THOMPSON v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 2:17-cv-11768

Background

Thompson, a pro se applicant, applied in April 2016 for a teaching position with the New Jersey Department of Corrections; a background check reported four arrests and his candidacy was suspended.
Thompson submitted documents disputing the background-check results and filed an EEOC charge alleging race discrimination; he received a right-to-sue letter and filed this Title VII suit in November 2017.
The State moved to dismiss under Rules 10(b), 12(b)(5) (insufficient service), and 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim).
The Court found service defective under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(j)(2) because certified mail was not delivery to the chief executive and New Jersey service rules requiring personal service were not followed.
The Court declined to find good cause under Rule 4(m) for late service but, in its discretion, granted Thompson a 30-day extension to effect proper service to avoid statute-of-limitations issues.
On the merits the Court held Thompson’s complaint failed to plead facts linking his race to the adverse action or a disparate-impact policy—concluding the Complaint stated only conclusory allegations insufficient under Twombly/Iqbal; dismissal was granted but leave to amend was allowed for 30 days.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether service on the State entity was proper under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(j)(2) and NJ law	Thompson served via Priority Mail Express and treated that as delivery	State argued Rule 4(j)(2) requires delivery to chief executive or service per state law (personal service) and that mailing was insufficient	Mailing did not satisfy 4(j)(2)(A) or NJ rules; service found inadequate
Whether plaintiff timely served under Rule 4(m) and if extension is required	Thompson said he thought the service clock began when he received the summons from the Clerk	State noted service was not within 90 days and urged dismissal without extension	No good cause shown for delay; but court exercised discretion to grant a 30-day extension to avoid potential statute-bar and because defendant showed no prejudice
Whether the Complaint states a Title VII disparate-treatment claim	Thompson alleged he was excluded from employment based on false background-check data and race	State argued Complaint lacks factual allegations tying the adverse action to race	Complaint fails to plead facts plausibly linking race to the decision; claim dismissed for failure to state a claim
Whether the Complaint states a disparate-impact claim under Title VII	Thompson cited EEOC Guidance and alleged ambiguity in background-check policy caused disparate impact	State argued no factual allegations showing a neutral policy causing racial disparities	Plaintiff pleaded only conclusory assertions; disparate-impact claim insufficiently pled

Key Cases Cited

Bistrian v. Levi, 696 F.3d 352 (3d Cir. 2012) (court uses plaintiff-pleaded facts standard for Rule 12(b)(6) review)
White v. Green, [citation="382 F. App'x 199"] (3d Cir. 2010) (sending complaint by certified mail to a correctional facility does not satisfy Rule 4(j)(2)(A) delivery)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must plead factual content that makes liability plausible)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (conclusory allegations are insufficient to state a plausible claim)
McCurdy v. American Board of Plastic Surgery, 157 F.3d 191 (3d Cir. 1998) (two-pronged Rule 4(m) inquiry: good cause and discretionary extension)
Petrucelli v. Bohringer & Ratzinger, 46 F.3d 1298 (3d Cir. 1995) (definition of "good cause" for Rule 4(m) and relevance of prejudice and statute-of-limitations concerns)