HARROLD v. CITY OF JERSEY CITY, 2:19-cv-09566

Background

Harrold was Assistant Department Director for Jersey City Recreation (since 2014); she took FMLA leave in 2015 after a cancer diagnosis and alleges coworkers tried to access her locked office.
She alleges demotion and removal from duties in 2016–2017; in early 2018 a new Director asked her to perform a payroll audit that revealed employees receiving improper pay.
Harrold reported the audit results to her supervisor; the Director said he would elevate the findings to the mayor; local news reported alleged misappropriation shortly thereafter.
Harrold alleges retaliatory conduct after reporting (transfer, stripped duties, smaller office), and that Defendant Flanagan accessed her private medical/FMLA records and threatened her job.
Harrold sued under CEPA (state law), 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (due process, free speech, association), and 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (conspiracy). Defendants moved to dismiss; the Court dismissed all federal claims and declined supplemental jurisdiction over CEPA, granting leave to amend within 30 days (failure to amend = dismissal with prejudice).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Municipal liability under § 1983 (Monell)	Harrold alleges Jersey City is liable for constitutional violations by its officials	City argues Harrold pleaded only respondeat superior and failed to plead a municipal policy/custom or final policymaker	Dismissed: plaintiff failed to plead plausibly any policy/custom or that any official had final policymaking authority to bind the city
Individual § 1983 claims — Due process (Fifth & Fourteenth)	Harrold alleges deprivation of due process tied to demotion/transfer	Defendants contend Fifth Amendment doesn't apply to local actors and Harrold failed to plead any protected property/liberty interest or procedures denied	Dismissed: Fifth Amendment claim dismissed with prejudice; Fourteenth Amendment procedural and substantive due process claims inadequately pleaded
First Amendment — Free speech retaliation	Harrold contends she engaged in protected speech by reporting audit findings and was retaliated against	Defendants argue her reporting was made pursuant to official duties (Garcetti), so not protected speech	Dismissed: reporting was within her official duties, so not citizen speech protected by the First Amendment
First Amendment — Right to association	Harrold alleges association rights were violated	Defendants say no facts show association interest or protected associational activity	Dismissed: conclusory allegations fail to state an associational claim
§ 1985 conspiracy	Harrold alleges conspiracy to interfere with her civil rights	Defendants argue no plausible conspiracy pleaded and no showing of class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus required by § 1985(3)	Dismissed: plaintiff failed to plead the elements or any racial/other class-based animus
CEPA (state law)	Harrold alleges whistleblower retaliation under CEPA	Defendants moved to dismiss federal claims; jurisdictional basis for federal question exists	Court declines supplemental jurisdiction over CEPA after dismissing federal claims and dismisses CEPA without prejudice to state filing

Key Cases Cited

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must be plausible)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility and legal conclusions rule)
Monell v. Department of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability requires policy or custom)
Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469 (single decision by final policymaker can bind municipality in limited circumstances)
Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (speech pursuant to official duties is not protected by the First Amendment)
Board of County Commissioners v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397 (municipal action must be moving force behind constitutional injury)
Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri, 564 U.S. 379 (public-employee speech must address matters of public concern to be protected)
United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (principles guiding supplemental jurisdiction over state claims)