[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":3,"doc-seo-258348-105":53,"doc-detail-258348-en":127},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,14,19,24,29,34,39,44,49],{"id":8,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":11,"show_sort_weight":12,"slug":13},11,1,"Template","Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":15,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":16,"show_sort_weight":17,"slug":18},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":20,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":21,"show_sort_weight":22,"slug":23},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":25,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":26,"show_sort_weight":27,"slug":28},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":30,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":31,"show_sort_weight":32,"slug":33},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":35,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":36,"show_sort_weight":37,"slug":38},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":40,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":41,"show_sort_weight":42,"slug":43},18,"Letters",30,"letters",{"id":45,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":46,"show_sort_weight":47,"slug":48},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":50,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":51,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":52},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":54,"data":55},"ok",{"site_id":56,"language":57,"slug":58,"title":59,"keywords":60,"description":61,"schema_data":62,"social_meta":120,"head_meta":122,"extra_data":124,"updated_unix":126},105,"en","mollo-v-passaic-valley-sewerage-commissioners-opinion","Mollo v. Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners - Opinion","","Opinion in a U.S. District Court case arising from David Mollo’s employment termination by the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commission after a randomly administered drug test was positive for marijuana, cocaine, and PCP. The complaint alleged unlawful search and seizure, conspiracy and civil-rights violations, discrimination under New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination, wrongful termination, and breach of contract. Summary judgment was granted on all claims, finding Mollo’s duties safety-sensitive, the discrimination claim legally insufficient, and the contract and conspiracy claims insufficiently supported.",{"@graph":63,"@context":119},[64,80,102],{"@type":65,"itemListElement":66},"BreadcrumbList",[67,71,74,77],{"item":68,"name":69,"@type":70,"position":9},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":72,"name":10,"@type":70,"position":73},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/",2,{"item":75,"name":41,"@type":70,"position":76},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/letters/",3,{"item":78,"name":59,"@type":70,"position":79},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/mollo-v-passaic-valley-sewerage-commissioners-opinion/258348/",4,{"url":78,"name":59,"@type":81,"image":82,"author":87,"headline":59,"publisher":90,"fileFormat":93,"inLanguage":57,"description":61,"dateModified":94,"datePublished":95,"encodingFormat":93,"isAccessibleForFree":96,"interactionStatistic":97},"DigitalDocument",{"url":83,"@type":84,"width":85,"height":86},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/mollo-v-passaic-valley-sewerage-commissioners-opinion/258348.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":88,"@type":89},"Ben ","Person",{"url":68,"name":91,"@type":92},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-31","2026-09-13",true,{"@type":98,"interactionType":99,"userInteractionCount":101},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":100},"ViewAction",10,{"@type":103,"mainEntity":104},"FAQPage",[105,111,115],{"name":106,"@type":107,"acceptedAnswer":108},"What led to Mollo’s termination by the PVSC?","Question",{"text":109,"@type":110},"The PVSC suspended and terminated Mollo after a randomly administered drug test returned positive results for marijuana, cocaine, and PCP.","Answer",{"name":112,"@type":107,"acceptedAnswer":113},"Which claims did Mollo bring in his complaint?",{"text":114,"@type":110},"Mollo alleged unlawful search and seizure, civil-rights violations and conspiracy, discrimination under New Jersey’s LAD, breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.",{"name":116,"@type":107,"acceptedAnswer":117},"Why did the court grant summary judgment to the defendants?",{"text":118,"@type":110},"Summary judgment was granted because Mollo’s duties were deemed safety-sensitive, he did not qualify as disabled under the discrimination theory due to continued drug use, and the contract and conspiracy claims were legally insufficient.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":78,"og:type":121,"og:title":59,"og:site_name":91,"og:description":61},"article",{"robots":123,"canonical":78},"index,follow",{"doc_id":125,"site_id":56},258348,1789321360,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":128},{"doc_id":125,"user_id":129,"nickname":88,"user_avatar":130,"doc_module":9,"category_id":40,"category_name":41,"doc_title":59,"doc_description":61,"doc_content":131,"file_id":132,"file_url":133,"file_type":134,"file_size":135,"view_count":101,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":9,"is_downloadable":9,"audit_status":9,"page_count":136,"language":137,"language_code":57,"site_id":56,"html_lang":57,"table_of_contents":138,"faqs":139,"seo_title":140,"seo_description":61,"update_tm":126,"read_time":15},2336478951081,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_276721f389ce27ea32af1340a28f341c","NOT FOR PUBLICATION  \nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY  \nDAVID MOLLO, Plaintiff,  \nv.  \nPASSAIC VALLEY SEWERAGE  \nCOMMISSIONERS, [et. al](et. al)., Defendants.  \nCiv. No. 07-1655 (DRD)  \nO P I N I O N  \nAppearances by:  \nAndrew Rubin, Esq.  \n96 Park Street  \nMontclair, NJ 07042  \nAttorney for Plaintiff,  \nCHASAN, LEYNER, BARISO & LAMPARELLO, PC by: John L. Shahdanian II, Esq.  \nRaymond J. Seigler, Esq.  \n300 Harmon Meadow Boulevard Seacaucus, NJ 07094  \nAttorneys for Defendants.  \nDEBEVOISE, Senior District Judge  \nThe underlying dispute in this case arises from David Mollo‟s termination from employment as a landscaper for the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commission (“PVSC”), by the Defendants, Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners, Anthony W. Ardis, Frank J. Calandriello, 1 Alan C. Levine, Anthony J. Luna, Angelina M. Paserchia,2 Kenneth R. Pengitore, and Thomas Powell (collectively,“Defendants” or “Commissioners”) . The PVSC manages and regulates the collection and disposal of wastewater generated in a four-county area along the Passaic Valley  \n1 Mr. Calandriello‟s surname was incorrectly spelled in the case caption as “Calindriello.”  \n2 Ms. Paserchia‟s first name was incorrectly spelled in the case caption as “Angela.”  \nRiver Basin. Defendants suspended and subsequently terminated Mollo after he tested positive for marijuana, cocaine, and phencyclidine (PCP) in a drug test randomly administered by the PVSC. The Complaint, filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, and removed to this Court by Defendants, alleges violations ofthe Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments ofthe United States Constitution and Article I, Section 7 of the New Jersey Constitution, on the basis that the PVSC‟s drug testing policy constituted an illegal search and seizure; conspiracy to deprive Mollo of his constitutional rights; wrongful termination in violation of New Jersey‟s Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”); and breach of contract and the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Defendants seek summary judgment on all the claims, arguing that the privacy intrusion involved in its drug-testing policy is justified because the policy is reasonable and necessary to protect both employees and the public; Mollo‟s continued drug use disqualified him from categorization as disabled under LAD; and Mollo‟s contract claims and conspiracy claims are unsubstantiated. Mollo counters that his duties as a landscaperare not in fact safety sensitive; the drug test was unreasonable because it was administered randomly; he was disabled when terminated because he was enrolled in a rehabilitation program; and Defendants violated a contract between the parties by calling him back to work before he had completed the rehabilitation program. Defendants‟ motion for summary judgment is granted on all of Mollo‟s claims. Summary judgment is granted for the search and seizure claims because even taking the facts in the light most favorable to Mollo, the Court finds that his duties were safety-sensitive, for the discrimination claim because Mollo did not qualify as disabled due to his continued drug use, and for the contract and conspiracy claims because they are legally insufficient.  \nI. BACKGROUND  \nThe PVSC Commissioners terminated Mollo from his position as a landscaper for the PVSC effective December 15, 2005. He filed the Complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, on February 26, 2007. The Complaint alleges six counts against Defendants, including (1) violation of Mollo‟s rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985 and 1988;  \n(2) violation of Mollo‟s right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures under Article I, Paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution; (3) violation of New Jersey‟s Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”), N.J. Stat. Ann. § 10:5-1, et seq. ; (4) breach of contract; (5) breach of the implied covenant o","cbCaifeblTQMq2ga","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaifeblTQMq2ga","pdf",279806,33,"English","# Background\n## Motion for Summary Judgment\n## PVSC and Employment History","[{\"question\":\"What led to Mollo’s termination by the PVSC?\",\"answer\":\"The PVSC suspended and terminated Mollo after a randomly administered drug test returned positive results for marijuana, cocaine, and PCP.\"},{\"question\":\"Which claims did Mollo bring in his complaint?\",\"answer\":\"Mollo alleged unlawful search and seizure, civil-rights violations and conspiracy, discrimination under New Jersey’s LAD, breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.\"},{\"question\":\"Why did the court grant summary judgment to the defendants?\",\"answer\":\"Summary judgment was granted because Mollo’s duties were deemed safety-sensitive, he did not qualify as disabled under the discrimination theory due to continued drug use, and the contract and conspiracy claims were legally insufficient.\"}]","Mollo v. Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners - Opinion | PDF"]