85 F.4th 27
1st Cir.2023Background
- Soldiers' Home in Holyoke experienced a COVID-19 outbreak in Feb–Mar 2020; facility supervisors allegedly failed to isolate symptomatic residents, limited PPE distribution, and allowed staff to float between units.
- Appellant, a certified nursing assistant who did not allege he contracted COVID-19, was reprimanded for wearing PPE and alleges supervisors concealed staffing and safety deficiencies.
- Appellant sued five supervisors under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of substantive due process: (1) a right to a safe work environment, (2) a state-created danger, and (3) bodily integrity.
- The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim and on qualified immunity grounds; Appellant appealed.
- The First Circuit assumed the substantive theories could be advanced but affirmed dismissal, holding that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because no clearly established law put them on notice their conduct was unconstitutional in this context.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Right to a safe work environment under substantive due process | Ablordeppey: Due Process includes a constitutional right to a safe workplace | Appellees: Collins forecloses a substantive due process right to a safe workplace | Dismissed—Collins precludes recognizing a standalone Due Process duty to provide a safe work environment |
| State-created danger exception to DeShaney | Ablordeppey: Supervisors affirmatively created/enhanced a specific danger by mismanaging outbreak and concealing facts | Appellees: No clearly established precedent extending state-created danger to this type of environmental/ workplace COVID context | Not clearly established here; qualified immunity applies |
| Right to bodily integrity (psychological trauma from exposure risk) | Ablordeppey: Exposure and concealment violated his bodily integrity even absent infection | Appellees: Bodily integrity cases involve forcible physical invasions or nonconsensual medical treatments; not established for psychological harms from voluntary employment exposure | Not clearly established; qualified immunity applies |
| Qualified immunity as a defense | Ablordeppey: Extreme facts so obvious they violate the Constitution (invoking Taylor) | Appellees: Rapidly evolving pandemic and discretionary decisions mean no clearly established law on these facts | Court: Taylor distinguished; no controlling or consensus precedent so qualified immunity bars suit |
Key Cases Cited
- Collins v. City of Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115 (1992) (no substantive due process right to a safe workplace)
- DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dep't of Social Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (1989) (state’s general failure to protect from private harm does not violate due process absent state-created danger)
- Pauluk v. Savage, 836 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2016) (recognized an occupational/state-created danger claim for toxic mold exposure)
- Taylor v. Riojas, 141 S. Ct. 52 (2020) (extreme conditions may obviate need for prior case law where violation is obvious)
- Mullenix v. Luna, 577 U.S. 7 (2015) (clarifies dispositive question for clearly established law)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011) (clearly established standard requires that law put officers on notice)
- Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148 (2018) (plaintiff need not point to identical case but to controlling precedent or consensus)
- Est. of Rahim by Rahim v. Doe, 51 F.4th 402 (1st Cir.) (qualified immunity standard and application)
- Irish v. Fowler, 979 F.3d 65 (1st Cir. 2020) (state-created danger elements and application in private-actor harm contexts)
- Guertin v. Michigan, 912 F.3d 907 (6th Cir. 2019) (bodily integrity doctrine examples involving nonconsensual exposure/treatment)