## Facts

- Keith A. Hill, a licensed engineer, served as Borough Manager for the Borough of Kutztown, Pennsylvania, an at-will position involving administration of borough departments.
- After Mayor Gennaro Marino took office in 2002, Hill alleged Marino began a sustained campaign to remove him and other senior employees.
- Hill alleged Marino publicly denounced him and spread false statements impugning Hill’s integrity and professional competence.
- A borough council member publicly criticized Marino’s conduct, describing reputation-smearing statements about borough employees and threats to replace them.
- Hill alleged he reported Marino’s conduct to the Borough Council and that Marino escalated harassment in retaliation for Hill’s complaints and for Hill’s positions on borough governance that conflicted with Marino’s.
- Hill resigned and claimed constructive discharge, alleging conditions became so intolerable that he had no realistic choice but to resign.
- Hill sued the Borough and Marino under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and other federal and state theories; the district court dismissed the entire complaint and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

## Issues

1. Whether an at-will public employee can plead a § 1983 procedural due process “stigma-plus” claim based on publicly disseminated defamation plus constructive discharge impairing future employment.
2. Whether Hill plausibly alleged First Amendment retaliation by a public official based on protected speech, resulting in adverse action culminating in constructive discharge.
3. Whether continued public employment is a fundamental right protected by substantive due process.
4. Whether Hill plausibly alleged a “class-of-one” equal protection claim based on irrational, arbitrary targeting by the mayor.
5. Whether Hill adequately pled an ADA claim and related federal statutory claims.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
- The court reversed dismissal of the § 1983 stigma-plus procedural due process claim, holding Hill plausibly alleged public defamation plus constructive discharge sufficient to satisfy the “plus” element despite at-will status.
- The court reversed dismissal of the First Amendment retaliation claim, holding the complaint plausibly alleged protected speech on matters of public concern and a causal connection to Marino’s alleged retaliatory conduct.
- The court affirmed dismissal of the substantive due process claim, holding public employment is not a fundamental right for substantive due process purposes.
- The court reversed dismissal of the class-of-one equal protection claim, holding Hill plausibly alleged he was singled out for irrational and arbitrary treatment unrelated to legitimate governmental objectives.
- The court largely affirmed dismissal of the ADA and other statutory claims for inadequate pleading.

## Legal Principles

- A § 1983 “stigma-plus” procedural due process claim requires (1) publication of stigmatizing, defamatory statements by a state actor and (2) a “plus” factor consisting of an alteration or extinguishment of a right or status recognized by state law.
- Loss of public employment through discharge or constructive discharge can satisfy the “plus” element even for an at-will employee; lack of a property interest in continued employment does not, by itself, bar a liberty-interest stigma-plus claim.
- Public-employee First Amendment retaliation requires allegations of speech on a matter of public concern, retaliatory adverse action, and a plausible causal link; Pickering balancing is often not resolved on a bare pleading record.
- Substantive due process protects only fundamental rights; ordinary interests in continued public employment do not qualify as fundamental rights.
- A class-of-one equal protection claim may proceed where a plaintiff plausibly alleges intentional, irrational differential treatment driven by animus and not rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose; detailed comparator proof is not required at the pleading stage.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit held that Hill’s complaint plausibly alleged that the mayor’s public defamation and retaliatory conduct forced a constructive discharge, allowing Hill to proceed on § 1983 stigma-plus, First Amendment retaliation, and class-of-one equal protection theories, while rejecting substantive due process and inadequately pled ADA and related statutory claims and remanding for further proceedings.


Hill v. Borough of Kutztown, 455 F.3d 225 (3d Cir. 2006)