Lorie Potter v. The Estate of Lucius Van Peavy
712 F. App'x 953
11th Cir.2017Background
- Lorie Potter (plaintiff) alleged two constitutional claims after employment actions: racial discrimination in promotion (against Don Williford, individually) and First Amendment retaliation for political association (against Sheriff Lucius Van Peavy’s Estate).
- Potter applied for a full-time EMT position and was passed over in favor of Woodson; Williford cited other EMTs’ negative impressions of Potter.
- Williford made remarks about diversifying the department and hiring a Hispanic EMT later, which Potter argued showed racial motivation.
- Potter supported a political challenger to Van Peavy; Van Peavy subsequently banned her from the Law Enforcement Center after an alleged workplace incident.
- Potter produced evidence that another EMT allegedly engaged in the same conduct as she did in the incident report but was not banned, suggesting pretext for the ban and a retaliatory motive.
- The district court denied summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds for both defendants; the Eleventh Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Williford violated Potter’s Equal Protection right (race discrimination) and is entitled to qualified immunity | Potter: She was objectively qualified, was rejected despite qualifications, and Williford’s stated reasons were pretextual (diversification remarks show race played a role) | Williford: Potter was unqualified due to poor relationships with coworkers; decision was non-discriminatory and discretionary | Court: Genuine disputes of material fact exist; Potter established a prima facie case and pretext; right clearly established → no qualified immunity for Williford |
| Whether Van Peavy retaliated against Potter for political association and is entitled to qualified immunity | Potter: Her support for a political rival was protected speech; the ban created a deterrent workplace effect and the stated justification was pretextual (similarly situated employee not banned) | Van Peavy: The ban was based on inappropriate workplace behavior, not retaliation; discretionary act deserving immunity | Court: Material factual disputes support retaliation elements (protected activity, deterrent effect, causation); right clearly established → no qualified immunity for Van Peavy |
Key Cases Cited
- Sherrod v. Johnson, 667 F.3d 1359 (11th Cir. 2012) (standard for reviewing qualified immunity denials at summary judgment)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (two-step qualified immunity framework)
- Smith v. Lomax, 45 F.3d 402 (11th Cir. 1995) (Equal Protection protects public employees from race discrimination)
- Bryant v. Jones, 575 F.3d 1281 (11th Cir. 2009) (Equal Protection discrimination analyzed like Title VII/§ 1981 claims)
- Carter v. Three Springs Residential Treatment, 132 F.3d 635 (11th Cir. 1998) (prima facie promotion-discrimination framework)
- Vessels v. Atlanta Indep. Sch. Sys., 408 F.3d 763 (11th Cir. 2005) (subjective evaluations cannot establish objective qualification element)
- Bennett v. Hendrix, 423 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir. 2005) (First Amendment retaliation elements and deterrence standard)