Donna Javitz v. County of Luzerne, 940 F.3d 858

Donna Davis-Javitz was hired August 2014 as Luzerne County Director of Human Resources on an offer letter describing the job as “Management Level, Non Union, Exempt, Regular Full Time” and explicitly “at will.”
She participated in investigatory meetings with AFSCME; a transcript later surfaced that Javitz believed was made from an illegal recording by union rep Paula Schnelly (a possible violation of Pennsylvania wiretapping law).
Javitz reported the suspected illegal recording to her supervisor and the District Attorney (with whom she met accompanied by her supervisor); she repeatedly followed up about the investigation.
After reporting, Javitz alleges adverse treatment (being cut out of assignments) and was terminated on October 26, 2015 without an explanation and denied a Loudermill hearing.
Javitz sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging (1) denial of Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process (property interest in employment) and (2) First Amendment retaliation; the district court granted summary judgment to the County, finding no property interest and that her speech was as a public employee, not a citizen.
The Third Circuit affirmed the due process ruling (at-will/exempt employee, no property interest) but reversed and remanded the First Amendment retaliation claim, holding Javitz spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Javitz had a property interest in her employment triggering Fourteenth Amendment due process	Javitz argued her employment terms or county practice created an entitlement to continued employment	County relied on offer letter and county structure showing Exempt Level status and at-will employment	Held: No property interest — offer letter and county law show Exempt/at-will; affirmed district court
Whether Javitz's reporting of an alleged illegal recording was protected First Amendment speech (citizen vs. public employee)	Javitz argued she spoke as a citizen about an alleged crime and matter of public concern, not pursuant to ordinary job duties	County argued her speech arose from her employment responsibilities and was encouraged by the County Ethics Code, so it was employee speech under Garcetti	Held: Reversed district court — Javitz spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern (not ordinarily within her job duties); remanded for further proceedings on retaliation elements

Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (balancing public concern of speech against employer interest)
Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (statements made pursuant to official duties are not protected)
Lane v. Franks, 573 U.S. 228 (focus on whether speech is ordinarily within job duties; mere relation to duties insufficient)
Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (defines public concern inquiry)
Flora v. County of Luzerne, 776 F.3d 169 (3d Cir.) (reporting government misconduct can be citizen speech even if related to job)
Dougherty v. School Dist. of Philadelphia, 772 F.3d 979 (3d Cir.) (speech to media about misconduct was citizen speech)
De Ritis v. McGarrigle, 861 F.3d 444 (3d Cir.) (distinguishes ordinary in-office duties from out-of-office citizen communications)
Baldassare v. State of N.J., 250 F.3d 188 (3d Cir.) (internal investigation of alleged criminal acts by public employees is public concern)