FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT A U G U ST 10, 2007 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 10474 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 06 -008 58 -C V -B E -S A N D R E L A W S O N , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s S H E R I F F C H R I S C U R R Y , in h is p e r s o n a l a n d o f

f ic ia l c ap a c ity , C A P T A I N M I K U L S M I T H E R M A N , in h is p e r s o n a l a n d o f

f ic ia l c ap a c ity , D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lla n ts .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e rn D i s tr i c to f A l ab a ma

_________________________ ( A u gu s t 10, 2007) B efo re B A R K E T T , W IL S O N an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es.Cur ry and Smitherm an also a pp e ale d the dis tric t c ourt ’s denial of the ir motion to dismiss 1 Count VIof L awso n ’s am ended c omplaint. While we have jurisdiction to consider the qualified immunity issues presented as to Count I , we previously declined to ex erc ise discretionar y pendant jurisdiction over the issues pre sented a s to Count VI , and, ac cording ly , dismi s s ed that part of the appeal. Curry

and Smitherman’s re quest that we reconsider this earlier dismissal is DENIED. This caseis capti o n edwith “AndreL awson”as the plaintiff be causeplaintiff’s counse l 2 mis sp e lle d And

re a L aws on ’snamein t

hec a pti on of her initial c omp laint . 2 P E R C U R I A M: S heri ff C hri s C urryand C apt ai n M i ku l S m i therm an appeal the di stri ct c our t ’ s de ni a l of

the i rF e d. R . C i v. P . 12( b) ( 6) m ot i on t o di s m i s s , on the ba s i s of qua l i f i e d i m m uni ty , C ountI of A ndr e a L a w s on’ s a m e nde d c om pl a i nt . T hi s c ount 1 2 w a s b r o u g h ta g a i n s tth e m i n th e i ri n d i v i d u a l c ap a c i t i e s p u r s u a n tt o 4 2 U . S. C. § 1983, a nd r e l a t e d t o a l l e ge d a c t i ons t a ke n a ga i ns tL a w s on by C urry a nd S m i the rm a n i n the i rs upe rvi s ory r ol e s a tthe S he l by C ounty j a i l , w he r e L a w s on w a s e m pl oy e d. I n he ri ni t i a l s i x- c ountc om pl a i nt , L a w s on, abl a c k f e m a l e , m a de ava r i e ty of fa ctual and l egal al l egat i on s c ent er i ng ar ou nd the cont ent i on thatshe had been ha r a s s e d, di s c i pl i ne d, a nd ul t i m a t e l y t e rm i na t e d be c aus e s he da t e d w hi t e m e n a nd b e c a m e p r e g n a n t b y aw h ite m a n . C u rry a n d S m ith e rm a n , w h o a r e b o th w h ite m a le s , in itia lly r e s p o n d e d to th e c o m p la in t w ith am o tio n f o ram o r e d e f

in ite s t a t e m e nt , w hi c h the di s tr i c tc our tgr a nt e d. I n he ra m e nde d c om pl a i nt , L a w s on a d d e d m a te r ia l in r e s p o n s e to th e p r im a ry d e f ic ie n c ie s n o te d b y th e d is tr ic t c o u r t,Cur ry and Smitherm an als o appe ale d thedis tric t c ourt ’sdenial of the ir motion to dismiss 3 Count VIof L awson’s a

mended c omplaint. Whil e we h ave jurisdiction to consider the qualified immunity issues presented as to C ount I , we declined to exercise discretionary pendant jurisdiction ov er t heissue s p re sented as toCount VI , a nd dis mis se d th ea

pp e al of thedenial of

themotion

to dis mis s that count . Cur

ry and Smitherm an’ s re qu e st t

hat w ere c on sider t

hise arl ier dismiss al is DENIED. 3 de t a i l i ng i n he rf

a c tua l a l l e ga t i ons w hi c h de f e nda ntha d t a ke n w hi c h of the a c t i ons c om pl a i ne d of

a nd r e m ovi ng l a ngua ge f r om the f i na l f i ve c ount s of

the c om pl a i nt thati ncorpo ra t ed everypri or coun ti nt o eac h sub se qu enton e. C urry a nd S m i the rm a n m ove d t o di s m i s s a l l s i x of L a w s on’ s c ount s , a nd the di stri ctcourtgrant ed the m ot i on as t o three coun t s a nd deni ed i tas t o three . B ef ore u s n o w i s th e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s d en i al o f C u rry an d S m i th erm an ’ s m o t i o n t o d i sm i ss C ountI , a ga i ns tw hi c h the y a s s e r t e d qua l i f i e d i m m uni ty . T he di s tr i c tc our tf ound 3 th a t L a w s o n h a d s u f

f ic ie n tly a lle g e d th r e e c la im s o f th e v io la tio n o f

c le a r ly e s t abl i s he d f

e de r a l r i ght s : ( 1) the r i ghtt o be f r e e f r om r a c i a l di s c r i m i na t i on; (2) f re edom of as soci at i on un der the F i rs tA m endm ent ; and (3) the ri gh tt o b e f re e of s e x di s c r i m i na t i on. O n app ea l , C urryand S m i therm an ar gu e thatthey w er e e nt i t l ed t o d i sm i ss al of C ountI of

L a w s on’ s a m e nde d c om pl a i ntbe c aus e i tf a i l e d t o c om pl y w i th our h ei g h t en ed p l ead i n g req u i rem en t s fo r 4 2 U . S . C . § 1 9 8 3 act i o n s b ro u g h tag ai n st defe nd ant s w ho ca n cl ai m qu al i fi ed i m m un i ty. “ T he det erm i nat i on of w hether a com pl ai ntsuff

i ci ent l y s t at es a c l ai m i s am att erof l aw thatw e r evi ew de no vo . In4

so do i ng , w e use the sa m e s t andard as the di stri ctcourt , ac ce pt i ng al l al l egat i on s a s true a nd c ons trui ng f

a c t s i n al i ghtm os tf

a vor abl e t o the pl a i nt i f

f . ” G J R I nvs . v. C ou nty of E sc am bi a, 13 2 F . 3d 13 59 , 13 67 (11th C i r. 19 98 ). F e d. R . C i v. P . 8( a ) r e qui r e s onl y tha tac l a i m f orr e l i e f s e tout“ as hor ta nd p lain statem en t o f th e g ro u n d s u p o n w h ich th e c o u rt’s ju risd icti o n d ep en d s,” “a sh o rt an d p lain statem en t sh o w in g th at th e p lead eris en ti tl ed to re li ef ,” an d “a d e m a n d f

o rju d g m e n t f

o rth e r e lie f

th e p le a d e rs e e k s .” F e d .R .C iv .P . 8 ( a ) . H ow e ve r , w e appl y ahe i ght e ne d pl e a di ng s t a nda r d t o § 1983 a c t i ons br ought a ga i ns ti ndi vi dua l s t o w hom qua l i f i e d i m m uni ty i s a va i l abl e a s ade f e ns e . S w a nn v . S . H e a lth P a r tn e r s , I n c ., 3 8 8 F .3 d 8 3 4 , 8 3 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) . “[ W ]h ile F e d .R .C iv .P . 8 a llo w s ap la in tif f c o n s id e r ab le le e w a y in f r a m in g its c o m p la in t, th is c ir c u it, a lo n g w ith o th e r s , h a s tig h te n e d th e ap p lic a tio n o f R u le 8 w ith r e s p e c t to § 1 9 8 3 c a s e s in a n e f

f o r t to w e e d o u t n o n m e r ito r io u s c la im s , r e q u ir in g th a t a § 1 98 3 p l ai nt i ff

al l ege w i th som e s peci fi ci ty the fa ct s w hi ch m ake outi t s c l ai m . ” G J R I n v s ., 1 3 2 F .3 d a t 1 3 6 7 . “S o m e f a c tu a l d e ta il in th e p le a d in g s is n e c e s s a ry to the a dj udi c a t i on of

§ 1983 c l a i m s . ” I d.

“ U nde rthe qua l i f

i e d i m m uni ty doc tr i ne , gove rnm e ntof f i c i a l s pe r f

orm i ng di s c r e t i ona ry f

unc t i ons a r e i m m une notj us tf r om l i abi l i ty , butf

r om s ui t , unl e s s the cond uctw hi ch i s the basi s f or sui tvi ol at es ‘ cl ea rl y e st abl i shed [f eder al ] st atut ory5

or const i tut i on al ri gh t s of w hi ch a r ea sonabl e per son w ou l d h ave kno w n. ’ ” I d. at 1366 ( quot i ng H a r l ow v. F i t z ge r a l d, 457 U . S . 800, 818, 102 S . C t . 2727, 2738, 73 L . E d. 2d 39 6 (19 82 )) (a l t er at i on i n o ri gi nal ).

“ A tthi s s t a ge i n the pr oc e e di ngs , the qua l i f i e d i m m uni ty i nqui ry a nd the R u le 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) s ta n d a r d b e c o m e in te r tw in e d . T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t h a s h e ld th a t a

‘ ne c e s s a ry c onc om i t a nt ’ t o the que s t i on of w he the rapl a i nt i f

f ha s a l l e ge d a vi ol a t i on of

ac l e a r l y e s t abl i s he d f

e de r a l r i ghti s ‘ the de t e rm i na t i on of w he the rthe pl ai nt i ff has a ss ert ed a vi ol at i on of a c on st i tut i on al ri gh tatal l . ’ If a pl ai nt i ff

has no tsuff i ci ent l y a l l eged a vi ol at i on of any c on st i tut i on al ri gh t , i ti s a xi om at i c that the pl a i nt i f

f l i ke w i s e ha s f

a i l e d t o a l l e ge the vi ol a t i on of a‘ c l e a r l y e s t abl i s he d’ ri gh t . ” G JR Invs. , 13 2 F . 3d at13 66 -67 (ci t at i on s om i tt ed).

“ Iti s bey on d d ou bt ” thatthere i s afe dera l equal prot ec t i on ri gh tt o b e f re e f r om r a c i a l di s c r i m i na t i on, tha tthi s r i ghti s c l e a r l y e s t abl i s he d, a nd tha ti te xt e nds i nt o the e m pl oy m e ntc ont e xt . B r ow n v. C i ty of F or tL aude r da l e , 923 F . 2d 1474, 1 4 7 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ) . “[ A ] p la in tif f m u s t s h o w ap u rp o s e o rin te n t to d is c r im in a te i n p rovi ng an equal prot ec t i on vi ol at i on base d o n rac i al di sc ri m i nat i on . ” I d. at 14 79 n. 8. D i sc ri m i nat i on base d o n i nt erra ci al re l at i on shi ps const i tut es d is c r im in a tio n b a s e d o n r a c e . L o v in g v . V ir g in ia , 3 8 8 U .S . 1 , 1 0 - 1 1 , 8 7 S .C t. 1 8 1 7 , 1 8 2 3 , 1 8 L .E d .2 d 1 0 1 0 (1 9 6 7 ). T h e F irst A m en d m en t p ro tects a p er so n ’s6

ri gh tt o “ i nt i m at e a ss oci at i on , ” w hi ch encom pass es , am on g o ther thi ng s, pers on al r e l a t i ons hi ps r e l a t i ng t o the c r e a t i on of f a m i l i e s . C um m i ngs v. D e K a l b C ounty , 24 F . 3d 13 49 , 13 54 (11th C i r. 19 94 ). A dd i t i on al l y, si nce a tl ea st19 79 , i thas bee n es t abl i shed thatthere i s afe dera l equal prot ec t i on ri gh tt o b e f re e f rom i nt ent i on al se x d i sc ri m i nat i on i n p ub l i c e m pl oym ent . S ni der v. Je ff er son S t at e C m ty. C ol l ege, 344 F . 3d 1325, 1331 ( 11th C i r . 2003) . A pl a i nt i f f c l a i m i ng a n e qua l pr ot e c t i on vi ol at i on base d o n sex di sc ri m i nat i on m ustshow thatthe di sc ri m i nat i on w as purpos e f ul . P e r s . A dm ’ rof

M a s s . v. F e e ne y , 442 U . S . 256, 272- 74, 99 S . C t . 2282, 2 2 9 2 - 9 3 , 6 0 L .E d .2 d 8 7 0 ( 1 9 7 9 ) . A f te rc a r e f u l c o n s id e r a tio n , w e f

in d th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t e rrin f i ndi ng tha tL a w s on ha d a de qua t e l y pl e d he rc l a i m s of r a c i a l di s c r i m i na t i on a nd fr ee do m of as soci at i on , and thather c om pl ai nthad com pl i ed w i th the hei gh t ened pl e a di ng r e qui r e m e nt s w i th r e ga r d t o thos e c l a i m s . L a w s on’ s c l a i m s of c l a i m s of r a c ia l d is c r im in a tio n a n df r e e d o m o f

a s s o c ia tio n , w e f

in d th a t h e rc o m p la in t m e e ts the pl ea di ng re qu i re m ent s bec ause (1) i tadvances r ea di l y i nt el l i gi bl e l egal a r gum e nt s tha tC urry a nd S m i the rm a n vi ol a t e d L a w s on’ s r i ght s t o f r e e dom of a s s o c ia tio n a n d to b e f

r e e f r o m r a c ia l d is c r im in a tio n ; a n d ( 2 ) p le a d s s p e c if ic f a c ts to s u p p o r t th e s e c la im s , in c lu d in g f a c ts ab o u t e a c h d e f

e n d a n t’s p a r tic u la rc o n d u c t. S ee G JR Invs. , 13 2 F . 3d at13 66 -67. L aw son’ s c om pl ai ntal l eges thatshe w as7

hara ss ed, di sc i pl i ned, and u l t i m at el y t erm i nat ed for bei ng i nv ol ved i n i nt erra ci al r e l a t i ons hi ps a nd f

orbe i ng pr e gna ntw i th a n i nt e rr a c i a l c hi l d. H e ra l l e ga t i ons of f a c ti n s uppor tof

the s e c l a i m s i nc l ude as pe c i f i c i ns t a nc e of

ha r a s s m e ntby S m i the rm a n, othe ri ns t a nc e s of ha r a s s m e ntby othe rj a i l e m pl oy e e s w ho w e r e the de f e nda nt s ’ s ubor di na t e s , as pe c i f i c i ns t a nc e of

L a w s on be i ng putthr ough di sc i pl i naryprocedures f or an act i on i tw as no teven al l eged thatshe w as i nv ol ved w i th, a s peci fi c i nst ance of L aw son b ei ng si ng l ed ou tfor di sc i pl i ne because of her r a c e , s p e c if

ic c o m p la in ts to C u rry a n d S m ith e rm a n ab o u t th e a c tio n s , a n d s p e c if ic fa ct s abo uther f

i ri ng , such as C urry ’ s i nt er fe re nce i n the process , the offi ci al r e a s o n s h e w a s te rm in a te d , a n d w h y th a t r e a s o n w a s a lle g e d ly p r e te x tu a l. A c c or di ngl y , w i th r e ga r ds t o he rc l a i m s r e l a t i ng t o r a c i a l di s c r i m i na t i on a nd f r e e dom of

a s s oc i a t i on, L a w s on ha s m e tthe he i ght e ne d pl e a di ng r e qui r e m e nt s f or a§ 1983 a c t i on a nd the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l of the m ot i on t o di s m i s s ba s e d on qua l i f i e d i m m uni ty i s due t o be a f f i rm e d. H ow ever , the di stri ctcourtdi d erri n i t s det erm i nat i on thatL aw son h ad s uf f i c i e nt l y a l l e ge d ac l a i m of s e x di s c r i m i na t i on i n C ountI . N ow he r e i n the fa ctual al l egat i on s or i n C ou ntI of the am ended com pl ai ntdi d L aw son m ake a l e ga l a l l e ga t i on tha ts he w a s di s c r i m i na t e d a ga i ns ton the ba s i s of s e x orm a ke a ny f a c tu a l a s s e r tio n ab o u t a n y a c tio n b e in g ta k e n a g a in s t h e ro n a c c o u n t o f h e rs e x .8

S ee F ee ney, 44 2 U . S . at27 2-74 , 99 S . C t . at22 92 -93 (re qu i ri ng pu rposef ul , ra ther tha n i nc i de nt a l , s e x di s c r i m i na t i on f ora n e qua l pr ot e c t i on vi ol a t i on t o ha ve o ccu rred ). T h e o n l y o b l i q u e referen ce t o sex d i scri m i n at i o n i n L aw o n ’ s b ri ef i s a r e f e r e n c e to p r e g n a n c y d is c r im in a tio n , b u t th is a lo n e is n o t e n o u g h to r a is e ac la im o f s e x d i s c r i mi n a t i o n . Se e Br a y v . A l e x a n d r i aW o me n ’ s H e a l th Cl i n i c , 5 0 6 U . S. 263, 271- 72, 113 S . C t . 753, 760- 61, 122 L . E d. 2d 34 ( 1993) ( not i ng tha t , unde rthe E qua l P r ot e c t i on C l aus e of the F our t e e nth A m e ndm e nt , di s t i nc t i ons ba s e d on pregnancy do n oti pso fac t o con st i tut e di sc ri m i nat i on base d o n sex). G i ven the l ac k of a ny m or e s pe c i f

i c r e f e r e nc e s t o s e x di s c r i m i na t i on i n the c om pl a i nt , w e c a nnot f in d th a t L a w s o n h a s m e t th e ap p lic ab le h e ig h te n e d p le a d in g r e q u ir e m e n ts w h e n it c o me s t o h e rs e x d i s c r i mi n a t i o n c l a i m. A c c or di ngl y , w e A F F I R M the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s f i ndi ng tha tL a w s on m e tthe he i ght e ne d pl e a di ng r e qui r e m e nt s f ora§ 1983 a c t i on a nd i t s de ni a l of C urry a nd S m ith e rm a n ’s m o tio n to d is m is s C o u n t I o f L a w s o n ’s a m e n d e d c o m p la in t a s to L a ws o n ’ s r a c i a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n a n d f r e e d o m o f

a s s o c i a t i o n c l a i m s . Ho we v e r , we V A C A T E the di stri ctcourt ’ s ordert o the ext entthati tal l ow ed L aw son t o p roce ed a ga i ns tC urry a nd S m i the rm a n on C ountI w i th ac l a i m of s e x di s c r i m i na t i on. A FFI R M ED I N PA R T; VA C A TED I N PA R T; R EM A N D ED W I TH I N STR U C TI O N S.