaudio Cert. Ex. 2.) Moreover, Article III of the CBA, titled "Grievance Procedure," outlines the "sole and exclusive method for resolving grievances between the parties" and defines "grievances" as "any controversy arising over the interpretation or adherence to the terms and conditions of this Agreement." (See id.) Accordingly, it appears that a dispute as to Plaintiff's entitlement to wages under Article X of the CBA would be subject to the grievance procedures in Article III. However, despite this apparent applicability of the CBA's grievance procedures to Plaintiff's claim in Count One, Plaintiff does not challenge the validity of the CBA, nor does he dispute that his claim under Count One falls within Article III's scope. (See Pl.'s Br. Opp.) Furthermore, Plaintiff does not claim to have followed the grievance procedures. (See id.) Yet, "in situations involving collective bargaining agreements, it has long been the rule in New Jersey that the aggrieved employee must exhaust the remedies provided by the agreement before resorting to the court...