2006 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

7-26-2006

Hill v. Kutztown

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential

Docket No. 05-1356

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Hill v. Kutztown" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 646.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/646
The Honorable John C. Lifland, Senior District Judge *

for the District of New Jersey, sitting by designation.

1

PR ECEDEN TIA L

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

__________

No. 05-1356

__________

KEITH A. HILL,

Appellant

v.

BOROUGH OF KUTZTOWN 

and GENNARO MARINO, 

MAYOR OF KUTZTOWN, 

in his individual and official capacity

____________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(04-cv-03390)

District Judge: Honorable Robert F. Kelly, Sr.

Argued May 15, 2006

Before: MCKEE and GARTH, Circuit Judges, and

LIFLAND, District Judge*
2

(Filed: July 26, 2006)

William P. Murphy, Esq. (ARGUED)

Murphy & Goldstein, P.C.

1616 Walnut Street, Suite 2000

Philadelphia, PA 19103

Counsel for Appellant

Timothy T. Myers, Esq. (ARGUED)

Raymond J. Santarelli, Esq.

John G. Dean, Esq.

Elliott Greenleaf & Siedzikowski, P.C.

Union Meeting Corporate Center V

925 Harvest Drive

Blue Bell, PA 19422

Paul J. Dellasega, Esq.

Thomas, Thomas & Hafer

305 North Front Street

P.O. Box 999

Harrisburg, PA 17108

Counsel for Appellee Gennaro Marino, Mayor of Kutztown

Robyn F. McGrath, Esq. (ARGUED)

Sweeney & Sheehan, P.C.

1515 Market Street, 19 Floor th

Philadelphia, PA 19102
3

Michael T. Sellers, Esq.

Kardos, Rickles, Sellers & Hand

626 South State Street

Newtown, PA 18940

Counsel for Appellee Borough of Kutztown

__________

OPINION OF THE COURT

__________

GARTH, Circuit Judge.

On this appeal we review whether the District Court

erred when it dismissed Keith A. Hill’s complaint charging

Gennaro Marino (the former Mayor of the Borough of

Kutztown), and the Borough itself, with violating his rights

under the United States Constitution, federal and state

statutes, and the common law of Pennsylvania. The District

Court dismissed Hill’s 6-count complaint in its entirety. We

will affirm in part, and reverse in part.
 All paragraph citations in this opinion refer to the 1

complaint.

 Hill’s employment was the responsibility of the 2

Borough Council. He could only be appointed and fired by the

Borough Council. 53 PA. CONS. STAT. §46141.

4

I.

Appellant Hill, a licensed professional engineer, was

appointed Borough Manager of Kutztown in early 1991. ¶¶4,

7. In this capacity, he reported to the Borough Council 1

(which consisted of six elected members) and, “in respect to

some subjects,” to Gennaro Marino, the elected Mayor of the

Borough. As Borough Manager, Hill was responsible for the

administration of all departments within the Borough. ¶¶10-

11. 

In short, Hill’s complaint alleges that Mayor Marino

harassed him and other Borough employees. When he

reported the Mayor’s harassment to the Borough Council, the

Mayor intensified his attacks on Hill as retaliation for this

reporting (and for positions Hill took that were contrary to the

Mayor’s positions). As a result of the Mayor’s conduct, Hill’s

workplace became so intolerable that he had no choice but to

resign. 

2

More specifically, the complaint alleges as follows: 
5

Shortly after he took office in 2002, Mayor Marino “began

orally to spread the word that he intended to get rid of” Hill

and “other high-priced senior staff employees.” ¶19. The

Borough Council became aware of, and disapproved of, the

things Marino was saying. Borough Council President Eric

Ely wrote a letter to a local newspaper, The Patriot, that

appeared in April, 2002 and stated:

Another way Mr. Marino has hurt the borough is in the

manner in which he has conducted himself in the bars,

clubs and community with talk smearing the reputation

of good people. He has made many statements in those

places of how he is going to get rid of certain council

members and plans to have this or that borough

employee replaced . . . His statements concerning these

individuals are hurting the borough because they . . .

are based on false opinions . . . [T]hose statements are

hurting the good reputation of our hard-working

employees.

¶23. 

Marino’s conduct and behavior nevertheless continued. 

He told the Chief of Police that he “would make life difficult

for him as a means to get him to resign as chief.” ¶37. 

Further, he behaved in a hostile and intimidating manner

toward several other Borough employees, each of whom

approached Hill and told him about this treatment at the hands
6

of the Mayor. ¶¶24-27, 30-35. 

In addition to his threats to “get rid of” – and his

hostile treatment of – Borough employees, Mayor Marino also

made several false accusations against Hill. At a meeting of

the Borough Council on April 23, 2002, Mayor Marino

“demanded [Hill’s] resignation, purportedly because of his

involvement in certain appointments by [the] Council which

the Mayor described as a ‘plot’ that was corrupt and

criminal.” ¶22. Mayor Marino also told Borough employee

Frank Caruso that Hill was “illegally moving funds to confuse

everyone.” ¶28.

“[A]s part of his duties as Manager,” Hill reported

Mayor Marino’s conduct towards him and towards the other

Borough employees to the Borough Council. ¶36. 

Apparently at the same time that all of the above was

occurring, Mayor Marino began “to attack the Borough’s

telecommunications project,” with which Hill was identified,

and which had traditionally enjoyed the support of the

Borough Council. The Mayor “made clear his utter distaste”

for the project. In response, Hill “advocated for [the

project’s] continuation.” ¶¶39-41.

As retaliation (1) for Hill’s reporting the Mayor’s

conduct to the Borough Council, (2) for Hill’s advocacy in

support of the telecommunications project, and (3) for Hill’s
7

support of other unspecified positions that were associated

with the previous mayor, Mayor Marino continued his

persecution of Hill. ¶¶43, 110. Specifically, the Mayor

engaged in a series of “harassing, intimidating and oppressive

confrontations with [Hill] at his workplace and at Council

meetings,” and defamed Hill to Borough employees, and to

consultants present at Hill’s workplace, and to the public. 

¶44. 

Hill sent a number of letters to the Borough Solicitor

and had multiple conversations with the Personnel Committee

of the Borough Council, asking each to “remedy the course of

conduct by Defendant Marino.” ¶45. In July 2002, Hill made

oral complaints to the Pennsylvania Human Relations

Commission (“PHRC”) and the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). He subsequently filed a

written complaint with the PHRC. ¶¶48-49.

The Mayor’s conduct nevertheless persisted. On

August 22, 2002, Mayor Marino published a “newspaper

commentary” in which he accused Hill of “irregular or

illegal” allocations of funds, and of “recklessly handling our

money.” ¶50. This accusation was false. The Borough of

Kutztown actually possessed a AAA credit rating. Moreover,

a bond attorney, a bond underwriter and Borough auditors had

verified the Borough’s solid financial condition and its

efficient management. ¶51.
 The Mayor apparently acknowledged the connection 3

between the Mayor’s conduct and Hill’s resignation. At a

September 17, 2002 meeting of the Borough Council, Mayor

Marino stated that he deserved “credit” for Hill’s departure.

¶62.

Hill’s brief makes reference to an August 2004 report 4

that the Borough Council commissioned a Special Counsel to

write. The report apparently corroborates and adds further detail

to Hill’s allegations about the way Mayor Marino behaved

toward him. 

8

Prior to Mayor Marino’s public attacks on him, Hill

had enjoyed a reputation for honesty, integrity and

professionalism. ¶52. After Marino’s attacks, Hill was

“subjected to scorn and ridicule,” including one incident

where Hill’s son’s employer confronted Hill and Hill’s wife

and told them that he, the employer, had heard the Mayor

“was pursuing [Hill] concerning corruption.” ¶54. 

The Mayor’s conduct, and the Borough Council’s

failure to stop it, made life so intolerable for Hill that he

eventually had no choice but to resign. ¶55. Hill submitted a 3

letter of resignation on August 29, 2002, which stated that he

would cease work on October 12, 2002. ¶57.4

The Borough Council continued to be upset about
Two newspaper articles from September 2002 report 5

Council President Ely as saying that “the false accusations made

(by Marino) are detrimental to residents and the borough as a

whole,” and “[f]or the council the biggest thing is the

misinformation given out by [Mayor Marino] . . . It’s hard to

deal with. I’ve been on (council) for 27 years and I’ve never

seen anything like it.” ¶¶63-64.

The complaint alleges that Marino continued to harass

6

and defame Hill even after he had ceased to be Borough

9

Mayor Marino’s conduct, and the effect it was having. It 5

asked Hill to reconsider and stay on as Borough Manager. 

Hill refused, but did agree to postpone his departure until

October 27, 2002. ¶¶66-67. 

Hill then accepted a position with “the engineering

consulting firm that had for years served in the role of

Borough engineer.” The Borough Council (by unanimous

vote) initiated and worked out a part-time emergency

“consulting” arrangement with that firm so that Hill could be

made available to assist with certain urgent Borough tasks,

such as budget preparation, in the period of transition to the

new Manager. ¶¶68-73. Hill worked in this capacity, without

receiving any additional salary for it, until January 2003,

when the Borough hired a replacement. ¶¶74-76. The

replacement was twenty-seven years old, ¶76, some fifteen or

sixteen years younger than Hill, who was over 40 years of age

when he left the Borough’s employ. ¶4.6
Manager. It alleges that the Mayor filed complaints with two

state agencies based on Hill’s transitional service to the

Borough, and wrote letters to various governmental agencies

and officials – as well as private individuals and media

organizations – in which he implied that Hill had mishandled

funds. These allegations are irrelevant to this appeal – which is

based on claims arising out of Hill’s constructive discharge – as

they detail events that occurred after the constructive discharge.

“Under the constructive discharge doctrine, an 7

employee’s reasonable decision to resign because of

unendurable working conditions is assimilated to a formal

discharge for remedial purposes.” Pennsylvania State Police v.

Suders, 542 U.S. 129, 141 (2004) (discussing constructive

discharge in the context of a Title VII sexual harassment suit).

“The inquiry is objective: Did working conditions become so

intolerable that a reasonable person in the employee’s position

would have felt compelled to resign?” Id. 

The District Court did not address the question of

whether Hill has alleged conditions so intolerable that a

reasonable person in his position would have felt compelled to

resign, i.e., whether he, in fact, was constructively discharged.

It would have been inappropriate for the District Court to decide

that fact-intensive question in the context of a 12(b)(6) motion.

10

Hill brought this lawsuit against Mayor Marino (in his

individual and official capacities) and the Borough of

Kutztown. The complaint alleged that the Mayor’s campaign

of harassment, defamation and retaliation deprived Hill of his

job (through constructive discharge ), and did damage to his 7
Thus, for the purpose of this opinion, we credit all allegations of

Hill’s complaint and accept what Hill alleges: that he was

constructively discharged.

“Section 1983 imposes civil liability upon any person 8

who, acting under the color of state law, deprives another

individual of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the

Constitution or laws of the United States.” Shuman ex rel.

Shertzer v. Penn Manor Sch. Dist., 422 F.3d 141, 146 (3d Cir.

2005). See 42 U.S.C. §1983. Mayor Marino does not dispute

that he was acting under color of state law when he engaged in

the conduct at issue here.

11

reputation and his ability to earn a living as a licensed

professional engineer and a public servant See, e.g., ¶¶14, 58,

106. He further alleged that the Borough Council “did not

halt, reverse or lessen or otherwise materially affect the

alleged offending conduct of the Mayor.” See, e.g., ¶16.

Hill’s complaint asserted §1983 claims against both 8

the Mayor and the Borough for violation of his (1) procedural

due process rights, (2) substantive due process rights, (3)

equal protection rights and (4) First Amendment rights under

the U.S. Constitution. The complaint also asserted against the

Borough (5) a claim under the Age Discrimination in

Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. §621, et seq., and

state law claims for (6) violation of the Pennsylvania Human

Relations Act (“PHRA”), 43 PA. CONS. STAT. §951, et seq.

and (7) indemnification and restitution. Finally, the complaint
12

asserted against the Mayor a (8) state law malicious

prosecution claim. 

Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the District Court dismissed

all of the federal claims against both the Mayor and the

Borough, and the PHRA claim against the Borough. It then

declined to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining pendent

state common law claims. 

II.

The District Court exercised jurisdiction pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §§1331, 1343 and 1367. We have jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1291. 

Our review of the District Court’s dismissal of the

complaint is plenary. “When considering an appeal from a

dismissal of a complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), we accept

as true all well-pled factual allegations. We examine whether,

under any reasonable reading of the complaint, the plaintiff

may be entitled to relief.” Delaware Nation v. Pennsylvania,

446 F.3d 410, 415 (3d Cir. 2006) (citations omitted).

III.

A.

We first address Hill’s §1983 claims against Mayor
Hill brings claims against Mayor Marino “in his 9

individual and official capacity.” Section IIIA of this opinion

addresses the §1983 individual capacity claims against Marino.

The §1983 official capacity claims against Marino are,

effectively, identical to the §1983 claims against the Borough,

which are addressed in Section IIIB(1) of this opinion. See, e.g.,

Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165 (1985)

(“Official-capacity suits . . . generally represent only another

way of pleading an action against an entity of which an officer

is an agent”) (quotation and citation omitted); A.M. ex rel.

J.M.K. v. Luzerne County Juvenile Det. Ctr., 372 F.3d 572, 581

(3d Cir. 2004) (“A suit against a governmental official in his or

her official capacity is treated as a suit against the governmental

entity itself.”). 

 We have held that a resignation will be deemed 10

involuntary (i.e., deemed a constructive discharge) and will thus

trigger the protections of the due process clause, and form the

basis of a §1983 due process claim, under only two

circumstances: (1) when the employer forces the employee’s

resignation or retirement by coercion or duress, or (2) when the

employer obtains the resignation or retirement by deceiving or

misrepresenting a material fact to the employee. Leheny v. City

of Pittsburgh, 183 F.3d 220, 228 (3d Cir. 1999). At least one

other court that applied this Leheny standard has recently held

that the less strict constructive discharge standard the Supreme

13

Marino, and Marino’s immunity defenses. 

9

1. Procedural Due Process Claims10
Court articulated in Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders, 542

U.S. 129, 141 (2004), see footnote 7, is now “equally

applicable” in the context of a due process claim, see Levenstein

v. Salafsky, 414 F.3d 767, 774 (7th Cir. 2005). 

14

To state a claim under §1983 for deprivation of

procedural due process rights, a plaintiff must allege that (1)

he was deprived of an individual interest that is encompassed

within the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection of “life,

liberty, or property,” and (2) the procedures available to him

did not provide “due process of law.” Alvin v. Suzuki, 227

F.3d 107, 116 (3d Cir. 2000).

Hill advances two procedural due process claims. 

¶¶100-106, 114-120. He first raises a classic property-based

procedural due process claim, arguing that when Mayor

Marino constructively discharged him, he was deprived of his

right to continued employment without due process. He then

raises a so-called “stigma-plus” claim, arguing that when

Marino defamed him in the course of discharging him, he was

deprived of his liberty interest in his reputation “without

opportunity for any meaningful procedure.” ¶105, 119.

a. Property Interest

The District Court properly concluded that Hill failed

to state a claim for deprivation of his right to retain his job

without due process because Hill’s interest in retaining his job
53 PA. CONS. STAT. §46141 states: 11

The council of any borough may, at its discretion, at any

time, create by ordinance the office of borough manager

and may in like manner abolish the same. While said

office exists, the council shall, from time to time, and

whenever there is a vacancy, elect, by a vote of a

majority of all the members, one person to fill said

office, subject to removal by the council at any time by

a vote of the majority of all the members.

We note that the Borough of Kutztown Code also

includes a provision that reinforces the Borough Manager’s atwill employment status. Section 29-7 of that Code states, in

pertinent part,

The Borough Manager (hereinafter referred to as the

“Manager”) shall be appointed for an indefinite term by

a majority of all members of the Council. The Manager

shall serve at the pleasure of the Council, and he may be

15

was not “encompassed within the Fourteenth Amendment’s

protection of property.” “To have a property interest in a job

. . . a person must have more than a unilateral expectation of

continued employment; rather, she must have a legitimate

entitlement to such continued employment.” Elmore v.

Cleary, 399 F.3d 279, 282 (3d Cir. 2005) (citing Bd. of

Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 (1972)). Whether a

person has a legitimate entitlement to – and hence a property

interest in – his government job is a question answered by

state law. Id.

Pursuant to Pennsylvania law, Hill was an at-will

employee. “The decisional law is clear that an at-will 11
removed at any time by a majority vote of all of the

members of the Council. 

Hill’s claim that his substantive due process rights were 12

violated when he was constructively discharged, fails for similar

reasons. To prevail on a substantive due process claim

challenging a state actor’s conduct, “a plaintiff must establish

as a threshold matter that he has a protected property interest to

which the Fourteenth Amendment's due process protection

applies.” Nicholas v. Pennsylvania State Univ., 227 F.3d 133,

139-140 (3d Cir. 2000) (Alito, J.) (quotation marks and citation

omitted). Whether a property interest is protected for purposes

of substantive due process is a question that is not answered by

reference to state law. Rather, for a property interest to be

protected for purposes of substantive due process, it must be

“fundamental” under the United States Constitution. Id. at 140.

This court has held explicitly that public employment is not a

fundamental right entitled to substantive due process protection.

Id. at 142-143. 

To the extent Hill’s substantive due process claim was

based not only on loss of his job, but also on reputational injury

that decreased his “ability to earn a living,” it also fails. See

Boyanowski v. Capital Area Intermediate Unit, 215 F.3d 396,

399-404 (3d Cir. 2000) (defamatory statements that curtail a

plaintiff’s business opportunities do not suffice to support a

substantive due process claim).

16

employee does not have a legitimate entitlement to continued

employment because [he] serves solely at the pleasure of [his]

employer.” Elmore, 399 F.3d at 282. Hill thus lacked a

property interest in retaining his position as Borough Manager

that was “sufficient to trigger due process concerns.” Id.12

We therefore need not consider whether the procedures

available to him provided due process in order to conclude
17

that the District Court should be affirmed on Hill’s claim that

he was deprived of employment without due process.

b. Liberty Interest

In his second procedural due process claim, Hill

alleges that he suffered harm to his reputation and ability to

earn a living in his chosen profession as a result of the

defamatory statements Marino made about him in the process

of constructively discharging him; he claims Marino’s

scurrilous and false charges deprived him of a liberty interest

protected by the due process clause. The District Court

dismissed this claim for this same reason it denied Hill’s other

procedural due process claim: because Hill lacked a property

interest in retaining his job. 

Relying on Satterfield v. Borough of Schylkill Haven,

12 F.Supp.2d 423, 433-434 (E.D.Pa. 1998), the District Court

held that defamation such as that with which Hill charges

Marino, does not implicate a liberty interest protected by the

due process clause unless it “occurs in the course of or is

accompanied by . . . extinguishment of a right or status

guaranteed by law or the Constitution.” Because Hill lacked a

property interest in retaining his job under state law, the

District Court held, Hill was not deprived of such a right or

status when he was constructively discharged. Accordingly,

Hill’s due process claim failed.

This court has yet to decide the question of whether a

public employee who is defamed in the course of being

discharged, fails to state a claim for deprivation of a liberty

interest merely because he lacked a property interest in
 The district court in Satterfield v. Borough of Schylkill 13

Haven, itself recognized that. 12 F.Supp.2d 423, 434 (E.D.Pa.

1998) (“the Third Circuit has not decided whether something

less than a true property interest, independently protected by the

Due Process Clause, can satisfy the requirement of a ‘right or

status’ guaranteed by the Constitution”) (quoting Paul v. Davis,

424 U.S. 693, 711 (1976)).

 According to the Supreme Court, damage to reputation 14

alone is best vindicated with a state defamation claim. Paul v.

Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 712 (1976). We recognize, however, that

state law immunity doctrines often prevent such claims from

18

continued employment that is independently protected by the

due process clause. See Graham v. City of Philadelphia, 402

F.3d 139, 142 n.2 (3d Cir. 2005) (“we have not yet decided

this issue”); Ersek v. Township of Springfield, 102 F.3d 79, 83

n.5 (3d Cir. 1997) (“Fortunately, we need not reach this

difficult question here.”). Hill’s appeal now presents that 13

issue squarely.

The Supreme Court held in Wisconsin v.

Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433 (1971) that an individual has a

protectable interest in reputation. “Where a person's good

name, reputation, honor, or integrity is at stake because of

what the government is doing to him, notice and an

opportunity to be heard are essential.” Id. at 437.

Courts have subsequently clarified, however, that

“reputation alone is not an interest protected by the Due

Process Clause.” Versarge v. Township of Clinton, New

Jersey, 984 F.2d 1359, 1371 (3d Cir. 1993) (citing Paul v.

Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 701-712 (1976)) (emphasis added).14
being brought against government actors. See, e.g., Lindner v.

Mollan, 677 A.2d 1194, 1195-1196 (Pa. 1996) (doctrine of

absolute privilege exempts a high public official from all civil

suits for damages arising out of false defamatory statements

provided the statements are made in the course of the official’s

duties or powers and within the scope of his authority).

Codd v. Velger, 429 U.S. 624, 627 (1977); Graham,

15

402 F.3d at 144; Ersek, 102 F.3d at 84; Doe v. U.S. Dept. of

19

Rather, to make out a due process claim for deprivation of a

liberty interest in reputation, a plaintiff must show a stigma to

his reputation plus deprivation of some additional right or

interest. Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 701 (1976). Accord,

e.g., Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 233-234 (1991);

Edwards v. California Univ. of Pennsylvania, 156 F.3d 488,

492 (3d Cir. 1998); Kelly v. Borough of Sayreville, 107 F.3d

1073, 1077-1078 (3d Cir. 1997); Ersek, 102 F.3d at 83 n. 5;

Clark v. Township of Falls, 890 F.2d 611, 619-620 (3d Cir.

1989); Sturm v. Clark, 835 F.2d 1009, 1012-1013 (3d Cir.

1987). We have referred to this as the “stigma-plus” test. 

See, e.g., Graham, 402 F.3d at 142 n.2; Ersek, 102 F.3d at 83

n.5.

In the public employment context, the “stigma-plus”

test has been applied to mean that when an employer “creates

and disseminates a false and defamatory impression about the

employee in connection with his termination,” it deprives the

employee of a protected liberty interest. Codd v. Velger, 429

U.S. 624, 628 (1977). The creation and dissemination of a

false and defamatory impression is the “stigma,” and the

termination is the “plus.” When such a deprivation occurs,

the employee is entitled to a name-clearing hearing.15
Justice, 753 F.2d 1092, 1112-1114 (D.C. Cir. 1986). We have

not in the past decided – and do not have occasion to decide here

– whether a plaintiff who prevails on a “stigma-plus” claim may

be entitled to remedies other than a name-clearing hearing. See

Ersek, 102 F.3d at 84 n.6.

The Mayor suggests that his statements about which 16

Hill complains could not be sufficiently stigmatizing because

they addressed “matters of public concern” (a phrase of art

relevant in the First Amendment context), or because they were

one public servant’s statements about another public servant’s

performance of his public job. The statements about which Hill

complains are not statements of opinion about the issues of the

day, however, or standard comments made among politicians in

the rough-and-tumble that is local politics. He complains about

factual allegations of illegal conduct, that allegedly were false,

20

To satisfy the “stigma” prong of the test, it must be

alleged that the purportedly stigmatizing statement(s) (1) were

made publicly, Bishop v. Wood, 426 U.S. 341, 348 (1976);

Chabal v. Reagan, 841 F.2d 1216, 1223-1224 (3d Cir. 1988);

Anderson v. City of Philadelphia, 845 F.2d 1216, 1222 (3d

Cir.1988), and (2) were false. Codd, 429 U.S. at 627-629;

Fraternal Order of Police v. Tucker, 868 F.2d 74, 82-83 (3d

Cir.1989). 

Hill has clearly alleged that Marino defamed him by

accusing him of wrongdoing. He alleges that the accusations

were made publicly – before his colleagues and before the

general public (at Borough Council meetings and in

newspaper articles). He alleges that the accusations were

false, and that they tarnished his reputation and “subjected

[him] to scorn and ridicule.” His complaint thus adequately 16
see, e.g., ¶28, and that the Mayor allegedly knew were false.

See, e.g., ¶51. They are not protected as a matter of law by any

exception for “matters of public concern” or “public servant”

exception.

21

alleges the “stigma” prong of the “stigma-plus” test.

What is required to satisfy the “plus” prong of the test

in the public employment context is more equivocal. The

Supreme Court precedent is not crystal clear on whether

termination from government employment constitutes a

sufficient “plus” when, as a matter of state law, the plaintiff

lacked a property interest in retaining his job. 

In Paul v. Davis, the Court stated, somewhat

enigmatically, that the “plus” had to be an alteration or

extinguishment of “a right or status previously recognized by

state law.” 424 U.S. at 711. That Court’s treatment of Board

of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 573 (1972) suggests that,

under this standard, a person’s loss of employment to which

he did not hold a state law-created property interest is a

sufficient “plus.” 

In Roth, a non-tenured professor who had not been

reappointed after his initial one-year term ended claimed he

had been deprived of a right to continued employment without

due process. The Court denied his claim, finding that the

professor, because he was not tenured, did not have a property

right to continued employment. It noted, however, that had

the University defamed the professor in the course of

declining to rehire him, it would have deprived the professor

of a liberty interest. Id. at 573. It came to this conclusion
We previously pointed to this implication of Paul v. 17

Davis in Ersek v. Township of Springfield, 102 F.3d 79, 83 n.5

(3d Cir. 1997).

 In Codd v. Velger, the Court denied the claim of the 18

petitioner – a probationary employee who lacked a property

interest in his job – not because he was probationary, but

because he failed to allege that the information that had been

disclosed was false. 429 U.S. at 627-628.

22

despite the fact that the professor lacked a property interest in

his job. The Court in Paul v. Davis – and then in later

opinions – impliedly endorsed this conclusion. 424 U.S. at

709-710. See also Siegert, 500 U.S. at 233; Owen v. City of 17

Independence, 445 U.S. 622, 633 n.13 (1980). 

Though it has never again taken this issue on directly,

the Court in subsequent opinions has reiterated that the “plus”

in “stigma-plus” claims arising out of public employment

decisions, may be loss of a job in which the plaintiff held no

property interest under state law. In Owen, the Eighth Circuit

had held that the police chief petitioner “possessed no

property interest in continued employment,” but that allegedly

false accusations the city made incident to his discharge “had

blackened petitioner’s name and reputation, thus depriving

him of liberty without due process of law.” 445 U.S. at 631. 

Citing Roth and Paul v. Davis, the Supreme Court held that it

had “no doubt that the Court of Appeals” was correct in this

conclusion. Id. at 633 n.13. Similarly, in Codd v. Velger, the

Court stated that “where a non-tenured employee has been

stigmatized in the course of a decision to terminate his

employment,” he is entitled to a name-clearing hearing. 429

U.S. at 627.18
23

We, too, have never clearly answered the question

whether termination from a government job constitutes a

sufficient “plus” under the “stigma-plus” test when, as a

matter of state law, the plaintiff lacked a property interest in

retaining the job. On at least one occasion we have suggested

that it might. See McKnight v. SEPTA, 583 F.2d 1229, 1235-

1242 (3d Cir. 1978) (holding that a complaint stated a

“stigma-plus” due process claim where the plaintiff was

defamed in the course of being discharged, though it was not

clear under state law whether he had a property interest in

continued employment).

We have in several cases used language that could be

read broadly to require that the “plus” be loss of a job in

which the plaintiff had a protectible property interest. See

Ersek, 102 F.3d at 83 n.5 (noting this). These cases, however,

are all factually distinguishable. In each of them, we held that

the deprivation the plaintiff suffered along with stigma to his

reputation was not sufficiently weighty to satisfy the “plus”

requirement. We so held because the plaintiff did not lose his

job, and instead complained about some adverse employment

action less drastic than discharge. See Edwards, 156 F.3d at

492 (plaintiff was suspended with pay, but was not fired);

Kelly, 107 F.3d at 1077-1078 (plaintiff was reprimanded and

disciplined, but was never suspended, removed, fined or

reduced in rank); Clark, 890 F.2d at 617-620 (plaintiff’s

duties were changed, but he did not lose his job, and neither

his grade nor his pay was lowered); Robb, 733 F.2d at 294

(plaintiff was transferred and denied a promotion, but

remained employed by the City of Philadelphia at the same

classification level and pay scale that he had previously had). 

See also Versarge, 984 F.2d at 1370-1371 (plaintiff lost job as
24

firefighter, but job was only a volunteer position to begin

with). Here, however, Hill did lose his job. The “plus,”

consisting of Hill’s constructive discharge was substantial –

so substantial, in fact, that we can comfortably hold that Hill

has met all requirements of “stigma-plus.” 

We therefore conclude today that a public employee

who is defamed in the course of being terminated or

constructively discharged satisfies the “stigma-plus” test even

if, as a matter of state law, he lacks a property interest in the

job he lost. 

We note that other courts have come to this conclusion,

mostly based on Supreme Court language in Paul v. Davis. 

See, e.g., Doe v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 753 F.2d 1092, 1104-

1112 (D.C. Cir. 1985); Dennis v. S&S Consol. Rural High

Sch. Dist., 577 F.2d 338, 342-343 (5th Cir. 1978); Colaizzi v.

Walker, 542 F.2d 969, 973 (7th Cir. 1976).

We believe that this conclusion makes good sense, and

is logical. To hold otherwise – that a government employee

must be deprived of a state law-created property interest in

continued employment in order to satisfy the “plus” in a

“stigma-plus” claim – would

equate the interests protected by the property clause of

the [fourteenth] amendment with those protected by the

liberty clause . . . [T]he liberty clause would be

stripped of any independent meaning in the context of

government defamation. Government employees who

enjoy an independent property interest in continued

employment, of course, must be afforded due process
It is not clear from the complaint whether Hill 19

requested any sort of name-clearing hearing, but we have not

held that he was required to do so. See Ersek, 102 F.3d at 84

n.8.

25

upon termination regardless of whether they are

discharged in connection with stigmatizing allegations. 

That process will ordinarily afford those employees an

opportunity to refute stigmatizing allegations. The

liberty clause, by contrast, protects reputation, not job

tenure, in the government employment context. 

Although Paul requires the alteration of some

governmentally recognized status in addition to

defamation, the Paul court plainly declined to equate

that additional component with an independent,

constitutionally protected property interest.

Doe, 753 F.2d at 1108 n.15.

Hill has alleged that Marino’s defamation occurred in

connection with his discharge. Under our holding today, this

is sufficient to satisfy the “plus” prong of the “stigma-plus”

test, despite the fact that Hill was an at-will employee and did

not have a property interest in continued employment under

state law.

Hill has thus alleged deprivation of a liberty interest

protectible under the due process clause. Hill was not given

the process he was due – a name-clearing hearing. He has 19

consequently stated a claim for deprivation of his liberty

interest in his reputation without the process the U.S.

constitution requires. 
26

2. Equal Protection Claim

Hill also claims that his rights under the Equal

Protection clause were violated when Marino constructively

discharged him. ¶103. He invokes the “class of one” theory

announced in Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562

(2000) (per curiam). According to that theory, a plaintiff

states a claim for violation of the Equal Protection clause

when he “alleges that he has been intentionally treated

differently from others similarly situated and that there is no

rational basis for the difference in treatment.” Id. at 564. 

The District Court dismissed this claim, and we will affirm,

but on a different basis. 

Our court has not had the opportunity to consider the

equal protection “class of one” theory at any length. From the

text of Olech itself, however, it is clear that, at the very least,

to state a claim under that theory, a plaintiff must allege that

(1) the defendant treated him differently from others similarly

situated, (2) the defendant did so intentionally, and (3) there

was no rational basis for the difference in treatment. 

Hill’s claim must fail because he does not allege the

existence of similarly situated individuals – i.e., Borough

Managers – who Marino treated differently than he treated

Hill. See, e.g., Levenstein v. Salafsky, 414 F.3d 767, 776 (7th

Cir. 2005) (affirming a grant of judgment for the defendant on

the equal protection “class of one” claim of a professor who

alleged he had been constructively discharged, because the

professor failed to identify another similarly situated

individual who had been treated differently). In fact, the only

other Borough employees Hill mentions in his complaint were
27

also harassed and threatened by Mayor Marino. ¶¶25-35. 

3. First Amendment Claims

Hill alleges that the Mayor’s harassment and

defamation were retaliation for Hill’s speech and political

association. First, Hill alleges, Marino retaliated against him

because Hill reported Marino’s mistreatment of him and his

colleagues to the Borough Council. In addition, Hill alleges,

Marino retaliated against him for advocating and supporting

ideas, principles and projects Marino disfavored, including

the telecommunications project. Finally, Hill alleges, the

Mayor retaliated against him because he supported the

previous mayor’s policies and programs. Hill claims that

Marino’s retaliation interfered with his First Amendment

rights to expression, to association and to petition government

for redress of grievances. ¶110.

a.

Without citation to any authority, the District Court

dismissed this claim on the ground that Marino could not

retaliate against, or constructively discharge, Hill because he

lacked the power to fire him – a power which, under 53 PA.

CONS. STAT. §46141, only the Borough Council possessed. 

“Hill could not be retaliated [against] by the Mayor for Hill’s

statements,” the District Court held, “because as a matter of

Pennsylvania and local law, the Mayor had no authority . . .

whatsoever over Hill’s employment status.” 

If it were true that Marino could not constructively

discharge Hill because he lacked the power to fire Hill
See also Wagner v. Devine, 122 F.3d 53, 55 n.4 (1st 20

Cir. 1997) (defendant city council members had the power to

constructively discharge plaintiff police chief though they

lacked the power to fire him because they had the power to set

his salary, benefits and working conditions).

28

outright, all of Hill’s claims against Marino would fail for this

reason because they are all premised on Marino’s constructive

discharge of Hill. However, Marino could constructively

discharge Hill even though he lacked the statutory authority to

fire Hill outright. A supervisor who lacks the power to

terminate a subordinate’s employment may nonetheless abuse

his power with respect to that subordinate, and may even

constructively discharge the subordinate, provided he (the

supervisor) exercises some power over the employee. 

Bonenberger v. Plymouth Township, 132 F.3d 20, 23-25 (3d

Cir. 1997). 

20

In Bonenberger, a police officer who worked as a

dispatcher sued a Sergeant whose repeated sexual harassment

of the officer drove her to resign. The Sergeant “had no

authority to hire, fire or make any employment decision[s]

regarding” the dispatcher, but he did outrank her, and did

sometimes supervise her work. Id. at 22-23. When the

Sergeant supervised the dispatcher’s work, he “had sole

control over her work environment, determining when she . . .

might take a break and which tasks [she] would perform.” Id.

at 22. He “could alter her workload whenever he supervised

her shift.” Id. at 24. If she “failed to follow his orders, the

police department would view that failure as insubordination

for which [she] properly could begin a disciplinary process

that might result in her discharge.” Id. 
The court articulated its holding in terms of state 21

power: it held that because the Sergeant lacked sufficient power

over the police officer, he could not meet the “color of state

law” requirement of §1983. However, its holding was

essentially the same as the District Court’s holding in this case,

even though here the district court articulates its holding in

terms of the “authority over employment status.” Both district

courts found that a plaintiff could not sue a defendant for

constructive discharge where the defendant lacked the power to

terminate the plaintiff outright.

29

The District Court (in the context of “color of state

law”) granted summary judgment for the Sergeant on the

ground that he did not have the power to make employment

decisions regarding the police officer. This court reversed, 21

noting

A state employee may, under certain circumstances,

wield considerable control over a subordinate whose

work he regularly supervises, even if he does not hire,

fire, or issue regular evaluations of her work . . . There

is simply no plausible justification for distinguishing

between abuse of state authority by one who holds the

formal title of supervisor, on the one hand, and abuse

of state authority by one who bears no such title but

whose regular duties nonetheless include a virtually

identical supervisory role, on the other . . . [T]he

essence of section 1983's color of law requirement is

that the alleged offender, in committing the act

complained of, abused a power or position granted by

the state.

Id. at 23-24. 
The Pennsylvania statute listing the duties of a Borough 22

Mayor states that “it shall be the duty of the mayor . . . to exact

a faithful performance of the duties of the officers appointed.”

53 PA. CONS. STAT. §46029(1). Pursuant to 53 PA. CONS. STAT.

§46142 , “the mayor may delegate to the borough manager any

of his nonlegislative and nonjudicial powers and duties,” with

the approval of the Borough Council. It is the Borough Council

– and not the Mayor – however, which sets the Borough

Manager’s’ hours and compensation. 53 PA. CONS. STAT.

§46101. But the Mayor works as a member of the Borough

Council under certain circumstances. See, e.g., 53 PA. CONS.

STAT. §§46007 (“Passage, approval and veto of ordinances”)

and 46003 (“When the mayor may preside over council and

vote; [providing for] attendance of mayor at council meetings;

breaking tie votes”).

30

Hill alleged that he “reported to the Borough Council

consisting of six elected Council members (which served as

Plaintiff’s supervisor) and, in respect to some subjects, to one

elected mayor (Defendant Marino) of the Borough of

Kutztown.” ¶10. He has thus alleged – at least for the

purpose of this motion – that Marino wielded sufficient power

with respect to Hill, that Marino could constructively

discharge Hill, even though only the Borough Council could

fire Hill outright. 

Pennsylvania statutes are not all that informative about

the powers mayors have over employees holding the position

of Borough Manager – the position that Hill held.22

Discovery will reveal whether Marino had sufficient

supervisory power over Hill day-to-day, that he could

constructively discharge Hill under the authority of

Bonenberger. For now, Hill’s allegations about the manner in
A defendant may defeat the plaintiff’s claim by 23

demonstrating that the defendant would have taken the same

adverse action in the absence of plaintiff's protected conduct.

See Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S.

274, 287 (1977).

31

which Marino exercised his mayoral powers are more than

sufficient to withstand dismissal of Hill’s complaint under

12(b)(6). Hence we are satisfied that pursuant to Hill’s

allegations, which we must credit, Marino had the “power” to

constructively discharge Hill.

b.

We turn now to examine whether Hill’s allegations are

sufficient to establish that his constructive discharge occurred

in retaliation for Hill’s exercise of his First Amendment

rights. 

To state a First Amendment retaliation claim, a

plaintiff must allege two things: (1) that the activity in

question is protected by the First Amendment, and (2) that the

protected activity was a substantial factor in the alleged

retaliatory action. See, e.g., Phyllis Hill v. City of Scranton,

411 F.3d 118, 125 (3d Cir. 2005). The first factor is a 23

question of law; the second factor is a question of fact. 

Curinga v. City of Clairton, 357 F.3d 305, 310 (3d Cir. 2004).

i. Hill’s Speech

A public employee’s statement is protected activity

when (1) in making it, the employee spoke as a citizen, (2) the
32

statement involved a matter of public concern, and (3) the

government employer did not have “an adequate justification

for treating the employee differently from any other member

of the general public” as a result of the statement he made. 

Garcetti v. Caballos, --- U.S. ----, ----, 126 S.Ct. 1951, 1958

(2006). A public employee does not speak “as a citizen”

when he makes a statement “pursuant to [his] official duties.” 

Id. at 1960. “Whether an employee’s speech addresses a

matter of public concern must be determined by the content,

form, and context of a given statement, as revealed by the

whole record.” Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378, 384

(1987) (quoting Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 147-148

(1983)).

Hill’s complaint states that “[h]aving received

complaints from employees [of the Borough] about hostile,

intimidating, oppressive and harassing actions by Defendant

Marino, Plaintiff as part of his duties as Manager and

otherwise duly reported them, as well as his own complaints

about the same kind of behavior, to Borough Council.” ¶36

(emphasis added). In his brief, Hill states that he “relayed his

and other workers’ complaints [to the Borough Council] in

fulfillment of his responsibilities as manager and appointed

enforcer of the Borough’s Affirmative Action/Equal

Employment Opportunity Policy and Program.” Brief at 3. 

Insofar as it is based on this report to the Borough

Council, Hill’s First Amendment claim must fail because, as

Hill himself concedes, he reported Marino’s conduct and

harassing actions to the Borough Counsel “pursuant to his

official duties.” Under Garcetti, then, he was not speaking

“as a citizen” when he made these reports, and, thus, as a
Hill appears to allege that his report to the Borough 24

Council could be protected by the First Amendment not only as

expressive speech, but also as “petitioning activity.” ¶110.

When a public employee’s activity qualifies as “petitioning the

government” – such as filing a grievance pursuant to a collective

bargaining agreement, or suing his employer – it is protected

activity so long as the petition was not frivolous, or a “sham,”

regardless of whether the petition involved a matter of public

concern. Brennan v. Norton, 350 F.3d 399, 417 (3d Cir. 2003);

San Filippo v. Bongiovanni, 30 F.3d 424, 434-443 (3d Cir.

1994). We have never held, however, that a report of a

superior’s misconduct to a legislative body when the legislative

body is also the reporter’s employer constitutes “petitioning

activity.” 

Hill’s complaints to the PHRC and the EEOC, ¶¶48-49,

might well qualify as “petitioning,” and thus would constitute

protected activity. See, e.g., Herr v. Pequea Township, 274 F.3d

109, 115 (3d Cir. 2001) (“The First Amendment right to petition

extends to all departments of government . . . The protection it

affords thus applies . . . to petitioning state agencies”). Hill has

not, however, alleged that Marino retaliated against him for

these complaints. ¶110.

33

matter of law, the reports are not protected speech.24

We next consider Hill’s First Amendment retaliation

claim insofar as it is premised on his advocating and

supporting ideas, principles and projects Marino disfavored,

including the telecommunications project. 

First, the complaint does not indicate that when Hill

expressed support for the telecommunications project – as

when he complained to the Borough Council – he was

speaking pursuant to his official duties, so we read the
“A public employee’s speech involves a matter of 25

public concern if it can be fairly considered as relating to any

matter of political, social or other concern to the community.”

Brennan, 350 F.3d at 412. It seems likely that advocacy and

support for ideas, principles and projects a Borough Mayor

disfavored would involve a matter of public concern under this

standard.

34

complaint to allege that Hill was speaking “as a citizen.” See

Delaware Nation, 446 F.3d at 415 (on a 12(b)(6) motion, the

court examines “whether, under any reasonable reading of

the complaint, the plaintiff may be entitled to relief.”)

(emphasis added). 

Second, we cannot determine in this procedural posture

whether the speech involved a matter of public concern.25

That determination must be made after an examination of “the

content, form, and context of [the] statement, as revealed by

the whole record.” Rankin, 483 U.S. at 384. 

Nor can we resolve at this stage of this case the

question of whether Marino had “an adequate justification for

treating the employee differently from any other member of

the general public” by restricting his speech. Garcetti, 126

S.Ct. at 1958.

 Finally, Hill has alleged the requisite causality by

claiming that his support for the telecommunications project

and other projects and ideas the Mayor opposed, was one of

the reasons that Mayor Marino retaliated against him. See,

e.g., ¶110, 113. 
In our cases in this area, “political affiliation” usually 26

refers to party affiliation, but sometimes refers to affiliation with

a particular politician or candidate.

35

Accordingly, Hill’s First Amendment claim, insofar as

it is premised on Hill’s advocacy and support for ideas,

principles and projects Marino disfavored, should not have

been dismissed at this stage of the proceeding.

ii. Hill’s political association

Hill also bases his First Amendment retaliation claim

on his support for “the policies and programs of the previous

mayor.” To make out a claim of discrimination based on

political association, a public employee must allege (1) that

the employee works for a public employer in a position that

does not require a political affiliation, (2) that the employee

maintained a political affiliation, and (3) that the employee's

political affiliation was a substantial or motivating factor in

the adverse employment decision.” Goodman v.

Pennsylvania Turnpike Com'n, 293 F.3d 655, 663-664 (3d

Cir. 2002). We need not spend time analyzing this issue 26

because Hill’s allegations in his complaint cannot support

such a claim.

4. Immunity Defenses

The Mayor argues that he is entitled to various kinds of

immunities from §1983 liability. Though Hill barely

responded to these arguments in his brief, we have examined

them ourselves.
36

First, we hold that the absolute immunity which shields

local officials from liability for their legislative activities, see

Bogan v. Scott-Harris, 523 U.S. 44 (1998), does not shield

Marino because the conduct with which he is charged –

constructive discharge through harassment, defamation, and

accusations of illegality – was not “legislative activities.” See

Youngblood v. DeWeese, 352 F.3d 836, 839-840 (3d Cir.

2003) (discussing the scope of what constitutes “legislative

activities”). 

We further hold that Marino is not entitled to

petitioning immunity under the Noerr-Pennigton doctrine

because the conduct with which he is charged cannot be

construed as “petitioning activity” under any reasonable

interpretation of that term. See A.D. Bedell Wholesale Co.,

Inc. v. Philip Morris Inc., 263 F.3d 239, 252 (3d Cir. 2001)

(discussing various kinds of activity that qualifies as

“petitioning” for Noerr-Pennington purposes).

Moreover, we hold that the doctrine of high official

immunity under Pennsylvania law does not shield Marino

from suit under §1983. That doctrine shields high officials

from state law claims, not constitutional claims. 

Finally, we turn to Marino’s asserted qualified

immunity defense. “[G]overnment officials performing

discretionary functions generally are granted a qualified

immunity and are ‘shielded from liability for civil damages

insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

should have known.’” Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603, 609

(1999) (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818
As we noted in footnote 15, we do not here decide 27

whether a plaintiff who is successful on a “stigma-plus” due

process claim is entitled to damages in addition to or instead of

a name-clearing hearing. Assuming for the sake of argument

that he is so entitled, Marino would be protected by qualified

immunity on Hill’s “stigma-plus” claim to the extent that Hill

requests damages. 

While, as explained above, a violation of a constitutional

right may have occurred here, that right was not clearly

established in this Circuit before this opinion. Before today, the

law in this Circuit had been unclear on the question of whether

37

(1982)). “A court evaluating a claim of qualified immunity

‘must first determine whether the plaintiff has alleged the

deprivation of an actual constitutional right at all, and if so,

proceed to determine whether that right was clearly

established at the time of the alleged violation.’” Id. (quoting

Conn v. Gabbert, 526 U.S. 286, 290 (1999)).

We hold that Marino is not entitled to qualified

immunity on Hill’s “stigma-plus” due process claim to the

extent that claim requests a name-clearing hearing, because

the defense of qualified immunity is available only for

damages claims – not for claims requesting prospective

injunctive relief. Vance v. Barrett, 345 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.10

(9th Cir. 2003); Newman v. Burgin, 930 F.2d 955, 957 (1st

Cir. 1991) (Breyer, J.). See also Torisky v. Schweiker, 446

F.3d 438, 448 n.6 (3d Cir. 2006) (stating that if the District

Court determined on remand that plaintiffs, who sought

damages and an injunction, had abandoned their damages

claim, “the District Court will have no occasion to devote . . .

efforts to resolving the question of whether defendants . . . are

entitled to qualified immunity.”).27
a public employee who was defamed in the process of being

discharged may state a “stigma-plus” due process claim, though

he lacked a property interest in continued employment. We had

referred to this lack of clarity on two occasions. Graham v. City

of Philadelphia, 402 F.3d 139, 142 n.2 (3d Cir. 2005); Ersek v.

Township of Springfield, 102 F.3d 79, 83 n.5 (3d Cir. 1997).

The lack of clarity was further evident from the fact that district

courts within this Circuit had decided the question in both ways.

Compare, e.g., Farber v. City of Paterson, 327 F.Supp.2d 401,

412 n.14 (D.N.J. 2004) (rev’d on other grounds) and Graham v.

Johnson, 249 F.Supp.2d 563, 565-568 (E.D.Pa. 2003) (both

answering the question “yes”) with Satterfield v. Borough of

Schylkill Haven, 12 F.Supp.2d 423, 433-434 (E.D.Pa. 1998) and

the district court opinion in this case (both answering the

question “no”). For this reason, the question was a question of

first impression in this Circuit. No matter what further fact

development reveals, then, the law was not clearly established

on the point in question, and, if damages were in question,

Marino would be entitled to qualified immunity.

38

We further hold that it is not possible at this juncture to

determine whether Marino is entitled to qualified immunity

on Hill’s First Amendment claim. As explained above, we

cannot determine on the basis of the complaint alone whether

Hill stated a claim for a constitutional violation; we similarly

cannot tell without factual development through discovery

whether the right at issue was clearly established. This

defense may well lend itself to resolution at summary

judgment.

B.

We next address Hill’s claims against the Borough of
39

Kutztown.

1. §1983 Claims

Hill brings against the Borough all the §1983 claims he

brought against the Mayor. Because we will affirm the

dismissal of the claims against the Mayor alleging deprivation

of a property right without due process, violation of

substantive due process rights and violation of equal

protection rights, we dismiss those claims against the

Borough as well. “There cannot be an ‘award of damages

against a municipal corporation based on the actions of one of

its officers when in fact . . . the officer inflicted no

constitutional harm.’” Grazier ex rel. White v. City of

Philadelphia, 328 F.3d 120, 124 (3d Cir. 2003) (quoting City

of Los Angeles v. Heller, 475 U.S. 796, 799 (1986)).

We will not, however, affirm the dismissal of Hill’s

claims against the Borough alleging deprivation of a liberty

interest in reputation without due process, and violation of the

First Amendment, because Hill has stated these claims against

Marino, and Marino was a final policy-maker capable of

binding the Borough with his conduct when it came to

constructively discharging Hill.

A municipality may not be held liable under §1983 for

the constitutional torts of its employees by virtue of

respondeat superior. Rather, a municipality may be held

liable for the conduct of an individual employee or officer

only when that conduct implements an official policy or

practice. Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services,

436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978); McGreevy v. Stroup, 413 F.3d 359,
40

367 (3d Cir. 2005). 

An individual’s conduct implements official policy or

practice under several types of circumstances, including when

(1) the individual acted pursuant to a formal government

policy or a standard operating procedure long accepted within

the government entity, (2) the individual himself has final

policy-making authority such that his conduct represents

official policy, or (3) a final policy-maker renders the

individual’s conduct official for liability purposes by having

delegated to him authority to act or speak for the government,

or by ratifying the conduct or speech after it has occurred. 

See generally Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469,

478-484 (1986); McGreevy, 413 F.3d at 367; Laverdure v.

County of Montgomery, 324 F.3d 123, 125-126 (3d Cir.

2003). 

Here, it is number (2) above that is most relevant. 

Only if Mayor Marino was a final policy-maker was his

constructive discharge of Hill effectively official Borough

policy such that the Borough may be held liable for it. Hill

has alleged explicitly that Mayor Marino was a final

policymaker. See, e.g., ¶¶97, 101, 108, 115. 

In order to ascertain if an official has final policymaking authority, and can thus bind the municipality by his

conduct, a court must determine (1) whether, as a matter of

state law, the official is responsible for making policy in the

particular area of municipal business in question, McMillian

v. Monroe County, 520 U.S. 781, 785 (1997) and City of St.

Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 915, 924 (1988), and (2)

whether the official’s authority to make policy in that area is
Indeed, the Borough notes in its brief that the “Borough 28

Council has no more power to silence the mayor than it does to

silence a private citizen.” Brief at 26.

41

final and unreviewable. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. at 926;

Pembaur, 475 U.S. at 483; McGreevy, 413 F.3d at 369;

Brennan, 350 F.3d at 428 (“if a municipal employee’s

decision is subject to review . . . it is not final and that

employee is therefore not a policymaker for purposes of

imposing municipal liability under §1983”). 

Here, Hill alleges that Marino constructively

discharged him. As Hill points out, as a matter of state law,

no government employee or body is permitted to

constructively discharge an employee by making his working

environment intolerable. As we discussed, however, Hill has

alleged that the Mayor had the power to constructively

discharge him, though he (Marino) lacked the power as

Mayor to fire him outright. Moreover, Marino’s constructive

discharge of Hill was final in the sense that it was not

reviewable by any other person or any other body or agency in

the Borough. That is, there was no one “above” the Mayor

who had the power to curtail his conduct or prevent him from

harassing Hill to the point where Hill had no alternative but

to leave his position. In this sense, Marino was a final 28

policy-maker for the purpose of constructively discharging

Hill. 

The Borough concedes that as the highest elected

official, Mayor Marino may well be a final policymaker in

other areas of Borough business. However, it argues (and the

District Court held), that because only the Borough Council
Hill did not bring an ADEA claim against Mayor 29

Marino himself, nor could he have because the ADEA does not

provide for individual liability. See Horwitz v. Bd. of Educ. of

Avoca Sch. Dist. No. 37, 260 F.3d 602, 610 n.2 (7th Cir. 2001);

Medina v. Ramsey Steel Co., Inc., 238 F.3d 674 (5th Cir. 2001);

Smith v. Lomax, 45 F.3d 402, 403 n. 4 (11th Cir.1995) (all

holding that there is no individual liability under the ADEA).

42

has the power to fire the Borough Manager, it is the Borough

Council (and not the Mayor) which is the final policy-maker

in the area of the Borough Manager’s employment. Marino

did not, however, fire Hill; rather, through Marino’s actions,

conduct and harassment, Marino constructively discharged

Hill. For the reasons discussed above, the Mayor had final

policy-making authority to do so.

Hill has alleged that the municipality is bound by

Marino’s conduct. We agree. See Bartholomew v. Fischl,

782 F.2d 1148, 1153 (3d Cir. 1986) (holding that a mayor

who, like Marino, did not have the authority to fire a public

employee directly, but who, like Marino, effectively fired the

employee in an indirect way – by persuading city councils to

dissolve the agency he worked for – was “a government

official with policy-making powers” for whose wrongful

termination of the public employee the city was liable).

2. ADEA Claim

Hill claims that Mayor Marino constructively

discharged him because of his age, and that this constitutes an

ADEA violation for which the Borough should be held

liable. The ADEA provides, in pertinent part, 

29
See also Kachmar v. SunGard Data Sys., Inc., 109 F.3d 173,

184 (3d Cir. 1997) (holding that Congress did not intend to hold

individual employees liable under Title VII, which is parallel to

the ADEA in many ways).

 The ADEA includes in its definition of employer “a 30

State or political subdivision of a State.” 29 U.S.C. §630(b)(2).

The Supreme Court held in Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 528

43

It shall be unlawful for an employer . . . to fail or

refuse to hire or to discharge any individual or

otherwise discriminate against any individual with

respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or

privileges of employment because of such individual's

age.

29 U.S.C. §623(a). 

Once again, the District Court dismissed Hill’s age

discrimination claim against the Borough on the ground that

Marino could not constructively discharge Hill because he

lacked the power to fire him, so the Borough could not be

held liable for such a discharge. The District Court also noted

that the Borough lacked the authority to control what Marino,

the “independently elected mayor,” did and said, and thus

could not be held responsible for his conduct, especially

where members of the Borough Council had supported Hill. 

We have already (in the context of Hill’s First

Amendment claims) explained why Marino could, in fact,

constructively discharge Hill. The Borough may be held

liable for the alleged discharge because a plaintiff may bring

an ADEA claim against a political subdivision of a state30
U.S. 62 (2000) that in the ADEA, Congress did not validly

abrogate the states’ sovereign immunity to suits by private

individuals. It does not follow, however, that sovereign

immunity protects political subdivisions of states from suit by

individuals. See, e.g., Lake Country Estates, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg’l

Planning Agency, 440 U.S. 391, 401 (1979) (“the Court has

consistently refused to construe the [Eleventh] Amendment to

afford protection to political subdivisions such as counties and

municipalities, even though such entities exercise a ‘slice of

state power.’”).

See, e.g., Fasold v. Justice, 409 F.3d 178 (3d Cir. 2005) 31

(terminated former detective in the office of the District

Attorney in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania brought ADEA

claims against several defendants including Montgomery

County, Pennsylvania); Potence v. Hazleton Area Sch. Dist., 357

F.3d 366 (3d Cir. 2004) (unsuccessful applicant for

plumbing/HVAC instructor brought ADEA claim against school

district); Narin v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 206 F.3d 323 (3d

Cir. 2000) (unsuccessful applicant for teaching positions

brought ADEA claim against school district); Stanziale v.

Jargowsky, 200 F.3d 101 (3d Cir. 2000) (Sanitation Inspector

who drew a smaller salary than his younger colleagues brought

ADEA claim against several defendantsincluding the County of

Monmouth and the Monmouth County Board of Health); Smith

v. Borough of Wilkinsburg, 147 F.3d 272 (3d Cir. 1998) (former

borough manager whose contract was not renewed brought

ADEA claim against defendant borough). 

44

based on the actions of its employee(s). It does not matter 31

that one entity within the Borough (the Council) may have

supported Hill; the Council’s alleged support of Hill does not

“counteract” nor cure the Mayor’s alleged harassment, with

the result of immunizing the Borough of Kutztown from
Constructive discharge is an adverse employment 32

decision that may form the basis of an ADEA claim. Duffy v.

Paper Magic Group, Inc., 265 F.3d 163, 167 (3d Cir. 2001).

45

liability.

To state a claim for age discrimination under the

ADEA, a plaintiff must allege that (1) he is over forty, (2) he

is qualified for the position in question, (3) he suffered from

an adverse employment decision, and (4) his replacement 32

was sufficiently younger to permit a reasonable inference of

age discrimination. Potence v. Hazleton Area Sch. Dist., 357

F.3d 366, 370 (3d Cir. 2004). 

Hill’s allegations satisfy these requirements. See ¶127.

 Among other things, Hill was over forty when he was

discharged, and his replacement was 27. Hill has therefore

stated an ADEA claim that survives dismissal under 12(b)(6). 

The same legal standard applies to a claim under the PHRA as

applies to an ADEA claim. Kautz v. Met-Pro Corp., 412 F.3d

463, 466 n.1 (3d Cir. 2005).

IV.

We will affirm the District Court’s dismissal of Hill’s

§1983 procedural due process (property interest) claims

against Marino and the Borough, his §1983 substantive due

process claims against Marino and the Borough, his §1983

equal protection claims against Marino and the Borough, and

his §1983 First Amendment retaliation claims against Marino

and the Borough insofar as they are premised on Hill’s report

to the Borough Council, and Hill’s support for “the policies
46

and programs of the previous mayor.” We will also affirm

the dismissal of Hill’s §1983 “stigma-plus” due process claim

against Marino to the extent that claim seeks damages

because Marino is entitled to qualified immunity on that

claim.

We will reverse the District Court’s dismissal of Hill’s

§1983 “stigma-plus” due process claim against Marino to the

extent that claim seeks a name clearing hearing, Hill’s §1983

“stigma-plus” due process claim against the Borough, and

Hill’s §1983 First Amendment retaliation claims against

Marino and the Borough, insofar as they are premised on

Hill’s support for ideas, principles and projects that Marino

disfavored, including the telecommunications project. We

will also reverse the District Court’s dismissal of Hill’s

ADEA and PHRA claims against the Borough.

We will remand for further proceedings consistent with

this opinion. On remand, the District Court will have to

address the state claims over which it declined to exercise

jurisdiction.