# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 2- 26 96

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Bern ard Jo ne s; Alco ho l an d Dru g C ou ns el in g S erv ic es , LLC; Heal in g C irc le

Rec ov ery Co m

m un it y , Inc

.

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff s - Ap pe ll ees

v.

Ri ck McNee se , Dr., Nebra sk a Dep art m en t o f Co rrec ti on al Serv ic es , Ass is ta nt
Adm in is tra to r of

Beh av io ral Heal th -Su bs ta nc e Abu se , Ind iv id ua ll y

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __

App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t
fo r th e Dis tri ct of Ne br as ka – Li nc ol n

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: May 16, 2 01 3

Fil ed : M arch 26 , 20 14

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re SHEPHERD, BEAM, an d M ELLOY, Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ MELLOY, Circu it Ju dg e.

Thi s 42 U.S.C. §§ 19 81 an d 19 83 la wsu it is be fo re th e Co ur t on in te rlo cu to ry

ap pe al fo r a se co nd ti m e aft er we rem an de d th e cas e fo r an ad di ti on al co ns id erat io n

of th e de fen da nt 's cl ai m to qu al ifi ed im m un i t y. Th e di st ric t co ur t de te rm in ed onrem an d t ha t t he de fen da nt is no t en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y on an y gro un d. We

rev ers e.

I. Back gr ou nd

A. Fact s

Bern ard Jo ne s, who is Afri can Am eri can , was em pl oyed as a su bs ta nc e-ab us e

co un se lo r by th e Neb ras ka Dep art m en t of Co rrec ti on al Serv ic es (NDOC) fro m 19 91

to 20 07

. W hi le on in

jury le av e fro m h is job at NDOC in 19 98 an d 19 99

, Jo ne s

co m pl et ed a pr act ic um at Fi rs t St ep Rec ov ery, In c. ("F irs t St ep "), a pr iv at el y own ed

su bs ta nc e-ab us e reh ab il it at io n faci li ty th at co or di na te s wit h th e St at e of Neb ras ka to

pr ov id e tr eat m en t s erv ic es to pe rs on s o n p ro ba ti on an d par ol e. Fir st Ste p i s wh ol ly

own ed by Dian ne McNe es e, Dr. R i c h a r d McNe es e's ("Dr. McNe es e") wife

. Dr.

McNe es e was Ass is ta nt Adm in is t rat or of Beh av io ral Heal th –S ub st an ce Abu se at

N DOC fro m Ju ly 20 05 un ti l he res ig ne d in Octo be r 20 09

. Dur in g hi s Ass is ta n t

Adm in is tra to r te nu re, Dr. McNe es e al so wor ke d as a co ns ul ti ng ps y ch ol og is t at Fi rs t

St ep

.

W he n Jo ne s co m

p l e t ed hi s pr act ic um in 19 99

, Dr. McNe es e of fere d to hi re

Jo ne s to wor k pa rt- ti m e at Fi rs t St ep in ad di ti on to wor ki ng at NDOC. Jo ne s de cl in ed

Dr. McNe es e's of

fer be cau se h e p erce iv ed it to be raci al ly m ot iv at ed

. Sp eci fic al ly,

Jo ne s t es ti fie d th at Dr. McNe es e wan te d to hi re hi m at Fi rs t St ep to "wo rk wit h t he

m in or it ie s, in pa rti cu la r th e bl ack s," so th at Jo ne s co ul d "at tra ct m or e bl ack cl ie nt s

. . . be cau se th at 's a rev en ue so ur ce t ha t [Dr. M cNees e] [want ed ] to ge t."

In 20 0 0

, Dr. McNe es e ag ai n ap pr oa ch ed Jo ne s ab ou t wor ki ng pa rt- ti m e fo r

Fi rs t St ep . This ti m e, Dr. McNee se to ld Jo ne s th at he co ul d work fo r Fi rs t St ep bu t

pr act ic e at an ot he r su bs ta nc e-ab us e tre at m en t faci li ty, Ant le rs , whi ch ha d pa rtn ered

wit h Fi rs t St ep in bi dd in g on a $1 4 m il li on fed eral co nt ract

. Jo ne s acce pt ed th e of fer

-2

-to wor k fo r Fi r s t St ep by way of Ant le rs be cau se he wou ld ha ve th e op po rtu ni ty to

wor k al on gs id e Ro n Nam ut h, th e own er of Ant le rs an d a pe rs on who m Jo ne s

de sc rib ed as a "g reat co un se lo r" an d pe rcei ve d as ha vi ng a "t rem en do us rep ut at io n."

Bet ween si x an d ni ne m on th s aft er Jo ne s st art ed wor ki ng at Ant le rs , Dr.

McNe es e an d Nam

ut h ha d wha t Jo ne s ch arac te riz ed as a "fa ll in g ou t." At th at ti m e,

Nam ut h of fere d to bu y ou t Jo ne s's co nt ract as an in de pe nd en t co nt ract or wit h Fi rs t

St ep if Jo ne s ag reed to wor k fo r Ant le rs an d ceas e affi li at in g with Fi rs t Step

. Jo ne s

acce pt ed Nam

ut h's of fer, cu t al l ti es wit h Fi rs t St ep , an d co nt in ue d wor ki ng at 1

Ant le rs un ti l J an ua ry

20 08

.

Thro ug ho ut Jo ne s's pa rt- ti m e em pl oym en t wi th Fi rs t St ep an d An tl ers , Jo ne s

co nt in ue d wor ki ng fu ll -ti m e at NDOC un ti l he r e t i r e d i n 20 07

. In 20 05 or 20 06

, Jo ne s ap pr oa ch ed Dr. McNe es e ab ou t a co nc ep t th at Jo ne s was pu rs ui ng cal le d

"Hea li ng Ci rcl e Rec ov ery Co m m un it y ." Jo ne s in te nd ed to op erat e Heal i n g Ci rcl e

2

as a tre at m en t cen te r whi le em pl oyed at NDOC, bu t te st ifi ed in hi s de po si ti on th at Dr.

McNe es e to ld hi m th at he wou ld be fir ed fro m NDOC if he di d so

. Dr. McNe es e

de ni es m ak in g an y su ch st at e men t

, b u t ad m it s th at he an d two ot he r NDOC

em pl oyees— on e Cau cas ia n an d th e ot he r Pak is ta ni —wo rk ed at Fi rs t St ep whi le st il l

em pl oyed by NDOC. Jo ne s su bs eq ue nt ly ap pr oa ch ed NDOC Dep ut y Dire ct or Larry

W ay ne —wh o at al l ti m es oc cu pi ed a p o s i ti on in NDOC s up eri or to bo th Jo ne s an d

Dr. McNe es e—t o di sc us s hi s pro po sa l to pe rfo rm pa rt- ti m e wor k ou ts id e of NDOC

at Heal in g Ci rcl e. W ay ne di rect ed Jo ne s to as k th e NDOC le ga l de pa rtment if th ere

J o n e s t es ti fie d th at du rin g th e ti m e he was affi li at ed wit h Fi rs t St ep bu t 1

wor ki ng at th e Ant le rs faci li ty, "t he on ly inv ol ve m en t [h e] had wit h M cNees e" was
th at Dr. McNee se pa id hi m

.

Jo ne s in co rp or at ed Heal in g Ci rcl e Rec ov ery Co m m un it y , In c. ("He al in g 2

Ci rcl e") in 20 04

, bu t di d no t fu rth er pu rs ue op erat in g Heal in g Ci rcl e un ti l he

ap pr oa ch ed Dr. McNee se in 20 05 or 2 00 6.

-3

-wou ld be an y co nf li ct of i nt eres t, an d t he le ga l de pa rtment sa id th ere wou ld no t be

. The le ga l de pa rtment co nc lu de d th ere was n o c o n f l ic t of in te res t be cau se Heal in g

Ci rcl e, as pr op os ed by Jo ne s, wou ld be a wom en -o nl y tre at m en t cen te r whe reas Jo ne s

on ly w or ke d wi th m en at NDOC.

Afte r ret iri ng fro m NDOC i n 20 07 , Jo ne s al so est ab li sh ed Alco ho l an d Dru g

Co un se li ng Serv ic es , LLC ( A DCS), an ou tp at ie nt tre at m en t cen te r fo r m en on ly.

ADCS an d Heal in g Ci rcl e each be ga n acce pt in g cl ie nt s in 20 0 8

, an d each rece iv ed

pa y m en t fo r tre at m en t se rv ic es to pa ro le es an d pe rs on s on pr ob at io n th ro ug h di ffer en t

st at e-fu nd ed vo uc he r syste m s. Heal in g Ci rcl e rece iv ed vo uc he rs pr im ari ly fro m th e

Neb ras ka Offi ce of Pro ba ti on , whi le ADCS rece iv ed vo uc he rs di rect ly fro m NDOC. 3

ADCS rece iv ed ni ne ty-ni ne pe rcen t of it s fu nd in g from th e NDOC vo uc he r syste m ,

an d th e NDOC v ou ch ers to ADCS m ad e up m or e th an on e

- f o u r t h of al l di st rib ut ed

NDOC vo uc he rs

.

Dr. McNe es e ov ers aw th e NDOC vo uc he r s ys t em fro m Octo be r 20 08 to

Octo be r 20 09

. Alt ho ug h th e NDOC vo uc he r syste m dr aws fro m a di ffer en t po ol of

st at e fu nd s th an th e Offi ce of Pro ba ti on vo uc he r syste m , NDOC m ad e arra ng em en ts

fo r th e Offi ce of Pro ba ti on to ad m in is te r th e NDOC vo uc he rs

. Und er each res pe ct iv e

vo uc he r syste m , pa ro le es an d pe rs on s on pr ob at io n are pe rm it te d to ch oo se th ei r own

tre at m en t faci li ty, pr ov id ed th at th e faci li ty is on a li st of NDOC-ap pr ov ed tre at m en t

pr ov id ers

. ADCS was on th is li st un ti l Ju ne 30

, 20 09

, whe n Dr. McNe es e su sp en de d

ADCS fro m

th e li st

.

On Ju ne 29

, 20 09

, Dr. McNe es e le arn ed fro m a su pe rv is or of ch em ic al

de pe nd en cy co un se lo rs at th e NDOC th at

, th e week be fo re, Jo ne s ha d vi si te d in m at es

at a co rrec ti on al faci li ty in Lin co ln

, Neb ras ka to pr om ot e ADCS's tre at m en t se rv ic es

. Dur in g th e vi si t, Jo ne s d i s t r ib ut ed fo rm s to th e in m at es th at m an y of th em si gn ed

,

Heal in g C irc le di d re cei ve eit he r on e o r two vo uc he rs di rect ly from NDOC. 3

-4

-th ereb y ag reei ng to ut il iz e ADCS's ou tp at ie nt tre at m en t serv ic es up on th ei r rel eas e.

I n an em ai l da te d Ju ne 29 an d se nt to va rio us NDOC an d Offi ce of Pro ba ti on

ad m in is tra to rs , Dr. McNe es e ch arac te ri ze d thi s pr act ic e as "h ig hl y in ap pr op ria te " an d

a "v ery se rio us vi ol at io n" th at

, if tru e, "ca ll s fo r im m ed ia te act io n du e to [an ] et hi cal

br each ." The em ai l re ad as f ol lo ws:

Here's th e la te st in fo rm at io n on a pr act ic e I se e as hi gh ly

in ap pr op ria te

. I co nt in ue to be co nc ern ed th at Mr. J o n es

us es hi s kn owl ed ge of DCS an d pr ev io us pr of es si o n al
rel at io ns hi ps to ob ta in acce ss to th e in m at e po pu la ti on ,

m is rep res en t DCS su pp or t of th e pr og ram , an d go so far as

to "m an ip ul at e" in m at es in to si gn in g an ag reem en t. I th in k

th is pr act ic e ha s t he po te nt ia l o f crea ti ng an in ap pr op ria te

po wer rel at io ns hi p in whi ch he ha s pe rcei ve d p o w er ov er in m at es as cl ie nt s, in cl ud in g th e im pl ie d po wer of

su pp or ti ng th em wit h th e Paro le Bo a r d (an d pr es um ab ly

th e im pl ie d o pp os it e o f no t s up po rti ng th em ).

If [th e] rep or t is a c c u r a t e , I se e th is as a ve ry se rio us vi ol at io n th at cal ls fo r im m ed ia te act io n du e to th e et hi cal
br each

. . . . I al so se e th is as so m et h i n g t h a t m ay ne ed

at te nt io n fr om

Lega l.

On Ju ne 30

, Dr. McNe es e em ai le d Jo ne s no ti fy in g Jo ne s th at he w a s s u sp en di ng

ADCS fro m th e NDOC ap pr ov ed -p ro vi de r li st "p en di ng fu rth er in ve st ig at io n." Dr. 4

It i s u nc le ar wh et he r Heal in g Ci rcl e was als o s us pe nd ed fro m th e ap pr ov ed

4

pr ov id er li st

. In th e o r d e r o n a p p eal

, th e di st ric t co ur t st at ed th at "J on es an d hi s bu si ne ss es ha d be en su sp en de d fro m th e [NDOC] vo uc he r pr og ram an d were no lo ng er o n t he pr ov id er li st ." Jo ne s v. McNe es e, 88 3 F. Su pp . 2 d 89 7, 90 6 (D. Neb

. 20 12 ) ("J on es III" ) (em

ph as is ad de d)

. W e fin d no th in g in th e reco rd to in di cat e th at
Heal in g Ci rc l e was ev er of fic ia ll y su sp en de d fro m th e ap pr ov ed -p ro vi de r li st

. W e

no te

, ho wev er, th at Dr. McNe es e's Ju ne 29 an d Ju ne 30 ema i ls co pi ed Cat he rin e Gib so n- Bel tz

, who was in vo lv ed in di st rib ut in g th e Offi ce of Pro ba ti on vo uc he rs th at

were th e pr im ary f

u n di ng so ur ce fo r Heal in g Ci rcl e, an d Deb Mi na rd i, th e Dep ut y

-5

-McNe es e te st ifi ed in hi s de po si ti on th at he su sp en de d ADCS be cau se he be li ev ed th at

Jo ne s vi ol at ed cert ai n con fid en ti al it y pr ov is io ns of th e Heal th In su ran ce Port ab il it y

an d Acco un ta bi li ty Act (HIPAA). Th e NDOC le ga l de pa rtment la te r in fo rm ed Dr.

McNe es e th at Jo ne s' s vi si t to th e Lin co ln co rrec ti on al faci li ty was a "n on -is su e."

Afte r le arn in g th at th ere was no HIPAA vi ol a ti on , ho wev er, Dr. McNe es e di d no t

rei ns ta te ADCS on th e ap pr ov ed -p ro vi de r li st

. Dr. McNe es e sa id la te r th at th e fai lu re

to do so was a "m is ta ke on m y pa rt."

Aro un d th e sa m e ti m e th at ADCS an d Heal in g Ci rcl e were su sp en de d fro m th e

ap pr ov ed -p ro vi de r li st

, NDOC was so li ci ti ng bi ds f r o m t r eat m en t faci li ti es fo r a

co nt ract to be co m e th e so le pr ov id er of ou tp at ie nt se rv ic es fo r pa ro le es an d pe rs on s

on pr ob at io n; th e co nt ract was wor th $2 00 ,00 0. Pri or to ADCS's an d Heal in g Ci rcl e's

su sp en si on s, ADCS an d Heal in g Ci rcl e ha d rece iv ed m or e NDOC vo uc he rs th an an y

ot he r gr ou p of tre at m en t faci li ti es own ed by an d/ or affi li at ed wit h a si ng le pa rti ci pa nt

in th e N D O C v o u ch er syste m ; Fi rs t St ep ha d rece iv ed th e se co nd -m os t vo uc he rs

. Bec au s e A DCS— an d li ke ly Heal in g Ci rcl e —wer e su sp en de d fro m th e ap pr ov ed

5

pr ov id er li st

, th ey were al so in effe ct pr ecl ud ed fro m bi dd in g on an d be in g award ed

th e so le -p ro vi de r co nt ract be cau se on e cri te ria was th at t h e b i d d e r be a cu rren t

vo uc he r rec ip ie nt

.

NDOC is su ed a le tt er of in te nt to award th e so le -p ro vi de r co nt ract to Fi rs t St ep

on Aug us t 2 5, 2 00 9. On Aug us t 2 6, NDOC rec ei ve d a no ti ce of gr ie va nc e fro m an

un su cces sf

ul bi dd er an d su bs eq ue n t l y r e s ci nd ed it s le tt er of in te nt to co nt ract wit h

Pro ba ti on Adm in is tra tor of the N eb ra ska Su pr em e Co ur t. Add it io na ll y , as m en ti on ed

a b o v e, NDOC m ad e arra ng em en ts fo r th e Offi ce of Pro ba ti on to ad m in is te r th e NDOC vo uc he rs

. So whi le Heal in g Ci rcl e m ig ht no t ha ve be en of fic ia ll y su sp en de d
fro m th e ap pr ov ed -p ro vi de r li st

, Dr. McNe es e's em ai ls th at co pi ed Gib so n- Bel tz an d

Mi na rd i m ay ha ve effe ct ed a de fact o s u s p e n s i o n o f Heal in g Ci rcl e by way of it s

as so ci at io n wi th Jo ne s.

See f oo tn ot e 4

, su

pr a

. 5

-6

-Fi rs t St ep

. NDOC th en is su ed a se co nd le tt er of i n t e n t t o c o n tra ct wit h a di ffer en t

t r e a t men t faci li ty. On Aug us t 31

, NDOC se nt a th ird le tt er th at res ci nd ed al l

pr ev io us ly is su ed le tt ers of in t e n t an d pl aced th e NDOC so le -p ro vi de r co nt ract on

ho ld

.

Sh or tl y aft er th e Aug us t 26 gr ie va nc e was fil ed

, of fic ia ls pl aced Dr. McNe es e

on un pa id ad m in is tra ti ve le av e du e to a co nf li ct of in te res t. Alt ho ug h Dr. McNe es e

di d no t pa rti ci pa te in ev al ua ti ng th e bi d pro po sa ls to be co m e NDOC's so le pr ov id er

of tre at m en t se rv ic es , he was de em ed "i ns tru m en ta l" in de ve lo pi ng th e cri te ria an d th e weig h t i ng syste m us ed to ev al ua te th e pr op os al s. Fu rth er, Dr. McNe es e di rect ly

su pe rv is ed th e in di vi du al s who were res po ns ib le fo r ev al ua ti ng th e pr op os al s, an d he

pr ov id ed th e writ te n jus ti fic at io n fo r in it ia ll y award in g th e co nt ract to Fi rs t St ep

. Dr.

McNe es e di sc lo se d th at hi s wife own ed Fi rs t St ep , bu t fai le d to di sc lo se th e ex te nt of

he an d h i s w i f

e ' s fin an ci al in te res t in th e en ti ty as req ui red by Neb ras ka la w an d

NDOC Adm in is tra ti ve Reg ul at io ns

. Dr. McNe es e res ig ne d fro m NDOC on Octo be r 8, 2 00 9.

A s a r e s u lt of ADCS an d Heal in g Ci rcl e be in g su sp en de d fro m th e NDOC

ap pr ov ed -p ro vi de r li st

, an d th us lo si ng th ei r pr im ary fu nd in g so ur ces , ADCS cl os ed

in Ju ly or Aug us t 20 09 an d Heal in g Ci rcl e cl os ed in Octo be r 20 09

. Jo ne s ev en tu al ly

fil ed fo r pe rs on al ba nk ru pt cy du e to hi s in ab il it y to m ak e pa y m en ts on lo an s th at he

to ok ou t i n c on ne ct io n wi th ADCS an d Hea li ng Cir cl e.

B. Pro ced ur al His to ry

Jo ne s, ADCS, an d Heal in g Ci rcl e (co ll ect ive ly

, "Pl ai nt iff s" ) su ed Dr. McNe es e

pu rs ua nt to 42 U.S.C. §§ 19 81 an d 19 83 on Decem be r 28

, 20 0 9

. The co m

pl ai nt

al le ge s t h at Dr. McNe es e tre at ed Pl ai nt iff s di sp arat el y be cau se Jo ne s is Afri can

Am eri can

. Jo ne s cl ai m s th at Dr. McNe es e's th reat to fir e hi m if he wor ke d pa rt- ti m e

at Heal in g Ci rcl e was ba se d on Jo ne s's race be cau se no n- Afri can Am eri can NDOC

-7

-em

pl oyees were pe rm it te d to "m oo nl ig ht " at Fi rs t St ep

. Jo ne s al so cl ai m s th at Dr.

McNe es e, in hi s ro le as Ass is ta nt Adm in is tra to r at NDOC, m ad e st at em en ts to th ird

pa rti es th at de fam ed Jo ne s's ch arac te r, th at res ul te d in "l os s of [J on es 's] em pl oym en t

op po rt u n it ie s, lo ss of two vi ab le bu si ne ss es ," an d th at "p rev en te d [J on es ] fro m

pu rs ui ng [h is ] pr of

es si on ." Sp eci fic al l y, Jo ne s te st ifi ed in hi s de po si ti on th at Dr.

McNe es e to ld ot he r St at e of Neb ras ka em pl oyees th at Jo ne s h a d "d on e frau du le nt

w or k," "g ot te n in fo rm at io n fro m in m at es il le ga ll y ," an d "en te red co rrec ti ons fa ci lit ie s

il le ga ll y ." Add it io na ll y , Jo ne s te st ifi ed th at Dr. McNe es e m ad e st at em en ts t o an

ad m in is tra to r at a lo c al co ll eg e th at Jo ne s was be in g in ve st ig at ed fo r frau d. As a

res ul t, acco rd in g to Jo ne s, th e co ll eg e st op pe d se nd in g st ud en ts to Heal in g Ci rcl e to

in te rn

.

Dr

. McNe es e m ov ed to di sm is s th e cl ai m s ag ai ns t hi m ba se d on qu al ifi ed

im m un it y , an d la te r m ov ed fo r su m m ary jud gm en t on th e sa me b a s i s. The di st ric t

co ur t d e n i ed Dr. McNe es e's m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t. Jo ne s v. McNe es e,

No. 4: 09 CV3 26 4, 20 11 W L 22 0 0 7 6 3

, a t * 2 (D. Neb

. Ju ne 6, 20 11 ) ("J on es I")

. Dr. McNe es e ap pe al ed th e di st ric t co ur t's de ni al of su m m ary jud gm en t, an d th is Co ur t

va cat ed th e de ni al an d rem an de d t h e c a s e "fo r a m or e de ta il ed co ns id erat io n an d

ex pl an at io n of th e va li di ty, o r no t, of th e de fen da nt ' s c l a i m to qu al ifi ed im m un it y ."

Jo ne s v . McNee se , 67 5 F .3d 11 58 , 11 63 (8t h C ir. 2 01 2) ("J on es II")

.

On r e mand

, th e di st ric t co ur t ag ai n de te rm in ed th at Dr. McNe es e was no t

en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m

un it y on an y gr ou nd

. Jo ne s III, 88 3 F. Su pp

. 2d at 91 4– 15

. Dr. McNe es e su bs eq ue nt ly fil e d t h i s in te rlo cu to ry ap pe al in whi ch he rai se s two

arg um en ts

. Fi rs t, Dr. McNe es e cl ai m s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by ad op ti ng Jo ne s's

ve rs io n of th e fact s an d by fai li ng to em pl oy th e pr op er st an da rd to ev al ua te hi s cl ai m

to qu al ifi ed im m

un it y on su m

m ary jud gm en t. Seco nd

, Dr. M c N e e se arg ue s th at

,
ap pl y in g t he pro pe r st an da rd , he i s i m m un e fro m su it

.

-8

-II. Ana lysis

"Qu al ifi ed im m

un it y 'is an immu ni ty fr om su it rat he r th an m erel y a de fen se to

li ab il it y .' It en ti tl es an in di vi du al to n o t b e s u b je c t to tri al or th e ot he r bu rd en s of

li ti ga ti on an d 'is effe ct iv el y lo st if a cas e is erro ne ou s ly pe rm it te d to go to tri al .'"

So lo m on v. Pet ray, 69 9 F.3 d 10 34

, 10 38 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (q uo ti ng Mi tc he ll v. Fo rs y th

, 47 2 U.S. 51 1, 52 6 (1 98 5) ). An in di vi du a l i s o nl y de ni ed qu al ifi ed im m un it y if th e

an swe rs to th e fo ll owi ng two qu es ti on s are y es : "(1 ) whe th er th e pl ai nt iff ha s sh own

th e vi ol at io n of a st at ut or y or co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht

, an d (2 ) whe th er th at r i g h t was

cl earl y es ta bl is he d at th e t i m e of th e al le ge d m is co nd uc t. W e ret ai n di sc ret io n to

de ci de whi ch of t he two qu es ti on s to an swe r fi rs t." Heart la nd Acad . Cm ty. Ch ur ch

v. Wadd le , 59 5 F .3d 79 8, 8 05 (8t h C ir. 2 01 0)

.

Thi s Co ur t rev ie ws de no vo th e di st ric t co ur t's de ni al o f su m m ary jud gm en t

ba se d on qu al ifi ed im

m un it y

. Bea rd en v. Lem on , 47 5 F.3 d 92 6, 92 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ).

In so do in g, we co ns id er th e ev id en c e p r e s e nt ed in a li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e

no nm ov in g pa rty. Id

. See al so Sco tt v. Harri s, 55 0 U.S. 37 2, 37 8 (2 00 7) ("When [th e

pa rti es ' ve rs io ns of e ve nt s d iff er sub st an ti al ly]

, co ur ts are req ui red to vi ew th e fac ts

an d dr aw reas on ab le in fere nc es 'in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e pa rty op po si ng th e [ s u m m ary jud gm en t] m ot io n.' In qu al ifi ed im m un it y cas es , th is us ua ll y m ean s

ad op ti ng

. . . th e pl ai nt iff 's ve rs io n of th e fact s." ( se co nd al te rat io n in or ig in al )
(q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Dieb ol d, In c., 36 9 U.S. 65 4, 65 5 (1 96 2) (p er cu ria m ))).

Howev er, "[w]hi l e w e rev ie w th e reco rd in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to

. . . th e

no n- m ov in g pa rty, we do no t st ret ch th is fav or ab le pr es um pt io n so far as to co ns id er

as ev id en ce st at em en ts fo un d on ly i n in ad mis si bl e he ar

s ay ." Mays v. Rh od es , 2 55

F.3 d 64 4, 64 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 ) (em ph as is ad de d)

. See al so Mo or e v. In de ha r, 51 4 F.3 d

75 6, 75 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) ("[ I]n co ns tru in g th e reco rd

, th e 'co ur t m ay co ns id er on ly th e

po rti on of th e su bm it te d m at eri al s th at is ad m is si bl e or us eab l e a t t r i a l.'" (q uo ti ng

W al ke r v. Way ne Co un ty, 85 0 F .2d 43 3, 4 34 (8t h C ir.1 98 8) )).

-9

-A. Ju ris di ct io n

Befo re tu rn in g to th e m eri ts

, we fir st ad dr es s ou r juri sd ic ti on

. In Mi tc he ll

, th e

Su pr em e Co ur t art ic ul at ed th e ro le of ap p e l l a t e c o ur ts in rev ie win g th e de ni al of

su m m ary jud gm en t b as ed on qu al ifi ed im m un it y :

An ap pe ll at e co ur t rev ie win g th e de ni al of th e de fen da nt 's
cl ai m of [q ua l i fie d] im m un it y ne ed no t co ns id er th e

co rrec tn es s o f th e p la in ti ff's ve rs io n o f th e fact s, n or ev en de te rm in e whe th er the pl ai nt iff 's all eg at io ns act ua ll y st at e

a cl ai m

. All it ne ed de te rm in e is a qu es ti on of la w: whe th er th e le ga l no rm s al le ge dl y vi ol at ed by th e de fen da nt were cl earl y es ta bl is he d at th e ti m e of th e ch al le ng ed act io ns or , in cas es whe re th e di st ric t co ur t ha s de ni ed su mm ary jud gm en t fo r th e de fen da nt on th e gr ou nd th at ev en un de r th e de fen da nt 's ve rs io n of th e fact s th e de fen da nt 's co nd uc t
vi ol at ed cl earl y es ta bl is he d la w , w he th er th e la w cl earl y

pr os cri be d t he act io ns th e d efen da nt cla im s h e to ok

.

47 2 U.S. a t 52 8. The Co ur t "em ph as iz e[d ] . . . t ha t th e ap pe al ab le is s u e i s a p ur el y

le ga l on e: whe th er th e fact s al le ge d

. . . su pp or t a cl ai m o f v i o la ti on of cl earl y

es ta bl is he d l aw." Id . at 5 28 n.9

.

Here, Pl ai nt iff

s co nt en d th at Dr. McNe es e's arg um en t on ap pe al "i s no t ba se d

on an ab st ract is su e of la w," bu t in st ead is "o ne of fact ." Pl ai nt iff s are co r rect th at

th ro ug ho ut h i s br ie f, Dr. McNe es e arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t im pr op erl y de ni ed

su m m ary jud gm en t to hi m ba se d on erro ne ou s fact ua l fin d i n g s

. The se ev id en ti ary

ch al le ng es as se rte d by Dr. McNe es e are ou ts id e th e sc op e of ou r rev ie w o n ap pe al

. See Kah le v. Leo na rd

, 47 7 F.3 d 54 4, 54 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ) ("I n [an ap pe al fro m de ni al

of qu al ifi ed im m

un it y ], juri sd ic ti on do es no t ex te nd to is su es of 'ev id en ce su ffi ci en cy , i.e.

, whi ch fact s a pa rty m ay , or m ay no t, be ab le to pr ov e at tri al .'" (q uo ti ng Jo hn so n

v. J on es , 51 5 U.S. 3 04 , 31 3 (1 99 5) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) )).

-1 0-N e ve rth el es s, "a de te rm in at io n th at th ere are co nt ro ve rte d is su es of m at eri al

fact

. . . do es no t m ean th at ever y

. . . de ni al of su m

m ary jud gm en t is no na pp eal ab le ."

Beh ren s v. Pel le ti er, 51 6 U.S. 2 9 9, 31 2– 13 (1 99 6) (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. "[S ]um m ary jud gm en t det erm in at io ns ar e ap pe al ab le whe n th ey res ol ve a di sp ut e co nc ern in g an

'ab st ract is su [e] of la w' r e l a t i n g to qu al ifi ed im m un it y —t y pi cal ly, th e is su e [o f]

whe th er th e fed eral rig ht al le ge dl y in fr i n ge d was 'cl earl y es ta bl is he d.'" Id

. at 31 3
(s eco nd al te rat io n in or ig in al ) (ci ta ti on s om it te d)

. Here, in ad di ti on to o b je c t i ng to

th e d is tri ct co ur t's fact ua l fi nd in gs , Dr. McNees e al so ch al le ng es th e di st ric t co ur t's

de te rm in at io ns th at he vi ol at ed Jo ne s's co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s an d th at su ch rig ht s were

cl earl y es ta bl is he d at th e ti m e of th e al le ge d vi ol at io ns

. W e are th us sa ti sf ie d th at we

ha ve juri sd ic ti on ov er t he in te rlo cu to ry ap pe al

. 6

B. Meri ts

Jo ne s al le ge s th at Dr. McNe es e vi ol at ed hi s rig ht s pu rs ua nt to th e Fo ur te en th

A men d ment 's Equ al Pro te ct io n Cl au se an d Due Pro ces s Cl au se , res pe ct iv el y

. We

ad dr es s ea ch cla im

be lo w.

1. Eq ua l Pr ot ect io n

a. Raci al Dis cri m in at io n

Jo ne s gr ou nd s hi s eq ua l-p ro te ct i on cl ai m s in 42 U.S.C. §§ 19 81 an d 19 83

. Sect io n 19 81 is li m it ed t o race an d pr ov id es in rel ev an t pa rt th at "[a ]ll pe rs on s

. . . sh al l ha ve th e sa m e rig ht

. . . to m ak e an d en fo rce co nt ract s

. . . as is en joy ed by whi te

ci ti zen s." 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 1( a). Jo ne s al le ge s t ha t b ecau se he is Afri can Am eri can ,

Acco rd in gl y , P la in ti ffs ' m ot io n to di sm is s th e ap pe al fo r la ck of juri sd ic ti on 6

an d Dr. McNe es e's m ot io n to st rik e Pl ai nt iff s' di sm is sa l m ot io n as un ti m el y fil ed are de ni ed

.

-1 1-ADCS an d Heal i n g Ci rcl e were pr ecl ud ed fro m su bm it ti ng bi ds fo r th e NDOC

so le -p ro vi de r co nt ract an d were th us di sc riminat ed ag ai ns t on acco un t of Jo ne s's race

. See Dom in o's P i z z a , In c. v. McDo na ld

, 54 6 U.S. 47 0, 47 6 (2 00 6) (n ot in g th at "a

co nt ract ua l rel ation shi p ne ed no t al read y ex is t[] be cau se § 19 81 pr ot ect s th e wou ld -b e

co nt ract or al on g wi t h t h os e who al read y ha ve m ad e co nt ract s" ). Alt ho ug h § 19 81

pe rm it s a cau se o f a c t io n ag ai ns t pr iv at e act or s, whe re, as he re, a pl ai nt iff br in gs a

cl ai m pu rs ua nt to § 19 81 ag ai ns t an in di vi du al who was act in g un de r co lo r of la w, th e

cl ai m m us t be as se rte d th ro ug h § 19 83

. Arti s v. Fran ci s H o well N. Ban d Bo os te r

Ass 'n I nc ., 16 1 F .3d 11 78 , 11 81 (8t h C ir. 1 99 8)

.

In su pp or t of hi s § 19 81 cl ai m , Jo ne s po in ts pr im ari ly to on e in st an ce of al le ge d

raci al di sc riminat io n— th e al le ga ti on th at Dr. McNe es e to ld Jo ne s t ha t J on es wou ld

be fir ed if he form ed an d o pe rat ed Heal in g Circ le an d work ed th ere par t-t im e whi le

st il l em pl oyed at NDOC. Jo ne s as se rts th at be cau se Dr. McNe es e pe rm it te d two no nAfri can Am eri can co un se l o r s t o "m oo nl ig ht " at Fi rs t St ep whi le st il l em pl oyed at
NDOC, Dr. McNe es e ha rb or ed a raci al an im us to ward s Jo ne s an d th us di sc riminat ed

ag ai ns t Jo ne s, Heal in g Ci rcl e, an d ADCS whe n he su sp en de d th e bu si ne ss es fro m th e

ap pr ov ed -p ro vi de r l i s t d ur in g th e ti m e th at NDOC was acce pt in g bi ds fo r th e

so le -p ro vi de r co nt ract

. Dr. McNe es e m ai nt ai ns , ho wev er, th at th e su sp en si on was

ba se d o n h is pe rcep ti on of a n a ll eg ed HIPAA vi ol at io n.

Dr. McNe es e as ks th is Co ur t to em pl oy th e th ree- st ep bu rd en -s hi fti ng st an da rd

in McDo nn el l Dou gl as Co rp

. v. Green

, 41 1 U

. S

. 7 9 2

, 80 2– 03 (1 97 3)

. Und er a

McDo nn el l Do ug la s an al y si s,

[a pl ai nt iff

] ha s th e in it ia l bu rd en to es ta bl is h a pr im a faci e

cas e of di sc riminat io n. If [th e pl ai nt iff ] es ta bl is he s a pr im a faci e cas e, th e bu rd en sh ift s to [th e de fen da nt ] to art ic ul at e

a le gi ti m at e, no n- di sc riminat or y reas on fo r [th e al le ge dl y

un co ns ti tu ti on al ] act io n. If [th e de fen da nt ] art ic ul at es su ch

-1 2-a reas on , th e bu rd en ret ur ns to [th e p la in ti ff] to pro ve th at
th e p ro ffer ed reas on is pre te xt ua l.

W im bl ey v. Cas hi on , 58 8 F.3 d 95 9, 96 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (ci ta ti on s om it te d)

. Reg ard le ss of whe th er Jo ne s m eet s hi s in it ia l bu rd en an d Dr. McNe es e fai ls to carr y

hi s res po ns iv e bu rd en , ho wev er, th e "u lt im at e qu es ti on " th at rem ai ns is "wh et he r th e

em pl oyer en ga ge d in in te nt io na l di sc riminat io n" on th e s t a t e d ba si s. Ro th m ei er v.

In v. Adv is ers , In c., 85 F.3 d 13 28

, 13 34 –3 5 (8 th Ci r. 19 96 ). Thu s, "p ro of th at th e

de fen da nt 's art ic ul at ed ex pl an at io n i s f a ls e or in co rrec t do es no t, st an di ng al on e,

en ti tl e th e pl ai nt iff to jud gm en t; in st ead

, th e sh owi ng m us t be th at th e ex pl an at io n is

a pr et ex t fo r di sc riminat io n." Hut so n v. McDo nn el l Dou gl as Co rp ., 63 F.3 d 77 1, 77 7
(8 th Ci r. 19 95 ); se e St

. Mar y 's Hon or Ct r. v. H i ck s, 50 9 U.S. 50 2, 51 1 n.4 (1 99 3)
("Ev en th ou gh

. . . reject io n of the de fen da nt 's pr of fere d reas on s is en ou gh at la w to

su st ai n a fi nd in g o f di sc riminat io n, th er e mus t b e a fi nd in g o f d is cr imi na ti on .").

Here, Jo ne s h a s n o t pu t fo rth su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to de m on st rat e th at Dr.

M c N e e s e's de ci si on s to pe rm it ot he r em pl oyees to "m oo nl ig ht " whi le em pl oyed at
NDOC, an d la te r to su sp en d ADCS and Heal in g Circ le fro m th e ap pr ov ed -p ro vi de r

li st du rin g th e ti m e th at NDOC was acce pt in g bi ds

, were m ot iv at ed by an y ra ci al

an im us

. Jo ne s hi m se lf pr e v i o u s l y m oo nl ig ht ed at Fi rs t St ep whi le em pl oyed at

N DOC in 19 98 an d 19 99 an d at Ant le rs fro m 20 00 th ro ug h hi s ret ire m en t fro m

NDOC i n 20 07 . Thu s, ev en acce pt in g t he di st ric t co ur t's fin di ng th at Dr. McNe es e

was aware th at th ere was no HIPAA vi ol at io n, se e Jo ne s III, 88 3 F. Su pp

. 2d at 91 5,

th ere is no ev i d e n c e to su pp or t th e di st ric t co ur t's fin di ng s th at th e ad ve rs e act io ns

ag ai ns t Heal in g Ci rcl e an d ADCS were ta ke n on ac co un t of Jo ne s's ra ce

. See, e.g ., 7

Jo ne s al so po in ts to on e in st an ce in whi ch Dr. McNe es e cal le d Jo ne s in to hi s 7

of fic e a n d a s k ed Jo ne s to he lp hi m as si st in fin di ng "p eo pl e of co lo r" to be co m e

su bs ta nc e-ab us e co un se lo rs

. Jo ne s te st ifi ed th at he pe rcei ve d t h e co m m en t to be
raci st

. Howev er, su ch "[s ]tray rem ark s are no t s u ffi ci en t to es ta bl is h a cl ai m of
di sc riminat io n." Cl earwa te r v. Ind ep

. Sch

. Dis t. No. 16 6, 23 1 F.3 d 11 22

, 11 26 (8 th

-1 3-Twig gs v. Sel ig

, 67 9 F.3 d 99 0, 99 4– 95 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) ("B ecau se [p la in ti ff] ha s fai le d

to of fer ev id en ce th at co ul d co nv in ce a reas on ab le jury th at [d efen da nt s'] st at ed

reas on fo r fir in g h e r w a s pr et ex t fo r in te nt io na l di sc riminat io n, he r cl ai m fai ls as a

m at te r o f la w, an d [th e de fen da nt s] are en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y ."); Om

ni

Beh av io ral Heal th v. Mi ll e r , 2 8 5 F.3 d 64 6, 65 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 ) (aff irming gr an t of

su m m ary jud gm en t to § 19 83 de fen da nt be cau se th e p l a i n t i ff's "ev id en ce of

in te nt io na l [r a c i a l ] d is cri m in at io n [was ] in su ffi ci en t as a m at te r of la w"). The fact

th at Jo ne s is Afri can Am eri can ap pe ars to ha ve be en of no co ns eq ue nc e as it rel at ed

to Dr. McNe es e al le ge dl y th reat en in g t o f i r e J o ne s if he were to op erat e Heal in g

Ci rcl e whi le st il l em

pl oyed at NDOC. Rat he r, in st ead of race , th e ch arac te ris ti c th at

di st in gu is he s Dr. McNe e s e ' s t r eat m en t of Jo ne s fro m hi s tre at m en t of th e two no nAfri can A mer i c a n em

pl oyees was th e ou ts id e bu si ne ss fo r who m th e ot he r two

em pl oyees wor ke d— Fi rs t St ep

. In an y ev en t, fo r th e ab ov e reas on s, we rev ers e th e 8

di st ric t co ur t's jud gm en t th at Dr. McNe es e is no t en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y on th e § 1 98 1 c la im

.

Ci r. 20 00 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) ; se e, e.g ., Si m m on s v. Oce-USA, In c., 17 4 F.3 d 91 3, 91 5– 16 (8 th Ci r. 19 99 ) (te rm in at ed em pl oyee fai le d to es ta bl is h cau sa l

li nk be twee n ad ve rs e em pl oym en t act io n an d on e-t im e us e of raci al sl ur an d raci al jok e in th e co nt ex t of em

pl oym en t rel at io ns hi p, whe re th e raci al sl ur an d raci al jok e

were m ad e two y ears pri or to th e em pl oyee's t erm in at io n)

.

In t h i s r e g a rd

, we no te th at th e reco rd co ul d co nc ei va bl y su pp or t a cau se of 8

act io n pr ed ic at ed on so m e type of le ga l th eo ry te th ered to ne po ti sm : th at is

, fav or it is m

to ward D r

. M c Nees e's wife 's bu si ne ss , Fi rs t St ep , an d a de si re to pr ot ect it fro m

co m pe ti to rs li ke Jo ne s. Acco rd Bac kl un d v . Hess en , 10 4 F.3d 10 31

, 10 34 (8 th Ci r. 19 97 ) ("[ N] ep ot is m in go ve rn men t a l hi rin g req ui res so m e m eas ur e of jus ti fic at io n b e fo re it can pa ss co ns ti tu ti on al m us te r. Su ch jus ti fic at io n m us t co nn ect t h e ch al le ng ed hi rin g cri te rio n to th e cap aci ty of th e ap pl ic an t to pe rfo rm th e du ti es of th e job ap pl ie d fo r."). Pl ai nt iff s ne ve r ad va nc ed su ch a th eo ry fo r th ei r eq ua l pr ot ect io n cl ai m , th ou gh , and we de cl in e to co ns id er i t fo r th e fi rs t t im e in th is ap pe al

.

-1 4-2. Du e Pro ces s

Pl ai nt iff s al so al l e g e t h a t Dr. McNe es e vi ol at ed th ei r rig ht s un de r th e

Fo ur te en th Am en dm en t's Due Pr o c e ss Cl au se

. In pa rti cu la r, th ey cl ai m th at Dr.

McNe es e m ad e st ig m at iz in g co m m en ts ab ou t Jo ne s th at de pr iv ed Jo ne s of hi s li be rty

in te res t t o e arn a li vi ng in hi s p ro fes si on as a su bs ta nc e ab us e co un se lo r.

In Pau l v. Dav is

, th e Su pr em e Co ur t m ad e cl ear th at in jury to rep ut at io n al on e

is no t su ffi ci en t to st at e a § 19 83 cl ai m

. 42 4 U.S. 69 3, 71 2 (1 97 6) ("[ I]nte res t in

r e p u t a t i o n

. . . is ne it he r 'li be rty' no r 'pr op ert y ' gu aran te ed ag ai ns t st at e de pr iv at io n

wit ho ut du e pr oc es s of la w."). The Co ur t in ti m at ed

, ho wev er, th at rep ut at io na l ha rm

co up le d wit h "s om e m or e ta ng ib l e i n te res ts su ch as em pl oym en t," can to ge th er be

"s uf fic ie nt to in vo ke th e pr oc ed ur al pr ot ect io n of th e Due Pro ces s Cl au se ." Id

. at 70 1.

See, e.g ., Owen v. Ci ty of In de pe nd en ce, Mo

., 56 0 F.2 d 92 5, 93 5 (8 th Ci r. 19 77 ) ("I n

de te rm in in g whet he r a g ov ern m en t em pl oyer ha s d ep riv ed it s em pl oyee of a li be rty

in te res t in th e te rm in at io n of em pl oym en t, th e cru ci al is su e is whe th er th e go ve rn m en t

em pl oyer, in co nn ect io n wit h th e te rm in at io n of go ve rn m en t em pl oym en t, in cl ud in g

a refu sa l to reh ire or reem pl oy, m ak es a ch arg e whi ch m ig h t s e r i o u s l y da m ag e th e

em pl oyee's st an di ng an d rep ut at io n in th e c o mm un it y ."), va cat ed an d rem an de d on

ot he r gr ou nd s, 4 38 U.S. 90 2 (1 97 8)

.

Fo r a de fam at or y st at em en t to be act io na bl e u nd er § 19 83 , it m us t g o beyon d

"al le gi ng co nd uc t [b y th e pl ai nt iff ] th at fai ls to m eet pr of

es si on al st an da rd s," Rap os a

v. Mea de Sch

. Dis t. 46 -1

, 79 0 F.2 d 13 49

, 13 54 (8 th Ci r. 19 86 ). Rat he r, th e st at em en t

m us t "d am ag e[] a pe rs on ' s s t a n d in g in th e co m m un it y or fo recl os e[] a pe rs on 's

'free do m to ta ke ad va nt ag e of ot he r em pl oym en t op po rtu ni ti es .'" Id

. (q uo ti ng Bd

. of

Reg en ts of St at e Co ll eg es v. Ro th

, 40 8 U.S. 56 4, 57 3 (1 97 2) ). "Th e req ui si te st ig m a

ha s ge ne ral ly b een fo un d in cas es in whi ch [a go ve rn m en t of fic ia l] has accu se d th e [p la in ti ff] of di sh on es ty, im m or al it y , cri m in al it y , raci sm , or th e li ke ." Sh an ds v. Ci ty

of Kenn et t, 9 93 F.2d 13 37 , 13 47 (8t h C ir. 1 99 3) (co ll ect in g c as es ).

-1 5-Alt ho ug h Pau l's "s ti gm a-p lu s" te st ar i s e s mo s t of te n in si tu at io ns whe re th e pl ai nt iff is (o r was ) a go ve rn m en t em pl oyee, e.g ., Bro wn v. Si m m on s, 47 8 F.3 d 92 2,

92 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ), th e li be rty in te res t al so ex te nd s to in de pe nd en t co nt ract or s. See, 9

e.g ., Tran sc o Sec., In c. v

. F r e e man , 63 9 F.2 d 31 8, 32 1 (6 th Ci r. 19 81 ) ("Whi le th e

de pr iv at io n of th e rig ht to bi d on go ve rn m en t co nt ract s is no t a pr op ert y in te res t

. . . , th e bi dd er's li be rty in te res t is affec te d when th at de ni al is ba se d on ch arg es of frau d

an d di sh on es ty." (in te rn al ci ta ti on om it te d) ); se e al so Neu v. Co rco ran , 86 9 F.2 d 66 2,

66 7 (2 d Ci r. 19 89 ) ("[ Pau l ] d i d no t sa y th at 'em pl oym en t' ha d to be go ver nme nt

em pl oym en t." ).

Here, Pl ai nt iff

s al le ge in th ei r co m

pl ai nt

, an d Jo ne s te st ifi ed in hi s de po si ti on , th at Dr. McNe es e to ld th ird pa rti es nu m ero us s ti gm at iz in g co m m en ts ab ou t Jo ne s.

To wit

, Jo ne s te st ifi ed th at D r

. McNe es e to ld "n um ero us St at e of Neb ras ka

em pl oyees," as well as an ad m in is tra to r at a lo cal co ll eg e, t h a t J o n es was "u nd er

in ve st ig at io n," th at he "h ad do ne frau du le nt wor k," th at he "h ad st o l e n or go tt en

in fo rm at io n fro m in m at es il le ga ll y ," an d th at he "h a d en te red co rrec ti on al faci li ti es

il le ga ll y ." Jo ne s III, 88 3 F. Su pp

. 2d at 90 6. On th ei r face

, su ch st at em en ts

, if un tru e,

ap pe ar to be su ffi ci en tl y "s ti gm at iz in g" t o s a t i s f y Pau l in so far as th ey rel at e to

"d is ho ne st y , im m or al it y, [an d] cri m in al it y ." Sh an ds

, 99 3 F.2 d at 13 47

. Fu rth er,

Jo ne s was rem ov ed fro m th e vo uc he r li st —wh ic h effec ti ve ly ev is cera te d h is ab il it y

to wor k in hi s ch os en pr of es si on —s o he co ul d co nc ei va bl y sh ow a cau sa l co nn ect io n

be twee n th e al le ge d co m

m en ts an d Jo ne s' in ab il it y to wor k in hi s ch os en pr of es si on

go in g fo rward . See Ra po sa , 79 0 F .2d at 1 35 4.

The pr ob le m fo r Jo ne s, ho wev er, is th a t in th e pr oc ed ur al po st ur e of th is

cas e—a n ap pe al fro m a su m m ary jud gm en t or de r de nyin g qu al if ie d im m uni ty —Jo nes

W e as su m e wit ho ut de c i d i n g th at ADCS's an d Heal in g Ci rcl e's rece ip t of 9

vo uc he rs was s uf

fic ie nt for Pla in ti ffs to be co ns id ered in de pe nd en t co nt ract or s.

-1 6-h a s n o t pr es en te d en ou gh ad mis si bl e ev id en ce to go fo rward on hi s du e pr oc es s

cl ai m

. Sp eci fic al l y, P l a in ti ffs ' as se rti on s in th ei r co m pl ai nt an d Jo ne s's de po si ti on

te st im on y ab ou t Dr. McNe es e's al l e ge d st at em en ts to th ird -p art ie s are he ars ay an d

can no t be us ed to de feat a m ot io n fo r a su m m ary ju dg m en t. See F. R. Evi d.

80 1( c)(1 )– (2 ) ("'He ars ay ' mea n s a s t at em en t th at

. . . th e de cl aran t do es no t m ak e

w h i le te st ifyin g at th e cu rren t tri al or he ari ng ; an d a pa rty of fers [th e st a t e men t ] i n

ev id en ce to pr ov e th e tru th of th e m at te r as se rte d in th e st at em en t. " ) ; B r un st in g v.

Lut se n Mo un ta in s Co rp ., 60 1 F.3 d 81 3, 81 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (n ot in g th at "i na dm is si bl e

he ars ay ev id en ce can no t be us ed to de feat su m m ary jud g men t" ). Im

po rta nt ly,

whe th er or no t McNee se 's st at emen ts (e.g

., th at Jo ne s was "u nd er in ve st ig at io n" an d

ha d do ne "fr au du le nt wor k" ) are tru e do es no t m at te r fo r th e pu rp os es of th e he ars ay

an al y si s on th is is su e. W ha t m at te rs is th at Jo ne s of fers th e th ir d-

pa rt ie s' st at emen ts

fo r th ei r tru th —s pe ci fic al ly, th at McNe es e sa id th es e th in gs ab ou t Jo ne s to th em

. The

th ird -p art ie s' st at em en ts as de sc rib ed by Jo ne s are he ars ay , no t wit hi n an y ex cep ti on ,

an d th eref

or e a r e o f n o us e to Pl ai nt iff s in th ei r effo rts to de feat Dr. McNe es e's

su m m ary jud gm en t m ot io n. Se e Bru ns ti ng , 60 1 F .3d at 8 17

.

Adm is si bl e ev id ence co nta ine d in th e su m m ary jud gm en t reco rd sh ows th at Dr.

McNe es e se nt an in te rn al m em or an du m to pe rs on ne l in ot he r s t a te go ve rn m en ta l

ag en ci es , se e su

p r a no te 4, al le gi ng th at Jo ne s m ay ha ve en ga ge d in et hi cal ly

qu es ti on ab le co nd uc t. Sp eci fic al ly, Dr. McNe es e's Ju ne 29 em ai l al le ge d th at Jo ne s's

vi si t to in m at es at a pr is o n w a s "a pr act ic e [Dr. McNe es e] se e[s ] as hi gh ly

in ap pr op ria te " b e c a u se it "h as th e po te nt ia l of crea ti ng an in ap pr op ria te po wer

rel at io ns hi p in whi ch [J on es ] ha s pe rcei ve d p o w e r ov er in m at es as cl ie nt s." Dr.

McNe es e sa id th at he vi ewed th e vi si t as an "et hi cal br each ." Jo ne s w a s no t m ad e

aware of th es e al le ga ti on s ag ai ns t hi m un ti l Dr. McNe es e se nt Jo ne s an em ai l on Ju ne

30 su sp en di ng ADCS fro m th e a p p r ov ed -p ro vi de r li st "[p ]end in g fu rth er

in ve st ig at io n."

-1 7-W e co nc lu de th at th e su bs ta nc e of th es e two em ai ls

, st an di ng al on e, do es "n ot

crea te th e le ve l of st ig m a req ui red t o im pl ic at e a co ns ti tu ti on al ly pr ot ect ed li be rty

in te res t." Sh an ds

, 99 3 F.2 d at 13 47

. Dr. McNe es e ad m it s th at th e le ga l de pa rtment

to ld hi m th at Jo ne s's vi si t t o t he pri so n was a "n on -is su e," b ut Dr. McNee se di d n ot

de sc rib e th em as su c h a t t h e ti m e he se nt th e em ai ls an d rem ov ed Jo ne s fro m th e

vo uc h e r l is t. In hi nd si gh t, Dr. McNe es e m ay ha ve ov erre act ed to Jo ne s's

co nd uc t— co nd uc t th at th e le ga l de pa rtment fo un d pe rfec tl y pe rm is si bl e. Dr. 1 0

McNe es e ad m it te d th at he sh ou ld ha ve ta ke n act io n to pl ace Jo ne s ba ck on th e li st

aft er co ns ul ti ng th e le ga l de pa rtment; he cal le d hi s fai lu re to do so "a m is ta ke ." Bu t

whi le th e em ai ls rai se d c on cern s ab ou t J on es 's acti on s, the y di d no t ris e to th e le ve l

of co ns ti tu ti on al st ig m a we ha ve fo un d in ot he r cas es

. Co m pa re Shan ds

, 99 3 F.2d

at 13 47 ( f i n d i n g in su ffi ci en t st ig m a whe re a fir e ch ie f fir ed cert ai n fir efi gh te rs an d

m ad e pu bl ic st at em en ts co nc ern in g th e fir efi gh te rs ' "i ns ub or di na ti on an d

m is co nd uc t" ), wit h W in eg ar v. Des Mo in es In de p. Cm ty. Sch

. Dis t., 20 F.3 d 89 5, 89 9
(8 th Ci r. 19 94 ) (fi nd in g su ffi ci en t st ig m a whe re a sc ho ol di st ric t le ve le d "al le ga ti on s

of un jus ti fie d c hi ld ab us e" a ga in st a sc ho ol tea ch er).

Dr. McNe es e rece iv ed a rep or t fro m a su pe rv is or of su bs ta nce ab use co un se lo rs

at NDOC th at Jo ne s ha d vi si te d a pr is on fa c i l i t y t o ha nd ou t fli ers fo r ADCS. Dr.

McNe es e fo rward ed th is rep or t, al on g wit h hi s "co nc ern s," to ot he r pe op le in vo lv ed

in th e vo u c h e r syste m

. He vo ic ed hi s op in io n th at "h e s[ aw]" Jo ne s's act io ns as

"h ig hl y in ap pr op ria te ," an d th at he th ou gh t Jo ne s's vi si ts to t h e i n mates "h ad th e

po t e n t i a l of crea ti ng " ap pe aran ces of im pr op rie ty. Dr. McNe es e's an al y si s was

m is ta ke n, an d whe n th e le ga l de pa rtment di d no t fi nd an y wron gd oi ng wit h Jo ne s's

co nd uc t, Dr. McNe es e co ul d ha ve , an d pr ob ab ly sh ou ld ha ve , se nt a fo ll ow- up em ai l.

Here, it was Dr. McNe es e's in act io n th at fu rth er ha rm ed Jo ne s; ho wev er, wit ho ut

Th e r eco rd pr ov id es on e ex pl an at io n fo r Dr. McNe es e's ov erre act io n: hi s 1 0

in te res t in pr ot ect in g Fi rs t St ep (h is wife 's bu si ne ss ) fro m co m pe ti to rs

. See fo ot no te 8, su pr a.

-1 8-ad di ti on al ev id en ce, we de cl in e to dr aw an y in fere nc es fro m Dr. Mc N ee se's "m is ta ke "

in no t pl aci ng Jo ne s ba ck on th e ap pr ov ed -p ro vi de r li s t

. I n th e fin al an al y si s, Dr.

McNe es e ha rm ed Jo ne s's ab il it y to p u r s u e hi s ch os en pr of es si on

. Eve n so , th e

ev id en ce pr es en te d is no t en ou gh to sh ow th at Dr. McNe es e st ig m at iz ed Jo ne s to su ch

a de gr ee as to vi ol at e th e Co ns ti tu ti on

. See, e.g

. , W in eg ar, 20 F.3 d at 89 9 ("An

em pl oyee's li be rty in te res ts are im pl ic at ed whe re th e em

pl oyer le ve ls accu sa ti on s at

th e em pl oyee th at are so da m ag in g as to m ak e i t d i f f i c ul t or im

po ss ib le fo r th e

em pl oyee to es cap e th e st ig m a of th os e ch arg es ."). As Jo ne s can no t de m on st rat e a 1 1

co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n, Dr. McNee se is ne ces sa ril y en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y

. See W hi te v. Sm it h, 69 6 F.3 d 74 0, 75 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (n ot in g th at bo th pr on gs of th e

qu al ifi ed im m

un it y an al y si s m

us t b e m et to de feat qu al ifi ed im m un it y ).

III. Co nc lu si on

Fo r th e reas on s se t fo rth ab ov e, w e ho ld th at Dr. McNe es e is en ti tl ed to

qu al i f i e d i mm u n it y on Jo ne s's §§ 19 81 an d 19 83 cl ai m s. W e rev ers e th e jud gm en t

of th e d is tri ct co ur t wi th in st ru ct io ns to di sm is s t he co m pl ai nt

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

Bec a u s e w e ho ld th at Pl ai nt iff s ha ve no t pr od uc ed su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to 1 1

es ta bl is h co ns ti tu ti on al sti gm a, we do no t ad dr es s whe th er Jo ne s was un ab le to pu rs ue hi s ch os en pro fes si on ge ne ral ly becau se of Dr. M cNees e's st at em en ts . See Hab ha b

v. Ho n, 5 36 F.3d 96 3, 9 68 (8t h C ir. 2 00 8)

.

-1 9-