Becky Chasensky v. Scott Walker
740 F.3d 1088
7th Cir.2014Background
- Becky Chasensky, Chief Deputy Register of Deeds for Marinette County, applied to Governor Walker for an interim Register of Deeds appointment after a mid-term vacancy; she served as acting Register pending appointment.
- Governor Walker’s appointments official learned Chasensky had filed for bankruptcy and Walker declined to appoint her; Walker’s spokesperson publicly stated the bankruptcy was the reason.
- Chasensky sued Walker and the spokesperson alleging violations including privacy, equal protection, and (previously dismissed) employment and bankruptcy-discrimination claims.
- After extensive pretrial proceedings and an amended complaint, defendants raised qualified immunity in a motion to dismiss the amended complaint; the district court found the defense waived and refused to address it.
- Defendants appealed interlocutorily; the Seventh Circuit held it had jurisdiction to review waiver and qualified immunity and reversed, holding defendants did not waive qualified immunity and that they are entitled to it on the privacy and equal protection claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants waived qualified immunity by not raising it earlier | Chasensky: defendants delayed and litigated for over a year before asserting qualified immunity, so they waived it | Defendants: an amended complaint superseded prior pleadings and they raised immunity at the first opportunity after amendment | Held: No waiver — raising immunity in response to the amended complaint was timely; reversal of district court |
| Whether publicizing Chasensky’s bankruptcy violated a clearly established constitutional privacy right | Chasensky: public statements about her bankruptcy and character invaded informational privacy and produced reputational and emotional harms | Defendants: bankruptcy is public record; precedent does not clearly establish a right to confidentiality for already-published financial information | Held: No clearly established privacy right applicable; qualified immunity applies |
| Whether Walker’s refusal to appoint Chasensky violated equal protection | Chasensky: denial based on bankruptcy discriminated against her (class-based or invidious treatment) | Walker: appointment is discretionary; consideration of financial history is rationally related to government interests in financial stewardship and public trust | Held: Rational-basis review applies; no clearly established violation; qualified immunity applies |
| Whether appellate court has interlocutory jurisdiction to review denial of qualified immunity where district court found waiver | Chasensky: appellate jurisdiction lacking because district court found waiver before merits | Defendants: finding of waiver is a legal determination subject to interlocutory review under Mitchell/Bond | Held: Court has interlocutory jurisdiction to review waiver and qualified immunity |
Key Cases Cited
- Massey v. Helman, 196 F.3d 727 (7th Cir.) (amended complaint supersedes prior pleadings and allows defendants to raise new defenses)
- Denius v. Dunlap, 209 F.3d 944 (7th Cir.) (scope of informational-privacy claims and qualified immunity in compelled-disclosure context)
- Malleus v. George, 641 F.3d 560 (3d Cir.) (voluntary disclosure limits constitutional privacy claims)
- Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589 (1977) (recognition of constitutional informational-privacy interests)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity framework and clearly established law inquiry)
- Humphries v. Milwaukee County, 702 F.3d 1003 (7th Cir.) (clarifying burden to show a right was clearly established)
- Kurowski v. Krajewski, 848 F.2d 767 (7th Cir.) (broad discretion of appointing officials and deference to appointment decisions)