Richard Helfant v. City of Margate

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
__________
NO. 01-1301
__________
RICHARD HELFANT,
Appellant
v.
CITY OF MARGATE; FRED GOFF;
THOM AS HILTNER; NED HUM PHREYS;
SIGMUND RIMM; JOHN DOES 1 THROUGH 25,
INCLUSIVE, FICTITIOUS NAMED DEFENDANTS,
JOINTLY, SEVERALLY, AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE
__________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civil No. 97-cv-03718)
District Judge: Honorable Stephen M. Orlofsky
__________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
on March 5, 2002
Before: ALITO, RENDELL, and HALL*, Circuit Judges,
(Filed: March 13, 2002)
__________
OPINION OF THE COURT
__________
____________________
*Honorable Cynthia Holcomb Hall, United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit,
sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 4 --

1 The employees named as Defendants in this suit are Fred Goff, Thomas Hiltner, Ned
Humphrey, and Sigmund Rimm.
2
RENDELL, Circuit Judge.
Richard Helfant brought this action against the City of Margate and several of its
employees1 (together “Defendants”) alleging employment discrimination and retaliation,
including violations of his federal and state constitutional rights. The District Court
entered summary judgment in favor of Defendants on all counts. Helfant now appeals.
The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We subject the District Court’s grant of
summary judgment to plenary review and will apply the same standards as the District
Court. Beers-Capitol v. Whetzel, 256 F.3d 120, 130 n.6 (3d Cir. 2001).
Helfant alleges that Defendants’ actions amounted to three separate legal
violations: first, a violation of his rights to equal protection and substantive due process
under both the United States and New Jersey Constitutions; second, employment
discrimination in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination; and, third,
retaliation against him for conduct protected by the Conscientious Employees’ Protection
Act. After conducting a careful review of the record in this case, we reach the same
conclusions as set forth by the District Court in its thorough and well-reasoned opinion.
The District Court carefully considered the merits of each count as it applied to each

-- 2 of 4 --

3
Defendant, and we find no fault with its analysis. Accordingly, we will affirm the District
Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants.
_________________________

-- 3 of 4 --

4
___________________________
Please file the foregoing Not Precedential Opinion.
/s/ Marjorie O. Rendell
Circuit Judge

-- 4 of 4 --