Jones v. McNeese
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92746
D. Neb.2012Background
- Dr. McNeese, a state official, removed plaintiff Bernard Jones and his two businesses from the voucher-provider list in June 2009.
- Jones previously worked as a Department of Corrections substance abuse counselor; his businesses relied heavily on voucher payments from the Department.
- Healing Circle Recovery Community, Inc. and Alcohol and Drug Counseling Services, LLC (ADCS) were de-listed, eliminating their ability to provide treatment to offenders under voucher contracts.
- First Step, owned by McNeese’s wife, previously held a sole-provider contract after Jones and his entities were removed; McNeese resigned shortly after the controversy.
- Jones and the corporations claim race discrimination under §1981 and deprivation of due process rights under §1983, seeking damages and restoration of provider status.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to sue under Article III and prudential limits | Jones and corporations have injuries in fact. | McNeese challenged standing or may waive prudential concerns. | Court finds standing for both Jones and corporations; prudential standing not bar to relief. |
| Qualified immunity for Dr. McNeese | Evidence could show a constitutional violation that was clearly established. | Qualified immunity shields if rights were not clearly established. | Right to be free from race discrimination and liberty in reputation were clearly established; genuine factual disputes prevent summary judgment on immunity. |
| Race discrimination under §1981 and §1983 | Jones and entities suffered discriminatory action targeting race; protected activity affected contracts. | Actions justified by concerns about HIPAA and others; no discriminatory intent established. | Evidence could support discriminatory intent and protected activity; summary judgment on immunity denied. |
| Liberty interest and due process—name-clearing/ stigma | Publication of stigmatizing accusations harmed reputation and livelihood; right to name-clearing hearing implicated. | Stigma alone is insufficient without deprivation of a protectable interest; due process not violated. | Evidence could show stigma and loss of livelihood; due process right to name-clearing may be implicated. |
| Parties to the case and standing of entities (ADCS/Healing Circle) | Corporations closely associated with Jones; under certain theories, piercing the corporate veil or alter-ego theory supports maintaining the suit; Jones as logical plaintiff given defunct corporate status. |
Key Cases Cited
- Domino’s Pizza, Inc. v. McDonald, 546 U.S. 470 (U.S. 2006) (corporate/contract standing; impairment must flow from the contractual relationship)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (U.S. 2001) (original order of qualified-immunity inquiry; framework for analyzing rights and clearly established law)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (U.S. 2009) (reconsideration of Saucier; not mandatory to follow order of questions)
- Reichle v. Howards, 132 S. Ct. 2088 (S. Ct. 2012) (clarifies scope of qualified immunity and clearly established rights)
- Winegar v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 20 F.3d 895 (8th Cir. 1994) (publication of stigmatizing accusations can implicate due process liberty interest)