National Litigation Hotline

On review, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court. The court explained that the doctrine of qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for alleged constitutional violations resulting from their acts unless pre-existing law gives them fair warning that their acts might result in such violations. At the time that the alleged harassment occurred, the controlling courts (the U.S. Supreme Court, the Eleventh Circuit, and the Alabama Supreme Court) had not ruled in a case in which the issue of whether same-sex harassment violates the Equal Protection Clause, the court wrote. The Eleventh Circuit answered that question in the affirmative in a decision dating from after the filing of plaintiffs' lawsuit. Although the Eleventh Circuit had held in Fredette v. BVP Mgmt. Assocs., 112 F.3d 1503 (1997)b that same-sex harassment violates Title VII, and U.S. Supreme Court had come to the same conclusion in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs. Inc., 118 S.Ct. 998 (1998) the following year, and although because of these rulings “some people may well have reasonably guessed earlier” than the filing of plaintiffs' suit that same-sex harassment violates the Equal Protection Clause, the issue was not truly settled until the decision of the Court's decision in Downing v. Board of Trustees of the Univ. of Ala., 321 F.3d 1017 (11th Cir. 2003). Thus, the defendants were not on notice of the illegality of same-sex harassment under the Equal Protection Clause at or before the time of the filing of plaintiffs' lawsuit and were therefore protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity.

Whistleblowing Employee Can Go to Trial on Punitive Damages

The Tenth Circuit has held that a former school bus driver in rural Utah can pursue punitive damages on a whistleblower claim in which she alleged that teachers favored children from polygamous marriages and had sexual relationships with students. Youren v. Tintic Sch. Dist., 2003 WL 22093902 (Sep. 10).

Debra Youren was employed as a bus driver and drove children to and from West Desert High School, which was located in a rural area of Utah. In 1997, she began to complain to coworkers and to supervisors that one teacher at the high school was favoring his polygamist family members and was dating one of his students. Youren also stated that another teacher encouraged some students to skip school in order to work on his ranch. Following Youren's complaints, the female superintendent of the school district allegedly retaliated against Youren by using her position as superintendent to arrange for threats and disciplinary actions against Youren, by forcing her to undergo a psychiatric evaluation, and ultimately by encouraging Youren's daughter to level false accusations of sexual abuse against her father. Youren was eventually fired and filed suit in federal district court, alleging violations of federal law under Section 1983 and of the Utah whistleblower statute. At trial, she won significant damages against the defendant school district and the district superintendent: $65,000 against both for her whistleblower claims, and $55,000 and $32,000 against the school district and the superintendent respectively for her federal civil rights claims. However, the trial court refused to present the issue of punitive damages to the jury, holding that such damages were not available under the Utah whistleblower statute.

On appeal, the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court's decision as to punitive damages. The court held that Youren would also be permitted to take claims for punitive damages back to trial; while it agreed with the district court that that Utah legislature did not provide for punitive damages under the whistleblower statute, punitive damages were available to Youren via her Section 1983 claim. “Especially in the context of a public school and its role in educating and caring for the nation's youth, it is extremely important to protect those who shine a light on unsavory and illegal practices – risking their careers in the knowledge that their colleagues will be anything but grateful for those efforts,” the court wrote. This was a case that involved allegations that children were being “seduced by adult authority figures, and that the defendants induced a false accusation of sexual abuse against a child's father[.]” Thus, the court concluded, “ [d]epending on which of the allegations the jury believed, the jury might well conclude that malice existed, that there was reckless or callous indifference to Youren's rights, etc. In short, a jury could view this as being sufficient to justify an award of punitive damages.”

The publisher of this newsletter is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting, financial, investment advisory or other professional services, and this publication is not meant to constitute legal, accounting, financial, investment advisory or other professional advice. If legal, financial, investment advisory or other professional assistance is required, the services of a competent professional person should be sought.

Community College Shielded from Same-Sex Harassment Charges

The Eleventh Circuit has held that the doctrine of qualified immunity served to bar a sexual harassment lawsuit brought by four security guards at Jefferson State Community College in Birmingham, AL. Snider v. Jefferson State Cmty. Coll., 2003 WL 22119938 (Sep. 15).

Four security guards at an Alabama community college, Thomas Snider, John Ponder, Tommy Diltz, and Benny Gilcrest, were allegedly subjected to unwanted sexual harassment by the college's head of security, William Shelnutt, from 1983 through July 1998. Specifically, the four employees alleged that, over a period of approximately 15 months, Shelnutt inappropriately and constantly touched them and made sexually suggestive comments and gestures. Ultimately, the four guards sued the school, the school's President, the school's Dean of Business Operations, and Shelnutt in federal district court, charging that the defendants other than Shelnutt had violated their constitutional rights to equal protection by failing to stop Shelnutt's conduct despite their knowledge of it and their duty to prevent such conduct from occurring. The defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint, arguing that each of the defendants was protected from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity because whether the alleged harassment violated the Equal Protection Clause was unknown when the alleged harassment occurred. The four plaintiffs appealed.

On review, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court. The court explained that the doctrine of qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for alleged constitutional violations resulting from their acts unless pre-existing law gives them fair warning that their acts might result in such violations. At the time that the alleged harassment occurred, the controlling courts (the U.S. Supreme Court, the Eleventh Circuit, and the Alabama Supreme Court) had not ruled in a case in which the issue of whether same-sex harassment violates the Equal Protection Clause, the court wrote. The Eleventh Circuit answered that question in the affirmative in a decision dating from after the filing of plaintiffs' lawsuit. Although the Eleventh Circuit had held in Fredette v. BVP Mgmt. Assocs. , 112 F.3d 1503 (1997)b that same-sex harassment violates Title VII, and U.S. Supreme Court had come to the same conclusion in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs. Inc. , 118 S.Ct. 998 (1998) the following year, and although because of these rulings “some people may well have reasonably guessed earlier” than the filing of plaintiffs' suit that same-sex harassment violates the Equal Protection Clause, the issue was not truly settled until the decision of the Court's decision in Downing v. Board of Trustees of the Univ. of Ala. , 321 F.3d 1017 (11th Cir. 2003). Thus, the defendants were not on notice of the illegality of same-sex harassment under the Equal Protection Clause at or before the time of the filing of plaintiffs' lawsuit and were therefore protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity.

Whistleblowing Employee Can Go to Trial on Punitive Damages

The Tenth Circuit has held that a former school bus driver in rural Utah can pursue punitive damages on a whistleblower claim in which she alleged that teachers favored children from polygamous marriages and had sexual relationships with students. Youren v. Tintic Sch. Dist., 2003 WL 22093902 (Sep. 10).

Debra Youren was employed as a bus driver and drove children to and from West Desert High School, which was located in a rural area of Utah. In 1997, she began to complain to coworkers and to supervisors that one teacher at the high school was favoring his polygamist family members and was dating one of his students. Youren also stated that another teacher encouraged some students to skip school in order to work on his ranch. Following Youren's complaints, the female superintendent of the school district allegedly retaliated against Youren by using her position as superintendent to arrange for threats and disciplinary actions against Youren, by forcing her to undergo a psychiatric evaluation, and ultimately by encouraging Youren's daughter to level false accusations of sexual abuse against her father. Youren was eventually fired and filed suit in federal district court, alleging violations of federal law under Section 1983 and of the Utah whistleblower statute. At trial, she won significant damages against the defendant school district and the district superintendent: $65,000 against both for her whistleblower claims, and $55,000 and $32,000 against the school district and the superintendent respectively for her federal civil rights claims. However, the trial court refused to present the issue of punitive damages to the jury, holding that such damages were not available under the Utah whistleblower statute.

On appeal, the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court's decision as to punitive damages. The court held that Youren would also be permitted to take claims for punitive damages back to trial; while it agreed with the district court that that Utah legislature did not provide for punitive damages under the whistleblower statute, punitive damages were available to Youren via her Section 1983 claim. “Especially in the context of a public school and its role in educating and caring for the nation's youth, it is extremely important to protect those who shine a light on unsavory and illegal practices – risking their careers in the knowledge that their colleagues will be anything but grateful for those efforts,” the court wrote. This was a case that involved allegations that children were being “seduced by adult authority figures, and that the defendants induced a false accusation of sexual abuse against a child's father[.]” Thus, the court concluded, “ [d]epending on which of the allegations the jury believed, the jury might well conclude that malice existed, that there was reckless or callous indifference to Youren's rights, etc. In short, a jury could view this as being sufficient to justify an award of punitive damages.”

The publisher of this newsletter is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting, financial, investment advisory or other professional services, and this publication is not meant to constitute legal, accounting, financial, investment advisory or other professional advice. If legal, financial, investment advisory or other professional assistance is required, the services of a competent professional person should be sought.