Andrew Balik v. City of Bayonne

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
____________
No. 13-1815
____________
ANDREW BALIK,
Appellant
v.
CITY OF BAYONNE;
CHARLES M. D'AMICO, Individually;
STEPHEN J. GALLO, Individually
____________
On Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D. NJ. No. 2-10-cv-04145)
District Judge: Faith S. Hochberg
____________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
April 10, 2014
FISHER and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges, and MARIANI, * District Judge.
(Opinion Filed: May 28, 2014)
____________
OPINION OF THE COURT
____________
FISHER, Circuit Judge.
*
The Honorable Robert D. Mariani, District Judge for the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.
Appellant Andrew Balik appeals from the District Court's grant of summary
judgment in favor of the City of Bayonne (the "City"), Charles D'Amico, and Stephen
Gallo (collectively, "Appellees"), on claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq. We will affirm.
I.
We write principally for the parties, who are familiar with the factual context and
legal history of this case. Therefore, we will set forth only those facts that are necessary
to our analysis.
Balik was employed by the City as a Qualified Purchasing Agent in 1995 and held
that position until August 2010. D'Amico was employed as the City's Corporation
Counsel in August of 2010 and Gallo was named the City's Business Administrator in the
first week of August 2010. Terrence Malloy was the City's Business Administrator
before Gallo.
On August 11, 2010, Balik was called into a meeting with D'Amico and Malloy to
discuss three different contracts Balik had worked on in 2009 and 2010. D'Amico and
Malloy had found what appeared "to be potential improprieties and irregularities in the
contracts and bidding process." App. at A2. During that meeting, D'Amico expressed his
concerns about the three contracts and informed Balik that he could either retire or face
an investigation into the contracts to determine if there were any improprieties. D'Amico
then, in Balik's presence, placed a phone call to the Hudson County Prosecutor's Office,
where he spoke with an individual who confirmed that the allegations at issue would be
2
considered criminal in nature and could be subjected to a criminal investigation. Balik
informed D'Amico that he would undergo the investigation.
The following day, August 12, 2010, Balik contacted D'Amico and indicated that
he had changed his mind and would retire. In his deposition, Balik testified that his
change of heart "had nothing to do with the investigation." App. at A282. Instead, he
cited a "hostile work environment" and not wanting to deal with "being . . . written up
again for . . . asinine thing[s] and [having to potentially] go down the same route." Id.
His retirement paperwork was filed on or about August 18, 2010, to be effective
September 1, 2010.
Balik filed the first Complaint against Appellees in the instant case the day after he
relayed his retirement decision to D'Amico. He alleged federal claims, pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983, for violation of due process, denial of his property interest in his job,
retaliation for exercise of free speech, and a denial of his liberty interest in his "freedom
to work and earn a living and maintained [sic] the established position in [his]
community." App. at A4. The Complaint also alleged a violation of the FLSA based
upon an allegation that the City withheld payment for some of the sick time he accrued
during his employment, as well as various causes of action under New Jersey state law.
Appellees filed a motion for summary judgment and, following a review of the
parties' submissions and oral argument on the matter, the District Court granted the
motion. In its opinion, dated February 20, 2013, the District Court noted first that the
success of Balik's § 1983 claims were dependent upon the voluntariness of Balik's
3
resignation. App. at A6 (citing Leheny v. City of Pittsburgh, 183 F.3d 220, 227 (3d Cir.
1999) ("If an employee retires of his own free will . . . he is deemed to have relinquished
his property interest in his continued employment for the government, and cannot
contend that he was deprived of his due process rights.")). The Court cited two
recognized exceptions wherein retirement is deemed involuntary: instances of coercion or
duress, and instances of deception or misrepresentation. Relying largely on Balik's own
statement that "[his decision to retire] had nothing to do with the investigation", the
District Court concluded that Balik's resignation was not the product of coercion or
duress, or the result of a material misrepresentation. The District Court then concluded
that Balik's FLSA claim failed as well, noting that Balik failed to present any evidence to
support his contention that he had not received full payment for sick time he had accrued.
Finally, because the District Court dismissed all of the claims over which it had original
jurisdiction, it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Balik's state law
claims.
Balik's timely appeal to this Court followed.
II.
The District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. We have appellate
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We review a district court's grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the
same standard as the district court. Viera v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 642 F.3d 407, 413
(3d Cir. 2011). Summary judgment is appropriate only where the moving party has
4
established "that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). To meet this burden, "the
moving party must show that the non-moving party has failed to establish one or more
essential elements of his or her case." Scheidemantle v. Slippery Rock Univ. State Sys. of
Higher Educ., 470 F.3d 535, 538 (3d Cir. 2006). The reviewing court should "view the
facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and make all reasonable
inferences in that party's favor." Id.
III.
On appeal, Balik argues that the District Court erred in granting summary
judgment on his § 1983 and FLSA claims. Specifically, regarding his § 1983 claims,
Balik contends that the District Court: (1) misapplied the summary judgment standard by
failing to view the facts in the light most favorable to him; (2) engaged in improper fact
finding; and (3) erroneously dismissed his § 1983 claims, which included allegations of a
violation of due process, denial of his property interest in his job, denial of his liberty
interest, and a First Amendment claim of retaliation. Regarding his FLSA claim, Balik
contends that, while analyzing his claim, the District Court improperly adopted the
Appellees' version of the facts and misapplied the governing law. 1
1
Balik also contends that Appellees never moved for summary judgment on the alleged
FLSA violations and, therefore, the District Court's grant of summary judgment on that
claim (without notice) was a violation of Rule 56(f)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. We reject that argument, as Appellees' Notice of Motion for Summary
Judgment refers the Court and the parties to various documents in support of the motion,
including their Statement of Uncontroverted Facts, which discusses Balik's claim for
payment for unused sick and vacation days. See App. at A140-41. Appellees did
5
We will address each of these claims in turn.
A.
In order to establish a claim under § 1983 for deprivation of due process rights,
Balik must demonstrate that: (1) "he was deprived of an individual interest that is
encompassed within the Fourteenth Amendment's protection of 'life, liberty, or
property'"; and (2) "the procedures available to him did not provide 'due process of law.'"
Hill v. Borough of Kutztown, 455 F.3d 225, 233-34 (3d Cir. 2006) (quoting Alvin v.
Suzuki, 227 F.3d 107, 116 (3d Cir. 2000)). In the employment context, "[i]f an employee
retires of his own free will, even though prompted to do so by some action of his
employer, he is deemed to have relinquished his property interest in his continued
employment for the government, and cannot contend that he was deprived of his due
process rights." See Leheny v. City of Pittsburgh, 183 F.3d 220, 227 (3d Cir. 1999).
Because Balik chose to resign from his position with the City, that decision will,
therefore, play a role in the analysis of his claims.
Where, as here, an employee resigns or retires from his or her position, we
presume such conduct to be voluntary. Id. (citing Angarita v. St. Louis Cty., 981 F.2d
1537, 1544 (8th Cir. 1992)). "This presumption remains intact until the employee
presents evidence to establish that the resignation or retirement was involuntarily
procured." Id. (citing Angarita, 981 F.2d at 1544). We have cited to two circumstances
incorporate Balik's FLSA claim into its summary judgment motion and, therefore, there
was no Rule 56(f)(2) violation.
6
wherein an employee's resignation or retirement will be deemed involuntary for purposes
of due process claims: (1) "when the employer forces the resignation or retirement by
coercion or duress, or (2) when the employer obtains the resignation or retirement by
deceiving or misrepresenting a material fact to the employee." Id. at 228. As the District
Court correctly observed, the viability of Balik's § 1983 claims ultimately depend upon
whether Balik's decision to retire was a product of coercion or duress, or a product of
deception or material misrepresentation.
Applying the aforementioned principles to the case before us, we conclude that
Balik resigned of his own free will and, therefore, his § 1983 claims for violation of due
process, denial of his property interest in his job, and denial of his liberty interest are not
viable. As the District Court pointed out, the record makes clear that Balik's decision to
retire had "nothing to do with the investigation," App. at A282, nor was the investigation
"a concern" for him, App. at A316. Balik cites only to his inability to deal with his
coworkers and D'Amico as the basis for his decision to retire. App. at A316. That basis,
which is, essentially, a mere dislike for certain individuals with which he works, is
insufficient, without more, to render his decision to retire involuntary. Because Balik's
decision to retire was made of his own free will, he relinquished his property interest in
his employment for the City and cannot now contend that he was deprived of his due
process rights. See Leheny, 183 F.3d at 227.
Balik's First Amendment retaliation claim, also brought pursuant to § 1983, fails
for the same reason. To prevail on that claim, Balik must prove that: (1) he engaged in
7
activity protected by the Constitution; (2) Appellees responded with retaliation; and (3)
his protected activity was the cause of Appellees' retaliation. See Anderson v. Davila, 125
F.3d 148, 161 (3d Cir. 1997). Because Balik's retaliation claim is based upon allegations
that he was "discharged" or "terminated" for engaging in protected activity, App. at A26-
27, but the record makes clear that neither was the case, his retaliation claim fails at the
second prong. The District Court properly granted summary judgment on Balik's § 1983
claims.
B.
"While the moving party has the burden initially of identifying . . . evidence that
demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, the nonmoving party must
make a sufficient showing to establish the existence of every element necessary to its
case and on which it bears the burden of proof." Miller v. Indiana Hosp., 843 F.2d 139,
143 (3d Cir. 1988). Here, neither party disputes that Balik was entitled to payment for
unused sick and vacation time. Nor do the parties dispute that Balik received such
payment. Balik only asserts that he did not receive full payment for his unused sick and
vacation time. As the District Court correctly observed, "facts do not become
controverted unless the non-movant supplies evidence." App. at A9-A10. Because
Balik's assertion is not supported by evidence, he has failed to demonstrate a genuine
issue of material fact as to his entitlement to payment for additional sick and vacation
time. The District Court properly granted summary judgment on Balik's FLSA claim.
C.
8
In sum, we find that Balik has not established a genuine dispute of material fact as
to his § 1983 and FLSA claims. Appellees were, therefore, entitled to judgment as a
matter of law. Accordingly, we will affirm the order of the District Court granting
Appellees' motion for summary judgment.
IV.
For the reasons set forth above, we will affirm the order of the District Court.
9