John Torrey v. New Jersey Department of Law a
17-2052
| 3rd Cir. | Dec 7, 2017Background
- John Torrey, a former New Jersey Division of Criminal Justice (DCJ) officer, was the subject of an internal investigation alleging sexual harassment, hostile work environment, misuse of funds, and misuse of work computers.
- Following the investigation Torrey was terminated and applied for law-enforcement jobs at Mercer County and Camden County; he signed notarized consent forms authorizing DCJ to share his personnel files with prospective employers.
- Investigators from both counties reviewed the DCJ files pursuant to those consents; Torrey was not hired.
- Torrey sued in federal court asserting: a § 1983 liberty-interest-in-reputation claim and New Jersey claims for defamation, false light, and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage; the District Court granted summary judgment for defendants.
- The District Court found the contested file contents were largely true (Torrey admitted misconduct in a recorded interview) and that disclosures were authorized by Torrey’s consents; it also dismissed a state due-process claim (not appealed).
- On appeal the Third Circuit affirmed, concluding Torrey failed to show falsity or unprivileged publication and that his tortious-interference claim lacked evidence of intentional, malicious conduct beyond the authorized disclosure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether personnel-file disclosures deprived Torrey of a liberty interest in reputation under § 1983 | Torrey: DCJ disseminated false, defamatory impressions about him | DCJ: file contents were true and disclosure was authorized by Torrey’s consent | Held: No. Torrey produced no evidence of falsity or unprivileged publication; claim fails |
| Whether DCJ’s disclosures support state-law defamation and false-light claims | Torrey: files contained false information and were published to prospective employers | DCJ: statements were true or substantially true; disclosures were authorized | Held: No. Plaintiff admitted much of the content; no proof of falsity or unprivileged dissemination |
| Whether Torrey’s signed consent forms are void as against public policy | Torrey: waivers of disclosure are unenforceable; public policy forbids sharing internal investigatory material | DCJ: interagency disclosure for background checks promotes public safety and allows independent evaluation | Held: Consent valid; public-policy argument rejected as contrary to interests in policing transparency and safety |
| Whether providing files constituted tortious interference with prospective economic advantage | Torrey: releasing files to hiring agencies interfered with his job prospects | DCJ: disclosure was authorized by consent; no malicious or extra-disclosure conduct | Held: No. Torrey failed to show intentional and malicious interference beyond the consensual disclosure |
Key Cases Cited
- DeAngelis v. Hill, 847 A.2d 1261 (N.J. 2004) (defamation requires falsity and unprivileged publication)
- Hill v. Borough of Kutztown, 455 F.3d 225 (3d Cir. 2006) (§ 1983 liberty-interest-in-reputation claim requires dissemination of false, defamatory impressions)
- Romaine v. Kallinger, 537 A.2d 284 (N.J. 1987) (false-light claim requires placing a person in a false light before the public)
- Varrallo v. Hammond Inc., 94 F.3d 842 (3d Cir. 1996) (elements of tortious interference with prospective economic advantage require intentional and malicious interference)