Federal court gives PBA/SOA
members constitutional protection
The Supreme Court has long held that a
public employee possesses a First Amend-
ment right to associate with a union. But
what does First Amendment protection for
union members really mean? How far does
that protection extend? The federal appeals
court that covers New Jersey recently issued
a decision finding that a law enforcement of-
ficer’s union membership, specifically PBA
and SOA membership, was worthy of consti-
tutional protection and adopted a favorable
opinion for union members. Because the
decision differs from other courts of appeal across the coun-
try, it may also give the U.S. Supreme Court the opportunity to
address the split in the courts of appeal if a township seeks to
appeal this decision.
In Palardy v. Millburn, a Millburn officer was involved in
leadership roles in the PBA and SOA. He alleged that other of-
ficers told him the township business administrator repeat-
edly made disparaging comments regarding his union activity
and ultimately prevented him from becoming chief. The offi-
12
NEW JERSEY COPS
■ OCTOBER 2018
cer stepped down as SOA president because
he knew that the business administrator had
a problem with his union affiliation, and the
plaintiff believed that reducing his union ac-
tivity would increase his chances of promo-
tion to chief.
Eventually, the officer retired, concluding
that he would never become chief, and ac-
cepted a non-law enforcement job. He then
filed this lawsuit, alleging that the town-
ship and business administrator retaliated
against him for exercising his constitutional
rights of freedom of speech and association through his ac-
tivity in the PBA and SOA. The trial court concluded that the
plaintiff’s union association claim was not constitutionally
protected and dismissed his retaliation claims. He then ap-
pealed to the federal appeals court.
The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the dis-
trict court’s decision. The court acknowledged that the offi-
cer’s claim was not that he was retaliated against for specific
actions or statements he previously made. Instead, his claim