A Former Jersey City Aide’s First Amendment Case Survives Partial Dismissal Amid Legal Battle Over Political Ties

A federal judge recently struck down two crucial claims in a case brought by a former Jersey City aide, but left his broader retaliatory and constitutional concerns intact, prolonging a political, familial, and public-employee revenge litigation.

After being fired in August 2024, Jersey City employee Jonathan Gomez Noriega, who was on the LGBTQ+ task force, sued in late 2024. He claims he was fired for reprisal for publicly condemning his sister, Valentina Gomez, a Republican candidate whose ideas contrasted with the city’s progressive image.

Noriega also disputed Mayor Steven Fulop’s 2024 declaration that Jersey City’s pension system will participate in Bitcoin exchange-traded funds, alleging state law and ethical violations in his updated complaint. On September 23, U.S. District Judge William J. Martini dropped those crypto-related accusations because Noriega failed to establish he formally objected to management and that other text messages supported the Bitcoin intentions.

The ruling builds on previous ones. Noriega claimed defamation, discrimination, and “false light” in April after authorities made offensive remarks about his Colombian origin or questioned his capacity to represent diversity. The court dismissed his claims. The judge maintained two fundamental constitutional claims: that Noriega was wrongfully terminated for permitted political speech and familial association, and that the City is accountable under federal civil rights law for authorizing such retaliation.

The legal dispute centers on whether Noriega was fired for First Amendment violations and if his job required political loyalty. Jersey City officials praised the court’s rejection of the two bitcoin counts as proof that the case is frivolous.

Noriega is represented by Sekas Law Group and O’Connor Parsons & Lane, while Jersey City and its officials are represented by Calcagni & Kanefsky. It highlights difficulties between public administration, political allegiance, and Constitutional constraints on employee rights as the case continues.

Sources
Law360
Politico Pro
NorthJersey
CourtListener