Heffernan v. City of Paterson, No. 14-1610 (3d Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary

Heffernan joined the Paterson Police Department in 1985 and became a detective. In 2006, Heffernan’s friend, Spagnola, a former Paterson police chief, sought to unseat the incumbent mayor. Heffernan was unable to vote in the city, did not work on the campaign, and did not consider himself “politically involved.” At the request of his bedridden mother, Heffernan picked up a Spagnola campaign sign, to replace one that had been stolen from her lawn. A member of the Mayor’s security staff observed Heffernan with Spagnola's campaign manager. The next day, Heffernan was demoted to a “walking post” because of his “overt[] involvement in a political election.” Heffernan sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983. His free-association claim resulted in a jury verdict of $105,000. The judge retroactively recused himself and vacated the verdict. A new judge granted the defendants summary judgment; on remand, another judge concluded that Heffernan did not establish that he actually exercised his First Amendment rights. The Third Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed. In remanding for trial, the Third Circuit stated that, if, when Heffernan was disciplined, the city had in effect (written or unwritten) a neutral policy prohibiting officers assigned to the Office of the Chief of Police from overt involvement in political campaigns, such a policy meets constitutional standards. The district court must then determine whether Heffernan was aware or reasonably should have been aware of such a policy and whether he was disciplined for what reasonably appeared to be a violation.

This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on January 22, 2015.

Download PDF
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 14-1610 ___________ JEFFREY J. HEFFERNAN, Appellant v. CITY OF PATERSON; MAYOR JOSE TERRES; POLICE CHIEF JAMES WITTIG; POLICE DIRECTOR MICHAEL WALKER ____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. Civil No. 2-06-cv-03882) District Judge: Honorable Kevin McNulty Before: VANASKIE, GREENBERG, and COWEN, Circuit Judges. ORDER AND NOW, upon issuance of the mandate of the United States Supreme Court in the case of Heffernan v. City of Paterson, N.J., 136 S. Ct. 1412 (2016), reversing the judgment entered by this Court, and remanding for further proceedings; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the order of the District Court entered on March 5, 2014 is vacated insofar as it granted the motions for summary judgment filed by Defendants, and this matter is remanded for further proceedings. This Court holds that the waiver doctrine does not apply to the issues identified by the United States Supreme Court. We further hold that, if, at the time Plaintiff was disciplined, the City of Paterson had in effect (whether written or unwritten) a neutral policy prohibiting police officers assigned to the Office of the Chief of Police from overt involvement in political campaigns, such a policy meets constitutional standards. We direct the District Court following discovery to conduct a trial (1) to determine whether there was in fact such a neutral policy prohibiting police officers assigned to the Office of the Chief of Police from overt involvement in any political campaign of which Plaintiff was aware or reasonably should have been aware; and, if the answer to Question (1) is yes, (2) to determine whether Plaintiff was disciplined for what reasonably appeared to be a violation of that policy. If both Questions (1) and (2) are answered in the affirmative, a judgment should be entered in favor of Defendants. If either Question (1) or Question (2) is answered in the negative, Defendants are liable for any resulting damages. We recommend, but do not hold, that the District Court first try the liability phase of this matter. Thereafter, a bifurcated determination should be made as to damages if that be necessary. We leave the bifurcation decision to the sound discretion of the District Court. Pursuant to Local Appellate Rule 33.4, the Court refers this matter to Mr. Joseph A. Torregrossa, Chief Appellate Mediator, for mediation. To allow for appellate mediation, issuance of the mandate is stayed pending further order by this Court. BY THE COURT, s/ Thomas I. Vanaskie Circuit Judge Dated: August 25, 2016

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.