936 F.3d 1007
9th Cir.2019Background
- Christian Head, an African‑American head and neck surgeon, held dual appointments at the VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System and UCLA and filed multiple EEO complaints alleging race‑based harassment and retaliation.
- Head was a witness in Dr. Jasmine Bowers’s federal civil‑rights case and later testified before Congress about discrimination and retaliation; shortly afterward he amended his suit to add VA supervisors Dean Norman and Donna Beiter individually.
- Head asserted a 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2) claim that Norman and Beiter conspired to deter him from testifying (in Bowers’s case and his own), alleging retaliatory employment actions and reassignment.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Norman and Beiter on the § 1985(2) conspiracy claim, applying Ninth Circuit precedent (David v. United States) that required plaintiffs to show they (as parties) were "hampered in being able to present an effective case."
- On appeal Head argued David was no longer controlling in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Haddle v. Garrison; the Ninth Circuit held that Haddle abrogated David’s limitation and reversed and remanded the § 1985(2) summary judgment dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1985(2) requires the injured person to have been a party to the underlying proceeding or to show the underlying party was "hampered" in presenting an effective case | David may not control; Haddle permits non‑party witnesses to show cognizable injury (e.g., employment interference) | David requires party status or proof that the underlying litigant was hampered in presenting its case | David’s limitation is abrogated by Haddle; non‑parties can bring § 1985(2) claims and employment interference is a cognizable injury |
| Whether the district court properly granted summary judgment on Head’s § 1985(2) claim based on David | District court erred by relying on David; Head has alleged cognizable injuries from retaliation for testimony | Summary judgment was proper because Head failed to show the "hampered" injury required by David | Reversed and remanded; summary judgment on the § 1985(2) claim vacated so claim can proceed |
Key Cases Cited
- Haddle v. Garrison, 525 U.S. 121 (1998) (held loss of at‑will employment caused by retaliation for cooperating with federal proceedings is a cognizable "person or property" injury under § 1985(2))
- David v. United States, 820 F.2d 1038 (9th Cir. 1987) (earlier Ninth Circuit rule requiring that injured person be a party or show the underlying litigant was hampered in presenting an effective case)
- Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (directs the court to reevaluate circuit precedent when intervening Supreme Court authority is clearly irreconcilable)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (governing summary judgment standard)
- Chavis v. Clayton Cty. Sch. Dist., 300 F.3d 1288 (11th Cir. 2002) (sister‑circuit authority recognizing § 1985(2) claims by non‑parties/witnesses)