Latreille v. Gross, 701 F. App'x 74

Plaintiff Nicole S. Latreille, a county employee, disclosed public-assistance records to law enforcement and was disciplined by Orange County officials Steve Gross and Darcie Miller.
Defendants moved for summary judgment asserting qualified immunity from First Amendment retaliation claims based on Latreille’s alleged disclosures being within her job duties.
The district court denied the motion in part, concluding there were disputed factual questions about whether Latreille’s investigative disclosures were within her official responsibilities.
Defendants filed an interlocutory appeal challenging the denial of qualified immunity.
The Second Circuit reviewed whether it had jurisdiction to hear the interlocutory appeal, given the record disputes and the requirement that appeals from qualified-immunity denials be based on undisputed or assumed facts favoring the non-movant.
The court found the defendants did not proceed on the facts as alleged by Latreille and that the district court had found her conduct was outside her official duties, so the appellate court lacked jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether this Court has jurisdiction to review denial of qualified immunity on interlocutory appeal	Latreille argued factual disputes exist; her disclosures were outside job duties	Gross & Miller argued disclosures were within her professional responsibilities (so immunity applies)	Dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction because defendants did not limit their appeal to the facts alleged by Latreille and the denial turned on disputed facts
Whether Latreille’s disclosures were within the scope of her official duties (affecting First Amendment protection)	Disclosures were outside her job duties and thus protected speech	Disclosures were within scope of duties, so not protected and officials entitled to immunity	Court could not resolve on interlocutory appeal because the district court found and record supported that disclosures were outside duties; jurisdiction lacking

Golodner v. Berliner, 770 F.3d 196 (2d Cir. 2014) (standard of review for denial of qualified immunity)
Walczyk v. Rio, 496 F.3d 139 (2d Cir. 2007) (interlocutory appeals of summary-judgment denials generally lack jurisdiction; exception for purely legal immunity questions)
Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985) (qualified immunity interlocutory appeal framework)
Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304 (1995) (no review where denial turns on disputed factual issues)
Ricciuti v. Gyzenis, 834 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2016) (defendants must proceed on non-movant’s facts to appeal immunity denial)
White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548 (2017) (facts viewed in light most favorable to non-movant for qualified immunity analysis)

Accordingly, the Second Circuit dismissed the interlocutory appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.