James Bridge v. Brian Fogelson , 681 F. App'x 137 ( 2017 )

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
____________
No. 15-3963
____________
JAMES ANDREW BRIDGE,
Appellant
v.
BRIAN FOGELSON; TINA RITCHIE; BRUCE HANELT; MARTA RIVARA;
EUGENE F. WOZNICKI; JACK H. BRITTEN; LOUIS MELCHOR;
ROBERT BURNS; FREDERICK P. COOK; ROBERT L. BRANDT;
GLORIA RIVERA; KEVIN BRENNAN
____________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.N.J. No. 3-15-cv-03160)
District Judge: Honorable Peter G. Sheridan
____________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
June 23, 2016
Before: McKEE, Chief Judge,* FISHER** and GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judges.
(Filed: March 15, 2017)
____________
*
Honorable Theodore A. McKee concluded his term as Chief Judge of the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on September 30, 2016.
**
Honorable D. Michael Fisher, United States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit,
assumed senior status on February 1, 2017.
OPINION***
____________
FISHER, Circuit Judge.
James Bridge appeals the District Court’s dismissal of his complaint under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and its surrender of federal jurisdiction under Colorado
River abstention.1 We will affirm, but on a rationale different from that adopted by the
District Court.
I
On April 24, 2013, in a special meeting of the North Warren Education
Association, Bridge was removed from his position as President of the Association for
reasons of gross negligence. In his place, the Association appointed Patricia Douglas-
Jarvis, who was formerly the Vice President of the Association, to the position of
President. In response to the motion to oust him, Bridge produced an email exchange
between himself and Douglas-Jarvis that had occurred eleven days earlier. In one email,
Douglas-Jarvis had used a religious epithet to describe the Superintendent of the school
district, Brian Fogelson.
Word of Bridge’s dissemination of the email spread quickly, and Fogelson, upon
learning of the email, filed an affirmative action complaint. Pursuant to its affirmative
***
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7
does not constitute binding precedent.
1
See Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800
(1976).
2
action procedure, the school’s Affirmative Action Officer, Louis Melchor, investigated
the complaint. After investigating, the Affirmative Action Officer concluded that Bridge
had perpetuated the discriminatory nature of the original email and that his distribution
had disrupted the orderly operations of the school and caused the Superintendent
unnecessary emotional distress in violation of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and
board policy.
After disseminating the email, Bridge also took other actions in response to his
removal as President. Bridge submitted a letter to the Association’s Executive Council
claiming that his removal was unlawful and demanding that he be reinstated. Bridge
placed copies of his letter around the school. In response to his letter, staff members
complained to the Superintendent about Bridge’s behavior. Three staff members in
particular also complained to the Affirmative Action Officer about Bridge’s bullying and
harassment during his time as President of the Association. The Affirmative Action
Officer investigated these hostile work environment claims, in addition to the earlier
investigation, and concluded that Bridge’s actions had created a hostile work
environment in violation of board policy. The first investigation resulted in Bridge’s
employment and adjustment increments for the 2013-14 school year being withheld,
while other disciplinary consequences were a consequence of the second investigation.
In response, Bridge has filed numerous complaints in various state and federal
venues, including with the New Jersey Public Employment Relations Commission, the
3
New Jersey Commissioner of Education, the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, and the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights. Bridge filed this suit in the
District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging he was deprived of his First
Amendment rights.
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). The District Court
surrendered federal jurisdiction based on its invocation of Colorado River abstention.
Following its decision to abstain, the District Court granted the defendants’ motion on
November 17, 2015, and dismissed Bridge’s complaint with prejudice. Bridge timely
appealed.
II
The District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review over an order granting a Rule
12(b)(6) motion.2 In deciding a motion to dismiss, we “accept all factual allegations as
true, construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and determine
whether, under any reasonable reading of the complaint, the plaintiff may be entitled to
relief.”3
2
Winer Family Tr. v. Queen, 503 F.3d 319, 325 (3d Cir. 2007).
3
Phillips v. Cty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 233 (3d Cir. 2008) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
4
III
Bridge raises three arguments on appeal: (1) the District Court improperly
considered a New Jersey Administrative Law Judge’s report in dismissing his complaint;
(2) Colorado River abstention does not apply here; and (3) even if Colorado River
abstention applies, the District Court, rather than dismissing his complaint, should have
stayed the case pending the outcome of his New Jersey administrative proceedings. We
do not reach these arguments, for in our view there is a non-abstention based ground
upon which we must affirm the District Court’s dismissal.
Issue preclusion, also known as collateral estoppel, bars relitigation of issues
adjudicated in a prior action. Bridge’s First Amendment claims were recently addressed
by New Jersey’s Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC). In certain
circumstances, state agency determinations “may be given preclusive effect . . . where the
agency is acting in a judicial capacity.”4 “We have explained that ‘in determining
whether a litigant has been given a “full and fair” opportunity to litigate a claim, we must
take into account the possibility of appellate review’ because a full and fair opportunity to
litigate ‘includes the possibility of a chain of appellate review.’”5 PERC is a New Jersey
4
Caver v. City of Trenton, 420 F.3d 243, 259 (3d Cir. 2005).
5
DePolo v. Bd. of Supervisors of Tredyffrin Twp., 835 F.3d 381, 387 (3d Cir.
2016) (quoting Crossroads Cogeneration Corp. v. Orange & Rockland Utils., Inc., 159
F.3d 129, 137 (3d Cir. 1998)).
5
administrative agency acting in a quasi-judicial capacity.6 It rejected Bridge’s argument
that his First Amendment rights were violated as a result of the same events at issue in
this federal case.7 Under New Jersey law, Bridge had a right to appeal PERC’s decision
to the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court within 45 days of its
issuance.8 He did not do so. PERC’s decision is now a final judgment entitled to
preclusive effect in federal court.9 “In public employee discipline matters, the public
interest in the finality of the litigated disciplinary matter must weigh in the equitable
application of estoppel principles, for it is an unnamed party in interest to the efficient
and fair resolution of civil service discipline.”10 Bridge’s federal complaint was properly
dismissed.
IV
For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s order.
6
See City of Jersey City v. Jersey City Police Officers Benevolent Ass’n, 713 A.2d
472, 479 (N.J. 1998); Galloway Twp. Bd. of Educ. v. Galloway Twp. Educ. Ass’n, 393
A.2d 218, 224 (N.J. 1978).
7
N. Warren Reg’l Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., No. 2016-85 (N.J. P.E.R.C. June 30,
2016). The New Jersey Commissioner of Education also rejected claims brought by
Bridge stemming from the events at issue in this case. James Bridge, No. 306-16 (N.J.
Comm’r of Educ. Aug. 22, 2016). Bridge did not exercise his right to appeal the
Commissioner’s decision to the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division. See N.J.
Stat. Ann. § 18A:6-9.1(a).
8
See N.J. Stat. Ann. § 34:13A-5.4(d); N.J. Ct. R. 2:4.1(b).
9
See DePolo, 835 F.3d at 387 & n.20.
10
Winters v. N. Hudson Reg’l Fire & Rescue, 50 A.3d 649, 660 (N.J. 2012).
6