913 F.3d 1227
10th Cir.2019Background
- In 2009 New Mexico amended its Public Works Minimum Wage Act to require the Labor Relations Division director to determine prevailing wages and fringe benefits based on rates in collective bargaining agreements (CBAs).
- The director (Jason Dean) did not update CBA-based prevailing rates from 2009–2015; unions petitioned the New Mexico Supreme Court, which ultimately issued a writ of mandamus in 2015 ordering rates set per CBAs.
- Plaintiffs (public-works workers) sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of procedural and substantive due process because they received lower, pre‑2009 rates.
- District court granted qualified immunity to the DWS secretary and on plaintiffs’ procedural due‑process claim against Dean, but denied qualified immunity to Dean on the substantive due‑process claim.
- On appeal the Tenth Circuit dismissed plaintiffs’ cross-appeal for lack of pendent jurisdiction and reversed the denial of qualified immunity, holding Dean entitled to qualified immunity on the substantive due‑process claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dean entitled to qualified immunity for alleged substantive due‑process violation | Dean violated a clearly established federal right by failing to set CBA‑level rates per the 2009 Amendments | Dean had discretionary authority; no clearly established federal law put him on notice that his conduct violated due process | Court: Qualified immunity applies; plaintiffs failed to show clearly established federal law violated |
| Whether the duty to set CBA‑based rates was ministerial (no immunity) or discretionary (immunity available) | State supreme court called the duty "mandatory, nondiscretionary" — so qualified immunity should not apply | Interpreting and implementing the statute involved discretion (method, aggregation, timing), so duty was discretionary for federal immunity purposes | Court: Duty was discretionary under federal qualified‑immunity analysis; immunity available |
| Whether plaintiffs’ cross‑appeal (dismissal of secretary and procedural due‑process claim) is reviewable via pendent appellate jurisdiction | Cross‑appeal should be heard along with Dean’s appeal | Not argued in detail by plaintiffs; court skeptical given qualified immunity context | Court: Dismissed cross‑appeal for lack of jurisdiction; pendent jurisdiction inappropriate here |
| Whether violation of state law alone establishes a clearly established federal violation | State statutory language clearly required CBA rates, so violation of state law equals clearly established federal right | Violation of state law does not automatically establish a clearly established federal constitutional violation | Court: State‑law error does not automatically create clearly established federal law; plaintiffs must identify federal precedent or weight of authority — they did not |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (federal pleading and qualified immunity context)
- Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 (ministerial‑duty exception to qualified immunity is narrow)
- Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148 (qualified immunity requires clearly established law — cited as general rule)
- Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305 (need for specificity in clearly established law)
- Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765 (focus on the reasonableness of official action in context)
- Cox v. Glanz, 800 F.3d 1231 (limits on pendent appellate jurisdiction in qualified immunity appeals)
- Brown v. Montoya, 662 F.3d 1152 (procedural posture and standards for reviewing denial of qualified immunity)