Filed Date: March 17, 2020
Closed Date: Feb. 2, 2021
Clearinghouse coding complete
This is a case about alleged wrongful retaliation and wrongful discharge of a public defender as a result of an amicus brief that was critical of Montgomery County’s money bail system. A former Montgomery County chief public defender filed this suit against Montgomery Country on March 17th, 2020 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. She sued the County for First Amendment retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and for wrongful discharge under the common law of Pennsylvania. Represented by the Civil Rights Corps and Kairys, Rudovsky, Messing, Feinberg & Lin, she sought injunctive relief, reinstatement, and compensatory damages.
Before she was fired, the plaintiff became aware of a class-action mandamus petition filed by the ACLU of Pennsylvania in March 2019: Philadelphia Community Bail Fund v. Arraignment Court Magistrates. In the petition, the Bail Fund alleged that the bail system in Philadelphia County violated both the federal and state constitutions in three ways: 1) lack of consideration of the ability of defendants to pay, 2) purposeful imposition of higher monetary conditions to ensure pretrial incarceration, and 3) lack of due process in its preliminary arraignments. To highlight the existence of similar violations in Montgomery County and throughout Pennsylvania, the plaintiff “directed the filing of” an amicus brief in support of the Bail Fund in early February 2020. She was fired on February 26, 2020, she alleged, as a result.
On May 18th, 2020, Montgomery County moved to dismiss the case. Montgomery County asserted that the speech at issue was not in fact the plaintiff’s own speech because she did not draft, file, or sign the amicus brief in question, and therefore she lacked standing to seek protections under the First Amendment. Moreover, the County argued that the speech in question was not citizen speech since it was prepared as part of the professional duties and with the specialized knowledge of the Montgomery County Office of Public Defender. Finally, the County argued that the wrongful discharge claim should be dismissed because the County had immunity for a claim of wrongful discharge.
The plaintiff filed a response to the motion on June 8th, 2020, and on June 16th, 2020 the defendants filed their reply. On September 30, 2025, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that the defendant had standing to pursue her claim, and that, construing the disputed facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, it was plausible that the drafting and filing of the amicus brief was outside of her ordinary job responsibilities and therefore constituted protected citizen speech.
On October 8, 2020, the district court consolidated this case with Beer v. Montgomery County. On October 28, 2020, the court referred the consolidated matter to Magistrate Judge Elizabeth T. Hey for settlement proceedings. On February 2, 2021, following a settlement conference and notice that the parties had settled, the court dismissed the action with prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs and attorneys’ fees.
Summary Authors
Madeline Buday (9/24/2020)
Beer v. Montgomery County, Eastern District of Pennsylvania (2020)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16995933/parties/hudson-v-montgomery-county/
AHMAD, BINA (Pennsylvania)
Boykin, Olevia (District of Columbia)
Gerstein, Charles L. (District of Columbia)
Brown, Mary Kay (Pennsylvania)
McGarry, Raymond (Pennsylvania)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16995933/hudson-v-montgomery-county/
Last updated Jan. 15, 2026, 2:54 p.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Multi-LexSum (in sample)
Key Dates
Filing Date: March 17, 2020
Closing Date: Feb. 2, 2021
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
A former Montgomery County chief public defender
Plaintiff Type(s):
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Montgomery County (Montgomery), County
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Constitutional Clause(s):
Other Dockets:
Eastern District of Pennsylvania 2:20-cv-01487
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Public benefits (includes, e.g., in-state tuition, govt. jobs)