IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
January 20, 2000
MARK C. KADETSKY,
EGG HARBOR TOWNSHIP BOARD OF EDUCATION, ET AL.,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Stephen M. Orlofsky United States District Judge
HON. STEPHEN M. ORLOFSKY
This matter having come before the Court on the motion of the Defendants, Egg Harbor Township Board of Education, Howard Minnichbach, Ralph A. Ridolfino, and Dr. Jean Levine, to dismiss the Complaint of Plaintiff, Mark C. Kadetsky, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Joseph F. Betley, Esq. of Capehart & Scatchard, P.A., appearing on behalf of the Defendants, Egg Harbor Township Board of Education, Howard Minnichbach, Ralph A. Rildolfino, and Dr. Jean Levine, and Richard T. Fauntleroy, Esq. of Richard T. Fauntleroy, P.C., appearing on behalf of Plaintiff, Mark C. Kadetsky; and,
The Court having considered the submissions of the parties, for the reasons set forth in the OPINION filed concurrently with this ORDER;
IT IS, on this 20th day of January, 2000, hereby ORDERED that:
1. The motion of the Defendants to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part;
2. The Defendants' motion to dismiss the First Amendment retaliation claims contained in Count I of the Complaint on the grounds that Kadetsky failed to state a claim for protected speech or allege an adverse employment action is DENIED;
3. The Defendants' motion to dismiss the Fourteenth Amendment due process claim contained in Count I of the Complaint is GRANTED, on the ground that Kadetsky suffered no tangible loss of present or future employment;
4. The Defendants' motion to dismiss the due process claim under the New Jersey Constitution, contained in Count V of the Complaint, is DENIED, on the ground that the State Constitution recognizes a liberty interest in reputation without a tangible loss;
5. The Defendants' motion to dismiss Count II of the Complaint, Kadetsky's claim under New Jersey's Conscientious Employee Protection Act, is GRANTED, on the ground that Kadetsky failed to suffer retaliatory action under the meaning of the Act;
6. The Defendants' motion to dismiss the numerous defamations claims contained in Count III of the Complaint is DENIED for the reasons set forth in the OPINION filed concurrently with this ORDER.
© 2000 VersusLaw Inc.