983 F.3d 185
5th Cir.2020Background
- Brandie Cunningham, a deputy sheriff, reported suspicions that a coworker altered a DD214; she told several colleagues and sought to report the matter to the sheriff.
- Supervisors (not the sheriff) met with Cunningham and fired her for "improper use of chain of command and lying"; she was not given written charges or allowed to respond at the firing meeting.
- Cunningham requested to "speak with" Sheriff Castloo but was not allowed to do so; Castloo was not present at the termination meeting and there is no evidence he directed the denial.
- Castloo later signed an F-5 form marking Cunningham's discharge as dishonorable; she alleges this stigmatized her reputation and prevented future employment.
- Cunningham sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for denial of procedural due process (name-clearing hearing); the district court denied Castloo qualified immunity, relying on Constantineau and Bledsoe.
- The Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that, even accepting Cunningham's version of facts, the alleged constitutional violation was not "clearly established," so Castloo is entitled to qualified immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of Cunningham's request to "speak with" the sheriff amounted to a denial of a procedural-due-process name-clearing hearing | The request to speak was effectively a request to clear her name after a stigmatizing, dishonorable discharge; denial violated due process | The sheriff was not present, did not instruct subordinates to deny the request, and a private meeting request is not the equivalent of a formal name-clearing hearing | Court assumed plaintiff's facts for review but found the constitutional question turns on whether the right was clearly established; resolved via qualified immunity analysis rather than deciding the merits |
| Whether Cunningham had a clearly established right to a name-clearing hearing under these facts | Cases like Constantineau and Bledsoe put beyond debate an employee's right to notice and to clear her name when stigmatized by government action | Precedents cited are too general or factually dissimilar; law requires specificity—rights must be established with respect to the particular conduct at issue | Not clearly established; asking privately to "speak with" the sheriff did not, under controlling precedent, clearly amount to a request for a name-clearing hearing that would trigger due-process protection |
| Whether this court has appellate jurisdiction to review denial of qualified immunity on summary judgment | Cunningham argued district-court factual findings preclude interlocutory review | Appellate jurisdiction exists under the collateral-order doctrine to review legal issues and materiality of factual disputes | Fifth Circuit has jurisdiction to review legal conclusions and materiality of factual disputes; limited review scope affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Mullenix v. Luna, 577 U.S. 7 (per curiam) (qualified immunity requires that the violative nature of particular conduct be clearly established)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (qualified immunity two-step framework)
- Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433 (right to notice and hearing where government action stigmatizes an individual)
- Bledsoe v. City of Horn Lake, 449 F.3d 650 (5th Cir.) (articulating and applying stigma-plus test for name-clearing hearings)
- Rosenstein v. City of Dallas, 876 F.2d 392 (5th Cir.) (development of stigma-plus-infringement test)
- District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577 (specificity required when defining clearly established law)