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 county chief public defender following the filing of an amicus curiae brief critical of Montgomery County’s cash bail system.
In March 2020, Dean Beer, the former Chief Public Defender of Montgomery County, filed suit against Montgomery County and county officials in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Beer alleged that he was terminated in retaliation for protected speech in violation of the First Amendment under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in violation of the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law, and for wrongful discharge in violation of Pennsylvania public policy. He sought preliminary and permanent injunctive relief restoring him to his position as Chief Public Defender with just-cause employment protections, compensatory damages for economic, emotional, and reputational harm, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs.
As Chief Public Defender from 2016 to 2020, Beer had institutional responsibility for overseeing the Office of the Public Defender and ensuring compliance with constitutional and professional obligations. During his tenure, he raised concerns about the impact of cash bail on indigent defendants and Montgomery County’s failure to provide counsel at preliminary arraignments where bail was set.
The challenged speech arose in the context of statewide litigation concerning bail practices. In March 2019, the Philadelphia Community Bail Fund and other plaintiffs filed a class action mandamus petition in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania alleging unconstitutional cash bail practices (Philadelphia Community Bail Fund v. First Judicial District Arraignment Magistrates). In July 2019, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court invoked its King’s Bench jurisdiction to review the operation of the cash bail system. In February 2020, Beer directed the filing of an amicus curiae brief on behalf of the Montgomery County Office of the Public Defender in that proceeding. The brief detailed systemic bail practices in Montgomery County, provided examples of indigent defendants harmed by those practices, and proposed safeguards to ensure constitutional compliance statewide.
Beer alleged that shortly after the amicus brief was filed, county officials and judicial officers expressed opposition to the filing and pressured him to withdraw it. On February 26, 2020, Beer was terminated from his position. He alleged that his termination was directly motivated by the filing of the amicus brief and constituted unlawful retaliation for speech and whistleblowing activity on matters of public concern.
On May 21, 2020, Montgomery County and the named county officials moved to dismiss the complaint. Defendants argued that the filing of the amicus curiae brief was not protected by the First Amendment because it was undertaken in Beer’s official capacity as Chief Public Defender, on behalf of the Montgomery County Office of the Public Defender, and therefore did not constitute citizen speech. Defendants further contended that the filing of an amicus brief did not qualify as protected activity under the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law, as it was not a report of wrongdoing to an appropriate authority. Finally, Defendants asserted that they were immune from liability for the claim of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy and that the claim otherwise failed to state a viable cause of action under Pennsylvania law.
On September 30, 2020, the district court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court dismissed the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law claim, concluding that the characteristics of the case placed it outside the statute’s scope. The court allowed the First Amendment retaliation claim to proceed, holding that Beer had standing and that it was plausible at the pleading stage that the filing of the amicus curiae brief constituted citizen speech, rather than speech made pursuant to his ordinary job responsibilities. The court also allowed the wrongful discharge claim to proceed against the County, but dismissed the First Amendment and wrongful discharge claims against the individual defendants in their individual capacities, holding that the County Commissioners and the Chief Operating Officer were high public officials entitled to immunity. The court also directed the parties to address whether the case should be consolidated with Hudson v. Montgomery County.
On October 8, 2020, the district court consolidated this case with Hudson 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
Augusto Colín (1/11/2026)
Hudson v. Montgomery County, Eastern District of Pennsylvania (2020)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16995640/parties/beer-v-montgomery-county/
AHMAD, BINA (Pennsylvania)
GERSTEIN, CHARLES L. (Pennsylvania)
BROWN, MARY KAY (Pennsylvania)
MCGARRY, RAYMOND (Pennsylvania)
NIMEROFF, JAMI B. (Pennsylvania)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16995640/beer-v-montgomery-county/
Last updated Jan. 11, 2026, 6:12 p.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: March 17, 2020
Closing Date: Feb. 2, 2021
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
former Chief Public Defender of Montgomery County
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
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-01486
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Issues
General/Misc.:
Public benefits (includes, e.g., in-state tuition, govt. jobs)
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority: