Spinks v. Township of Clinton, 402 N.J. Super. 465 (N.J. App. Div. 2008)

In Spinks v. Township of Clinton, former police officers, who had pled guilty to criminal charges for falsification of records, sued the Township and its Chief of Police, alleging unlawful retaliation in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and age discrimination in violation of the LAD. The Appellate Division, affirming summary judgment in favor of the defendants, held: (1) the Chief of Police was protected by qualified immunity; (2) the plaintiffs’ prior challenges to the Township’s promotion process is not protected speech for purposes of the § 1983 claim; and (3) the Township’s investigation of the plaintiffs, leading to a criminal plea bargain, is not an “adverse employment action” for purposes of the LAD. In so doing, the Appellate Division emphasized that the internal personnel policies of a public employer are not “matters of public concern” giving rise to a First Amendment retaliation claim  - even if an employee is punished for protesting those policies.

Circle Bolt & Nut Co, v. Pa. Human Relations Comm’n, 954 A.2d 1265 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2008)

The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania recently affirmed the determination of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission which found that, although a complainant failed to establish that she was the victim of sex-based discrimination at work, she nevertheless proved that she was unlawfully retaliated against as a result of her opposition to the complained-about workplace conduct.