Jersey City homeowner sues local utilities and city over utility billing practices

A long-time homeowner alleges that utility billing practices by local authorities have deprived her of property and put her health at risk, according to a new federal lawsuit seeking court intervention. The complaint was filed by Dora Hill in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on March 4, 2026, naming Public Service Electric & Gas Company (PSE&G), Jersey City Municipal Utilities Authority (JCMUA), and the City of Jersey City as defendants.

According to the filing, Hill has owned and lived at her residence on Clendenny Avenue in Jersey City for more than fifty years. She claims she has personally paid all electric, gas, and water bills during this time. Hill reports living on a fixed income from Social Security benefits and says she cannot absorb excessive or compounding charges imposed by these utilities.

The lawsuit states that Hill requires continuous use of a prescribed oxygen-support machine due to a medical condition. This device depends entirely on uninterrupted electrical service. Despite her participation in state-administered assistance programs such as the Universal Service Fund (USF) and Home Energy Assistance Program, Hill alleges that the defendants imposed “excessive, duplicative, and compounding charges,” including surcharges, penalties, municipal fees, and other assessments. These charges reportedly continued even after she received state-approved assistance credits totaling approximately $334 in December 2025.

Hill argues that these billing practices have caused severe financial hardship and pose an ongoing threat to both her economic stability and physical health. The complaint states: “The combined billing and enforcement structure operates as an unconstitutional taking of property (income) and a deprivation of due process of law.” It further claims that available relief mechanisms are ineffective due to the way these policies are enforced.

The legal arguments presented in the filing include four main causes of action under federal law:

First, Hill claims an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. She asserts that compelled diversion of her limited income through state-authorized mechanisms without adequate procedural safeguards amounts to government seizure without just compensation. The complaint cites Supreme Court cases such as Tyler v. Hennepin County (2023) in support.

Second, she alleges denial of procedural due process because defendants did not provide sufficient notice or meaningful opportunity to contest excessive charges or penalties before threatening termination of essential services. Authorities cited include Memphis Light, Gas & Water Division v. Craft (1978).

Third, Hill contends there is a First Amendment violation because coercive billing practices burdened her ability to petition for redress regarding disputed charges.

Fourth, she raises disability discrimination claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act by stating that defendants failed to provide reasonable accommodation necessary for uninterrupted access to life-sustaining electrical service required for her oxygen therapy.

Hill describes how recurring monthly water and sewer charges from JCMUA averaged $250–$300—a significant expense relative to her fixed income—and how municipal fees increased her overall financial burden. She states that she was forced to divert funds from basic necessities as a result.

In terms of remedies sought from the court, Hill requests several forms of relief: a declaration that defendants’ practices are unconstitutional; injunctions preventing termination of utility service needed for medical equipment; refunds for improper collections; compensatory damages; punitive damages; recovery of legal fees; preliminary and permanent injunctive relief; as well as any other relief deemed just by the court.

Dora Hill is representing herself in this matter as a pro se plaintiff. The case is identified as Civil Action No. 2:26-cv-02311-EP-MAH.