Mead v. Independence Association
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 14202
| 1st Cir. | 2012Background
- Mead was IA's administrator for fifteen facilities; IA is a private entity licensed by DHHS.
- DHHS issued a Statement of Deficiencies and a DHHS Plan directing Mead's replacement as Goldeneye administrator.
- IA conducted its own investigation and terminated Mead on May 4, 2009, citing the DHHS materials and poor rapport with IA's president.
- Mead requested a board hearing, which IA denied; Mead later sought federal relief under §1983 for procedural due process violations.
- District Court dismissed Mead's §1983 claims against IA as non-state action and against DHHS employees for lack of a constitutional violation; state-law claims dismissed without prejudice.
- Mead appealed; the First Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is IA a state actor for §1983 purposes? | Mead claims DHHS compelled IA to fire her. | IA's termination was IA's independent decision, not state action. | IA not a state actor; no §1983 liability. |
| Did the DHHS employees deprive Mead of due process? | DHHS Statement/Plan and actions deprived her of property and reputation with a need for hearing. | No direct state action to fire Mead; due process not triggered. | No protected liberty interest deprived; no name-clearing hearing required. |
| Did Mead's stigma plus claim survive on any of the proposed 'plus' theories? | DHHS stigma plus could include loss of IA job, de facto license, or future employment prospects. | Plus factors do not attach given private IA employment and no de facto licensing or statutory barriers. | No viable stigma plus claim; penalties were not government benefits or statutory impediments. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922 (1982) (state action requires coercive power or significant encouragement)
- Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991 (1982) (state action via coercive or significant encouragement of private action)
- Pendleton v. City of Haverhill, 156 F.3d 57 (1st Cir. 1998) (stigma plus requires a direct link between defamation and termination)
- Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226 (1991) (improper to recover future employment damages in a Bivens action)
- URI Student Senate v. Town of Narragansett, 631 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2011) (stigma plus requires direct adverse effect on a protected right)
- Estades-Negroni v. CPC Hosp. San Juan Capestrano, 412 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2005) (outline of when private actors may be state actors)
- Alberto San, Inc. v. Consejo de Titulares del Condominio San Alberto, 522 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2008) (state action analysis in private-party conduct)
- Flagg Bros. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149 (1980) (private party actions under color of state law considerations)
- Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (1976) (defamation alone does not implicate due process)