Starnes v. Butler Cnty. Court of Common Pleas

• Decision Date: 24 August 2020
• Docket Number: No. 18-3271,18-3271
• Citation: 971 F.3d 416
• Parties: Crystal STARNES v. BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, 50TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT; Thomas Doerr, individually; Thomas Holman, individually Thomas Doerr, Appellant
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

971 F.3d 416

Crystal STARNES

v. BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, 50TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT; Thomas Doerr, individually; Thomas Holman, individuallyThomas Doerr, Appellant

No. 18-3271

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Argued April 22, 2020

Filed: August 24, 2020

Ronald T. Elliott, Thomas W. King, III, Dillon McCandless King Coulter & Graham, 128 West Cunningham Street, Butler, PA 16001, Louis C. Long, Thomas P. McGinnis, Karin M. Romano [Argued], Thomas Thomas & Hafer, 525 William Penn Place, 37^th Floor, Suite 3750, Pittsburgh, PA 15219, Attorneys for Appellant Thomas Doerr

Jaime L. George, Edward A. Olds [Argued], Olds Russ & Associates, 1007 Mount Royal Boulevard, Pittsburgh, PA 15223, Attorneys for Appellee Crystal Starnes

Robert J. Krandel, Caroline P. Liebenguth, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts, 1515 Market Street, Suite 1414, Philadelphia, PA 19102, Attorneys for Butler County Court of Common Pleas, 50th Judicial District and Thomas Holman

Before: HARDIMAN, RENDELL, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge.

Judge Thomas Doerr appeals an order of the District Court denying him qualified immunity on civil rights claims brought by Plaintiff Crystal Starnes. Starnes contends we lack jurisdiction to hear the appeal, but we disagree. As for the merits, we agree with Starnes, except for her First Amendment freedom of association claim. So we will affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand the case for further proceedings.

I

Because Doerr appeals an order denying his motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b), we must accept Starnes's well-pleaded allegations as true, construe them in the light most favorable to her, and draw all reasonable inferences in her favor. SEC v. Gentile , 939 F.3d 549, 552 n.1 (3d Cir. 2019). We present the facts subject to those principles.

A

In 2004, Starnes met Doerr at a Christmas party held by the Chief Public Defender for Butler County, Pennsylvania. At the time, Starnes was a Probation Officer in Allegheny County, and Doerr was the President Judge of the Butler County Court of Common Pleas. Doerr flirted with Starnes at the party, they exchanged phone numbers, and Doerr suggested they stay in touch.

Following the party, Doerr repeatedly called Starnes to ask her to "meet him at his chambers." Starnes v. Court of Common Pleas of Butler Cty. (Starnes I) , 2018 WL 3586835, at *1 (W.D. Pa. 2018). Starnes initially declined Doerr's invitations, but in early 2005 she relented and visited his chambers after hours. When she arrived, Doerr began kissing her and insisted she have sex with him. Starnes did so even though Doerr's advances were not welcome. Earlier that evening, Doerr had discussed the prospect of hiring Starnes as a probation officer in Butler County. Doerr later told Starnes that "their sexual interactions would be a ‘business relationship.’ " Id.

In the summer of 2005, a job became available in the Butler County Probation Office. Doerr, in his capacity as President Judge, exercised supervisory authority over the hiring of probation officers. Starnes wished to return to Butler, her hometown, and Doerr made sure she was hired. After Starnes started working in Butler County, Doerr began summoning her to his chambers and cajoling her into sexual relations. He also shared pornography with Starnes and discussed sex on the telephone with her. This situation continued for four years.

After their sexual relations ended in 2009, Doerr continued to try to influence Starnes by asking her to film herself performing sexual acts, flirting with her from his position on the bench, holding her "hand while explaining that he could help her return to her previous job," and interrupting her when she spoke to male staff. Id. at *1–2. In 2010, Starnes began dating the man she later married, who was also a Probation Officer in Butler County. He was harassed and pushed into retirement by Butler County administrators.

In 2014, Doerr transferred Starnes to the Butler County Domestic Relations Office at her request. Starnes regretted her decision and asked to return to the Probation Office, which she was entitled to do within 30 days. At first, Doerr did not allow her to return. Thomas Holman, the Deputy Court Administrator, told Starnes that "[t]he marriage was over" and she would "have to sue Doerr" to get her previous job back. Id. at *2, 8. Doerr eventually allowed Starnes to return, but only if she signed a general release waiving all claims against the Butler County Court of Common Pleas.

When Starnes returned to the Probation Office, she was denied her own office, overtime, training opportunities, and the right to serve on-call duty—opportunities she alleges her male counterparts had. She also was isolated from other officers and was not allowed to supervise other probation officers in the field. And whenever she visited probationers, Doerr assigned two male partners to accompany her because he believed it was too dangerous.

Because Starnes suspected discrimination, she contacted the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in February 2016 intending to file charges. Within days of telling her supervisors (including Doerr and Holman) of her intentions, Starnes was placed on a "performance improvement plan" and she was told Doerr and Holman were behind the move. One month prior to that, Starnes had received a positive evaluation with no noted performance issues.

B

After the EEOC issued a right-to-sue letter, Starnes filed a five-count complaint (as Jane Doe) in the District Court against Doerr, Holman, and the Butler County Court of Common Pleas. Count I alleged a Title VII hostile work environment claim against the County. Count II alleged that Doerr violated her First Amendment rights by forcing her to associate with him in an intimate fashion. Count III alleged a violation of her Fourteenth Amendment equal protection rights by discriminating against her on the basis of sex. Count IV alleged Doerr and Holman retaliated against her for exercising her First Amendment rights. Count V alleged Doerr and Holman violated her Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. After the District Court ordered her to do so, Starnes identified herself in an amended complaint.

Starnes later filed a second amended complaint, alleging the same five counts. Doerr moved to dismiss the claims against him (Counts II-V) for several reasons, including qualified immunity.¹

On July 26, 2018, the District Court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. It dismissed Starnes's equal protection claim (Count III) without prejudice with leave to amend and dismissed her procedural due process claim (Count V) with prejudice. It denied Doerr's motion on all other grounds and rejected his qualified immunity defense.

As the Court gave Starnes a final chance to amend the equal protection claim, she filed a third amended complaint. Doerr again moved to dismiss, incorporating arguments from his previous motion to dismiss and reiterating his qualified immunity defense.

On October 4, 2018, the District Court denied the motion, holding that Starnes sufficiently alleged that Doerr discriminated against her because of sex. Starnes v. Court of Common Pleas of Butler Cty. , 2018 WL 4828515, at *1 (W.D. Pa 2018) ( Starnes II ). The District Court did not discuss other issues addressed in the opinion on the prior motion to dismiss, except to note that Doerr misunderstood the decision on the freedom of association claim (Count II) and that his "renewed immunity arguments" were "improperly raised and legally unsound." Id. at *1 n. 2.

Doerr appealed to our Court. Starnes moved to dismiss Doerr's appeal as untimely, claiming the July 26 order was not appealed within thirty days, as required by the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, and the October 4 order was an unappealable interlocutory order. A motions panel of this Court referred Starnes's motion to dismiss the appeal to the merits panel, so we address it now.

II

The District Court had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. The "collateral order doctrine" gives us jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 to review certain interlocutory orders. Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541, 545, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). An order denying a defendant qualified immunity can constitute such an order. Mitchell v. Forsyth , 472 U.S. 511, 526–27, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985). An appeal must be filed within thirty days after entry of the order or judgment appealed from. FED. R. APP. P. 4(a). Our review is plenary. See Bistrian v. Levi , 696 F.3d 352, 364 (3d Cir. 2012).

Starnes argues we lack jurisdiction because Doerr failed to timely appeal the July 26 order that "conclusively determined" the qualified immunity issue. Starnes Br. 1–2 (citing FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(1) ). In order to be appealable, collateral orders must "conclusively determine" an issue, meaning the resolution of the issue must be "complete, formal, and ... final." Harris v. Kellogg Brown & Root Serv's, Inc. , 618 F.3d 398, 401 (3d Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). Orders denying qualified immunity ordinarily are conclusive in one of two ways: (1) either "there will be nothing in the subsequent course of the proceedings in the district court that can alter the court's conclusion that the defendant is not immune"; or (2) "the court's denial ... finally and conclusively determines the defendant's claim of right not to stand trial [or undergo "the burdens of broad-reaching discovery"] on the plaintiff's allegations." Mitchell , 472 U.S. at 526–527, 105 S.Ct. 2806. In either case, " Cohen 's threshold requirement of a fully consummated decision is satisfied." Id. (quoting Abney v. United States , 431 U.S. 651, 659, 97 S.Ct. 2034, 52 L.Ed.2d 651 (1977) ).

The Court's October 4 order denying qualified immunity fits into the second category. It finally and conclusively subjects Doerr to the burdens of...