Stephanie J. Bond v. Michael R. Atkinson
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 17815
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Bond survived a triple shooting by her husband who then killed himself; suit against police and officials for failing to enforce a protective order and to confiscate guns.
- Complaint frames claim under 42 U.S.C. §1983 as sex discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause, not a due-process claim.
- District court denied defendants’ qualified-immunity defense; magistrate recommended denial, district court adopted, and defendants appealed under Mitchell v. Forsyth.
- Court analyzes whether the complaint plausibly alleges sex discrimination and whether disparate-impact theory applies in §1983 actions.
- Court compares theory to Feeney and Arlington Heights to determine if intent or discriminatory purpose is pleaded or proven.
- Court ultimately vacates and remands to allow Bond to re-plead with a proper theory, clarifying standards for alleging discrimination and future discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Bond allege plausible sex-discrimination under §1983? | Bond alleges κρα discriminatory enforcement harms women. | Defendants contend no plausible discriminatory intent shown. | No plausible sex-discrimination claim stated; remand allowed. |
| Does Bond's theory rest on disparate impact or disparate treatment? | Disparate impact on women from enforcement priorities. | Disparate-impact doctrine does not violate equal protection in this context. | Disparate-impact theory not established; requires intentional discrimination. |
| Can Bond proceed despite qualified-immunity concerns? | Claim should proceed if discrimination shown. | Qualified immunity may bar claims absent clear unlawful conduct. | Court vacates and remands for potential repleading with proper evidence. |
| Should the court adopt Feeney/Arlington Heights framework? | Disparate-impact evidence could show intent. | Need explicit intent; impact alone insufficient. | Feeney/Arlington Heights framework applied; intent required. |
| What is the course on remand and discovery? | Bond should be allowed discovery to prove sex discrimination. | Discovery must meet Armstrong standard; allegations must be plausible. | Remand with guidance on evidence standard and possible discovery. |
Key Cases Cited
- Feeney v. Massachusetts, 442 U.S. 256 (U.S. 1979) (intent required; discriminatory impact alone not enough)
- Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (U.S. 1976) (discriminatory intent essential; disparate impact not enough)
- Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (U.S. 1977) (impact helps infer intent but not suffice without intent)
- Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (U.S. 2005) (due process not satisfied by mere failure to act)
- DeShaney v. Winnebago County DSS, 489 U.S. 189 (U.S. 1989) (state not obligated to protect residents as a general rule)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard for pleading claims)