Ratliff v. DeKalb County, Ga.
| Decision Date | 09 August 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 93-8986,93-8986 |
| Citation | 62 F.3d 338 |
| Parties | Mary Linda RATLIFF, Plaintiff-Appellee, Cross-Appellant, v. DeKALB COUNTY, GEORGIA; Thomas E. Brown, Jr., individually and in his official capacity as Public Safety Director, DeKalb County Department of Public Safety; Robert T. Burgess, Sr., individually and in his official capacity as Chief of Police, DeKalb County Department of Public Safety; N. Eugene Moss, Capt., individually and in his official capacity as Commander, Division of Youth and Sex Crimes, DeKalb County Department of Public Safety; John M. Cunningham, Sgt., individually and in his official capacity as Supervisor, Educational Services Unit, DeKalb County Department of Public Safety and A.R. King, Capt., individually and in his official capacity as Commander of Internal Affairs Division DeKalb County Department of Public Safety, Defendants-Appellants, Cross-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
Joan Frances Roach, Jonathan Weintraub, Office of DeKalb County Atty., Decatur, GA, for appellant.
Debra E. Schwartz, Marcia Borowski, Stanford, Fagan & Giolito, Atlanta, GA, for appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
Before EDMONDSON and CARNES, Circuit Judges, and HAND *, Senior District Judge.
Defendants appeal 1 the district court's denial of qualified immunity on Plaintiff Mary Linda Ratliff's equal protection claims. 2 Ratliff cross appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment based on qualified immunity on her first amendment claims. 3 Ratliff also requests this court to hold that the individual defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity against her claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. 4
In reviewing the district court's denial of summary judgment, we--in most qualified-immunity interlocutory appeals--accept the facts which the district court assumed for the purposes of its decision about whether the applicable law was clearly established. See Johnson v. Jones, --- U.S. ----, ----, 115 S.Ct. 2151, 2159, 132 L.Ed.2d 238 (1995). Mary Linda Ratliff began work as a Public Service Officer in defendant DeKalb County's Bureau of Police Services in 1985. When she began in 1985, Ratliff was issued a "sworn police identification card" and police uniform, but the parties dispute whether Ratliff was ever a "sworn officer." Ratliff's duties were to supervise county school crossing guards. She never received sworn officer pay. In 1988, the Public Services unit moved from the Public Safety building to an alternative school building and combined with the Youth and Sex Crimes Unit commanded by Defendant Moss. Public Services was placed under the command of Defendant Cunningham, who reported, through a Lt. Rowell, to Moss.
Defendant Burgess was the Chief of Police at all times relevant to the issues in this case, except from April 1989 through December 1989, when Burgess served as Acting Director of Public Safety. Defendant King was commander of the Internal Affairs (I.A.) unit. King conducted I.A. investigations into allegations of unethical conduct complained of by Ratliff, and into complaints by a Colonel Farrar that Ratliff was untruthful and insubordinate. The I.A. investigation of Ratliff concluded that the charges against her were unfounded.
At the same time as the move to the new school building in 1988, Moss informed Ratliff that she was no sworn police officer, would have to give up her uniform and weapon, and would have to keep daily activity sheets. In 1990, Defendant Brown became the Director of Public Safety and gave Ratliff official written notice that she was not a sworn officer, could not wear the uniform or gun, and was not to take the county car home when school was not in session.
Ratliff filed suit in August 1991 under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, alleging equal protection violations and violations of the First Amendment and due process clause. Ratliff is still employed by the county. Ratliff alleges that Defendants, all of whom were her supervisors or superiors in rank, violated her equal protection rights by discriminating against her on the basis of her sex and retaliating against her for her complaints of discrimination.
Defendants moved for summary judgment. The district court denied defendants qualified immunity for the equal protection claim; but in so doing, the court did not differentiate between Ratliff's equal protection claim for retaliation and her equal protection claim for gender discrimination.
Defendants argue that the district court erred in denying them qualified immunity on Ratliff's equal protection claim for retaliation. The right to be free from retaliation is clearly established as a first amendment right and as a statutory right under Title VII; but no clearly established right exists under the equal protection clause to be free from retaliation. Ratliff responds that she does not allege an equal protection claim for retaliation, but says that such a right does exist in any event. In so arguing, Ratliff cites Cate v. Oldham, 707 F.2d 1176 (11th Cir.1983), Bridges v. Russell, 757 F.2d 1155 (11th Cir.1985), and Little v. North Miami, 805 F.2d 962 (11th Cir.1986). But, each of these cases holds that a constitutional claim for retaliation may be brought under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 pursuant to the first amendment, not the equal protection clause. Because no established right exists under the equal protection clause to be free from retaliation, we reverse the district court's denial of qualified immunity on Ratliff's equal-protection retaliation claim. See generally Lassiter v. Alabama A & M University, 28 F.3d 1146 (11th Cir.1994).
Plaintiff's claim of gender discrimination presents us with a more complicated issue. In considering a motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, the Supreme Court has held that courts should pay no attention to the subjective intent of the government actor. See Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 815-18, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2737-38, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). Harlow was intended to make a fundamental change in the law of immunity. And the strict meaning of the words used in Harlow for the immunity standard would protect public officials from personal liability when the pertinent substantive law makes the official's state of mind an essential element of the alleged constitutional violation.
Despite Harlow's words, we have said that in one kind of qualified immunity case--where discriminatory intent is an element of the tort--intent remains relevant. 5 See Edwards v. Wallace Community College, 49 F.3d 1517, 1524 (11th Cir.1995). See also Nicholson v. Georgia Dep't of Human Resources, 918 F.2d 145, 147 (11th Cir.1990). We are bound by our earlier holding that, in qualified immunity cases, intent is a relevant inquiry if discriminatory intent is a specific element of the constitutional tort; and, we follow that rule here.
The district court determined that the evidence in the record would allow a finding of discrimination on the part of defendants and said that, as a legal matter, it was clearly established...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Givhan v. Electronic Engineers, Inc.
...assertions in his Affidavit. The court finds this lack of specific evidence fatal, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e); Ratliff v. DeKalb County, 62 F.3d 338, 341 (11th Cir.1995), and finds that Plaintiff has failed to rebut EE's legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for Plaintiff's discharge and raise ......
-
Sharp v. City of Houston
...equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See, e.g., Bernheim v. Litt, 79 F.3d 318, 323 (2d Cir.1996); Ratliff v. DeKalb County, 62 F.3d 338, 340-41 (11th Cir. 1995); Gray v. Lacke, 885 F.2d 399, 414 (7th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1029, 110 S.Ct. 1476, 108 L.Ed.2d 613 (19......
-
Pierri v. Cingular Wireless, LLC
...when the statements were made, how knowledge of them was acquired, and when plaintiff learned of them). See also Ratliff v. DeKalb County, 62 F.3d 338, 341 (11th Cir.1995) ("[G]iven the ease of pleading cases of discrimination, plaintiffs seeking to avoid summary judgment should be strictly......
-
Woods v. Valentino
...to speak, but also the right to be free from retaliation by a public official for the exercise of that right. Ratliff v. De-Kalb County, Ga., 62 F.3d 338, 340 (11th Cir.1995). The Eleventh Circuit has adopted a three-part test for determining whether a plaintiff has an actionable First Amen......
-
Constitutional Civil Law - Albert Sidney Johnson
...cert, denied, 116 S. Ct. 1826 (1996); Babb v. Lake City Community College, 66 F.3d 270 (11th Cir. 1995); and Ratliff v. DeKalb County, 62 F.3d 338 (11th Cir. 1995). 46. 74 F.3d 236 (11th Cir. 1996) (growing out of the same investigation giving rise to Cooper v. Smith, 89 F.3d 761 (11th Cir.......
-
Constitutional Civil Law - Albert Sidney Johnson
...F.3d 988 (11th Cir. 1995). 99. 49 F.3d 679 (11th Cir. 1995). 100. 50 F.3d 950 (11th Cir. 1995). 101. 59 F.3d 1203 (11th Cir. 1995). 102. 62 F.3d 338 (11th Cir. 1995). 103. 64 F.3d 598 (11th Cir. 1995). 104. 66 F.3d 270 (11th Cir. 1995). 105. 68 F.3d 1309 (11th Cir. 1995). 106. 69 F.3d 1098 ......