conditions or work rules, is of paramount importance to the maintenance of an efficient and harmonious office environment. The township's desire to deliver the services taxpayers have allocated financial resources towards should not be impeded due to the whims and dictates of employees who will not abide by their conditions for employment.
Our review of these factors leads this court to conclude that a pre-suspension hearing is not warranted. The township has an important interest in enforcing its work rules; prior to receiving a suspension, the employee is first warned that continued behavior of this type will result in punishment; the post-suspension procedures provides four hearings and one full evidentiary hearing and lastly the effect on the private interest is de minimus since the employee is entitled to recover full back pay if she prevails. We hold that due process does not require a pre-suspension hearing and Count III of plaintiff's amended complaint will be dismissed.
III. Defendants' Motions to Dismiss the Remaining Claims Under Rule 12(b)(6).
Defendants have submitted various affidavits in support of their position that plaintiff has failed to state claims
upon which relief may be granted. The last sentence of Rule 12(b) provides that a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted should be converted into a motion for summary judgment whenever matters outside the pleadings are presented to and accepted by the court. Hanna v. U.S. Veterans Admin. Hosp., 514 F.2d 1092, 1094 (3d Cir.1975). When presented with a motion for summary judgment the court must construe the facts in the most favorable light to the nonmoving party, resolving all doubts in its favor. Associated Film Distribution Corp. v. Thornburgh, 520 F. Supp. 971, 978 (E.D.Pa.1981), rev'd on other grounds, 683 F.2d 808 (3d Cir.1982).
A. The 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claim Should be Dismissed.
Ms. Sellers' § 1983 action is predicated upon the deprivation of her constitutional rights at both the third step grievance hearing and the township's failure to accord her a pre-suspension hearing. Because the court has addressed both of these issues in sections one and two above, and have ruled in both instances against the plaintiff, we will accordingly dismiss plaintiff's § 1983 actions for the reasons elaborated, supra.
B. Ms. Sellers' Claims Under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) Must be Denied Since She is not Part of the Identifiable Class Protected by this Section.
Ms. Sellers' set forth a claim under § 1985(3) alleging that the union and the township have conspired to deny her equal protection of the law because of her affiliation with the right-wing portion of the local Republican party.
In order to state a cause of action under that section, Ms. Sellers must plead that (1) there is a conspiracy; (2) to deprive her of the equal protection of the laws; (3) that the union and the township committed an act in furtherance of the conspiracy and (4) she was injured in her person or property and deprived of her rights and privileges as a citizen of the United States. Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 102, 91 S. Ct. 1790, 1798, 29 L. Ed. 2d 338 (1971).
It appears from Ms. Sellers' pleadings that, as a matter of law, she is not eligible to state a cause of action under this section. In construing the second requirement, the Supreme Court held that "the language requiring intent to deprive of equal protection, or equal privileges and immunities, means that there must be some racial or perhaps otherwise class-based invidiously discriminating animus behind the conspirator's action." 403 U.S. at 102, 91 S. Ct. at 1798. The Supreme Court has never held political animus satisfies the class based invidious discriminatory practice necessary to state a cause of action. In its most recent pronouncement of § 1985(3) the court, in United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 610, AFL-CIO v. Scott, 463 U.S. 825, 103 S. Ct. 3352, 77 L. Ed. 2d 1049 (1983), although finding it unnecessary to determine if this section covered conspiracy motivated by animus against a political group did state (in dicta):
That it is a close question whether § 1985(3) was intended to reach any class-based animus other than animus against Negroes and those who championed their cause. . . . Although we have examined with some care the legislative history that has been marshalled in support of the position that Congress meant to forbid wholly non-racial, but politically motivated conspiracies, we find difficult the question whether § 1985(3) provided a remedy for every concerted effort by one political group to nullify the influence of or do other injury to a competing group by use of otherwise unlawful means. To accede to that view would go for toward making the federal courts, by virtue of § 1985(3), the monitors of campaign tactics in both state and federal election, a role that the courts should not be quick to assume. If respondents' submission were accepted, the proscription of § 1985(3) would arguably reach the claim that a political party has interfered with the freedom of speech of another political party by encouraging the heckling of its rival's speakers and the disruption of the rival's meetings.