A federal appeals court has partially reinstated a civil suit filed by a New Jersey Superior Court judge claiming she was subjected to a hostile work environment, including a meeting where an audio recorder was snatched from her purse.

A federal trial court "correctly dismissed [Judge Deborah] Gross-Quatrone's First Amendment, civil conspiracy, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 conspiracy, and 42 U.S.C. § 1985 claims but erred in dismissing her claims under the New Jersey Civil Rights Act (NJCRA), the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD), the Equal Protection Clause, and the Fourth Amendment," said the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled.

In the opinion, Judge Patty Shwartz said a previous judicial disciplinary hearing against the judge did not resolve several of the claims, requiring a remand.

Gross-Quatrone's suit names Bonnie Mizdol, assignment judge of the Bergen County vicinage; Diana Moskal, the family division manager, now retired; and Laura Simoldoni, the trial court  administrator. She claimed she was abused by Mizdol making inappropriate statements to court employees, failing to update her motions list, using her secretary to perform personal tasks, and allowing her law clerk to commence her clerkship earlier than permitted,

This culminated in a meeting in which Gross-Quatrone was confronted for making a secret audio recording of Mizdol, and her recording device was confiscated. Gross-Quatrone was suspended for two months for making secret recordings. The suit also claimed that Mizdol told Gross-Quatrone that court staff had complained about her demeanor, and criticized her gender and appearance.

Ralph Ferrara of Ferrara Law Group in Trenton represents Gross-Quatrone. Ferrara was not immediately available for comment.

Peter McAleer, spokesman for the New Jersey courts, said: "The Administrative Office of the Courts does not comment on pending lawsuits."

U.S. District Judge Susan Wigenton of the District of New Jersey in September 2019 granted the defendants' motion for dismissal based on collateral estoppel. Wigenton also dismissed Gross-Quatrone's various conspiracy and conspiracy-based claims for lack of proof. Gross-Quatrone appealed to the Third District.

Shwartz, joined by Judges Thomas Ambro and Stephanos Bibas of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in the opinion issued Monday, agreed with Wigenton on the conspiracy claims, holding that Gross-Quatrone came up short on all four elements. "Here, Gross-Quatrone alleges no facts showing a combination, agreement, or confederation among the Defendants and only sets forth the conclusory assertions that the District Court noted," Shwartz wrote.

Shwartz added that Gross-Quatrone's assertions that Mizdol and Simoldoni conspired to create a hostile work environment were neither rooted in fact nor supported by some proof of agreement or concerted action. "Because 'mere labels and conclusions' are not sufficient to state this civil conspiracy claim, the District Court correctly dismissed it," Shwartz wrote.

The opinion added, "Because Gross-Quatrone's complaint lacks factual allegations showing an agreement to violate her civil rights, her § 1983 conspiracy and § 1985 claims were properly dismissed."

Gross-Quatrone claims that between August and December 2015, she was wrongly accused of numerous forms of misconduct, including having her secretary do personal tasks.

At a December 2015 meeting, Gross-Quatrone stowed an audio-recording device in her purse. Midway through the meeting, Simoldoni reached into Gross-Quatrone's purse and removed the recording device—which Gross-Quatrone claims was a violation of Equal Protection under the Fourth Amendment. Simoldoni kept the device and made a copy of the recording, according to documents.

Shwartz said the subject of the recording involved a private employment issue. And as such, "the District Court correctly dismissed Gross-Quatrone's First Amendment claim," she wrote.

Following the meeting, Mizdol filed a complaint against Gross-Quatrone with the Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct, accusing the judge of allowing her law clerk to begin work earlier than permitted.

The ACJC recommended that Gross-Quatrone be suspended without pay for two months.

Gross-Quatrone then brought her lawsuit in federal court, claiming, among other things, that that the defendants violated the First and Fourth amendments by seizing her audio-recording device and copying its contents.

Wigenton concluded that Gross-Quatrone's claims were barred by collateral estoppel because they raised issues that the ACJC conclusively determined, and even if they were not barred by collateral estoppel, Gross-Quatrone's constitutional and conspiracy claims failed on their merits.

Shwartz said this is where the court parted ways with Wigenton.

"Defendants argue that the District Court correctly dismissed Gross-Quatrone's claims based on collateral estoppel, otherwise known as issue preclusion. We disagree," Shwartz wrote.

Shwartz said collateral estoppel bars relitigation of an issue under four circumstances, among them that the identical issue was decided in a prior adjudication and there was a final judgment on the merits.

That wasn't the case here, said Shwartz.

Shwartz said the ACJC made no finding on the issue of whether Gross-Quatrone had been discriminated against and subjected to a hostile work environment.

"To the contrary, the ACJC avoided deciding the issue: it ruled that, regardless of whether Gross-Quatrone had suffered 'hostile treatment' in the workplace, the allegedly hostile environment did not 'justify or mitigate' the misconduct with which she was charged, because she 'had available to her several options' to redress the hostile environment other than the alleged misconduct," Shwartz wrote.

"Accordingly, the ACJC's decision did not preclude Gross-Quatrone's Equal Protection, NJCRA, NJLAD, and hostile work environment claims," Shwartz said.

Shwartz said the ACJC decision also made no findings as to Gross-Quatrone's First and Fourth Amendment claims or conclusions as to whether seizing of the audio-recording device and copying it violated those rights.

"Accordingly, the ACJC's ruling did not bar these claims," Shwartz said.

"Although the ACJC's conclusions of law do not preclude Gross-Quatrone's claims, we leave to the District Court on remand to decide whether any of the ACJC's findings of fact are entitled to preclusive effect in Gross-Quatrone's litigation," wrote Shwartz.

"The pleadings do not currently support this outcome," Shwartz said. "The majority of Gross-Quatrone's allegations, by contrast, relate to events that occurred before the ACJC proceeding took place."