## United States Court of App eals

F O R T H E E I G H T H C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 1- 28 96

__ __ __ __ __ _ Alan a Cru tc he r-Sa nc he z, * fo rm erl y kn own as Al an a Sm it h, *

* Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, *

*

v. *

* App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Co un ty of Dak ot a, Neb ras ka
, * Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e * Dis tri ct of Ne br as ka

. Defen da nt , *

* Ja m es L. W ag ne r, in hi s o ffi ci al *

an d i nd iv id ua l ca pa ci ty, *

* Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t, *

* Ro dn ey Herro n, i n h is off

ic ia l an d * in di vi du al cap aci ty; Jo e Ram ire z, in * hi s o ffi ci al an d i nd iv id ua l ca pa ci ty, *

* Defen da nt s. * *

__ __ __ __ __ _ *

No. 1 1- 28 97

__ __ __ __ __ _ Alan a Cru tc he r-Sa nc he z, * fo rm erl y kn own as Al an a Sm it h, *

* Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, *v. *

* Co un ty of Dak ot a, Neb ras ka
, * Ja m es L. W ag ne r, in hi s o ffi ci al *

an d i nd iv id ua l ca pa ci ty, *

* Defen da nt s, *

* Ro dn ey Herro n, i n h is off

ic ia l an d * in di vi du al cap aci ty, *

* Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t, *

* Jo e Ram ire z, in hi s o ffi ci al an d * in di vi du al cap aci ty, *

* Defen da nt

. * *

__ __ __ __ __ _ *

No. 1 1- 28 98

__ __ __ __ __ _ Alan a Cru tc he r-Sa nc he z, * fo rm erl y kn own as Al an a Sm it h, *

* Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, *

*

v. *

* Co un ty of Dak ot a, Neb ras ka
, * Ja m es L. W ag ne r, in hi s o ffi ci al *

an d i nd iv id ua l ca pa ci ty, * Ro dn ey Herro n, i n h is off

ic ia l an d * in di vi du al cap aci ty, *

* Defen da nt s, *

-2

-*

Jo e Ram ire z, in hi s o ffi ci al an d * in di vi du al cap aci ty, *

* Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t. *

__ __ __ __ __ _
Su bm it te d: May 16, 2 01 2

Fil ed : Au gu st 3, 2 01 2

__ __ __ __ __ _ Befo re MUR PHY, BENTON and SHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ _ BENTON, Circu it Ju dg e.

Alan a Ly nn Cru tc he r-Sa nc he z, th en kn own as Alan a Lyn n Sm it h, su ed he r fo rm er em

pl oyer, Dak ot a Co un ty, Neb ras ka
, un de r 42 U.S.C. §§ 19 83 an d 19 85

. Sh e al so su ed Sh eri ff Ja m es L. W ag ne r, he r su pe rv is or Ch ie f Dep ut y Ro dn ey G. Herro n,

an d Serg ean t Jo se ph Ram ire z. Sh e cl ai m s Herro n an d W ag ne r crea te d or fo st ered a

se xu al ly ho st il e wor k en vi ro nm en t, an d Herro n an d Ram ire z co ns pi red to de pr iv e he r of he r ci vi l rig ht s. The de fen da nt s m ov ed fo r su m m ary jud gm en t ba se d on qu al ifi ed 1
im m un it y, w h i c h th e di st ric t co ur t de ni ed

. The de fen da nt s ap pe al

. Hav in g juri sd ic ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. § 12 91
, th is co ur t affi rm s th e de ni al of s u mm ary ju d g ment to Herro n, rev ers es th e de ni al of su m m ary jud gm en t as to W ag ne r a n d
Ram ire z, an d d is m is se s al l o th er cl ai m s.

Cru tc he r-Sa nc he z as se rts th is co ur t la ck s juri sd i c t i o n be cau se th e ap pe al in vo lv es fact ua l di sp ut es

. A de ni al of qu al ifi ed im m un it y is im m ed ia te ly ap pe al ab le

.

Cru tc he r-Sa nc he z ab an do ne d he r cl ai m of race di sc riminat io n in vi ol at io n of 1 42 U.S.C. § 19 81

. Sh e al so dr op pe d he r cl ai m fo r se xu al ha ras sm en t ag ai ns t Ram ire z
an d h er cl ai m

for co ns pi racy agai ns t Wagn er.

-3

-Jo nes v. McNe es e , 67 5 F.3 d. 11 58
, 11 60 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ), ci ti ng Sco tt v. Ha rr is
, 55 0

U.S. 37 2, 37 6 n.2 (2 00 7)

. A de fen da nt m ay a p p e a l a de ni al of qu al ifi ed im m un it y

on ly “ to th e ex te nt th at it tu rn s on an is su e of law.” Fi el

ds v. Ab bo tt , 65 2 F .3d 88 6,
88 9- 90 (8 t h C i r

. 2 0 11 ). On ap pe al
, th is co ur t res ol ve s an y fact ua l di sp ut es in
C r u t ch er-S an ch ez’s fav or , an d rev ie ws th e de ni al of qu al ifi ed im m un it y as a p u r e
qu es ti on of la w. Tugg le v. Ma ng an , 34 8 F.3 d 71 4, 71 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ). In th is cas e, th e de fen da nt s “ pr in ci pa ll y ch al le ng e[] th e d i s t ric t co ur t's ap pl ic at io n of qu al ifi ed im m un it y pr in ci pl es to th e es ta bl is he d su m m ary jud gm en t fact s. Bec au se th is rai se s

a le ga l is su e th at do es no t ‘requ ire us to res o l v e a n y di sp ut ed is su es of ev id en ti ary

su ffi ci en cy ,’ we ha ve juri sd ic ti on .” Jo nes , 67 5 F .3d at 1 16 1.

I.

Cru tc he r-Sa nc he z, a co rrec ti on al of fic er, wor ke d at th e Dak ot a C o u n t y jail fro m Octo be r 2, 20 06
, un ti l te rm in at ed on Ja nu ary 19
, 20 07

. Sh e was a pr ob at io na ry

em pl oyee a t al l ti m es

. Cru tc he r-Sa nc he z at te nd ed ne w em pl oyee or ie nt at io n, bu t

ne ve r rece iv ed th e em

pl oyee ha nd bo ok wit h th e co un ty’ s se xu al ha ras sm en t po li cy ,
or an y ot he r in st ru ct io n a bo ut sex ua l h aras sm en t i n t he work pl ace.

As t he el ect ed sh eri ff, W ag ne r ha d au th or it y ov er th e jail an d it s op erat io ns

. He de le ga te d m

uc h of hi s au th or it y to Ch ie f Dep ut y Herro n. W ag ne r as ke d Cru tc he rSan ch ez ou t se ve ral ti m es

. (Sh e es ti m at es be twee n fiv e an d te n ti m es , bu t reca ll s on ly

two sp eci fic in s t a nc es .) Onc e, in hi s of fic e, W ag ne r as ke d he r to di nn er; whe n sh e de cl in ed
, he to ld he r he “ co ul d no t bu y he r a d ia m on d ri ng , bu t cou ld bu y he r a bo x of ch oc ol at es .” Sh e rep li ed sh e di d no t li ke ch oc ol at e an d ha d en ou gh di am on d rin gs

. Late r, W ag ne r cal le d he r at th e jail to as k he r ou t; sh e ag ai n de cl in ed

. Cru tc he rSan ch ez co m

pl ai ne d to Herro n ab ou t th e sh eri ff’s ad va nc es

. Sh e sa id W ag ne r ne ve r

sa id an y th in g se xu al ly ex pl ic it an d di d no t act in ap pr op ria te ly to ward he r, ot he r th an

as ki ng he r ou t.

-4

-Herro n be ga n pu rs ui ng Cru tc he r-Sa nc he z so on aft er sh e st art ed at th e jail

. He

cal le d he r at th e jail to te ll he r s h e lo ok ed go od in he r un ifo rm

. He “ lo ok ed he r up

an d do wn,” as si gn ed he r to th e da y sh ift ah ead of m or e se ni or em pl oyees, an d cal le d he r fro m th e pa rk in g lo t of he r se co nd job at a ret ai l st or e on se ve ral oc cas io ns

. Abo ut a m on th in to he r em pl oym en t, Herro n m et Cru tc he r-Sa nc he z at a ba r whe re sh e

was dr i n ki ng wit h fri en ds

. Afte r th e ba r cl os ed
, he dr ov e an in to xi cat ed Cru tc he rSan ch ez to hi s ho us e, whe re th ey be ga n ki ss in g

. Cru tc he r-Sa nc he z te st ifi ed sh e
pr ot es te d th at “ h e w a s h er bo ss an d sh e ne ed ed to ge t ba ck to he r fri en ds .” Herro n
to ld he r no t to wor ry ab ou t it

. The y ha d se x. The ne xt m or ni ng , Herro n to ld he r sh e

co ul d no t te ll an y on e ab ou t th e in ci de nt , b ecau se th ere wou ld b e tro ub le if W ag ne r

or an y on e el se fo u n d o u t

. Acco rd in g to Cru tc he r-Sa nc he z, du rin g th e ne xt two

mo n t h s , t h e t wo ha d se x at le as t te n ti m es

. The y al so en ga ge d in se xu al act iv it y i n

co un ty ve hi cl es whi le dr iv in g ba ck fro m tra ns po rt tri ps

. Cru tc he r-Sa nc he z in it ia te d

so m e of th e co nt act s. Afte r on e in ci de nt , Herr o n t o l d he r he lo ve d he r. Cru tc he rSan ch ez pr et en de d to be as le ep an d di d no t res po nd

. Sh e ack no wled ge d ha vi ng se x wit h Her ro n wi ll in gl y , exc ep t t o t he ex te nt sh e p ro te st ed th e fi rs t t im e.

Ram ire z was al so a co rrec ti on al of fic er whe n Cru tc he r-Sa nc he z be ga n wor k.
He was p r om ot ed to se rg ean t in Ja nu ary 20 07
, be co m in g he r su pe rv is or

. In
Decem be r 20 06
, Herro n an d Ram ire z in vi te d two ot he r fem al e co rrec ti on al of fic ers
to a lo cal ba r du rin g th e wor k da y to cel eb rat e Herro n’s b i r t h da y

. An in to xi cat ed
Herro n fli rte d wit h on e fem al e of fic er, who reject ed hi s ad va nc e s

. A r riv in g at 11
p.m ., Cru tc he r-Sa nc he z sa w Herro n da nc in g wit h a wom an who was a fo rm er in m at e

an d a kn own dr ug ad di ct

. Herro n as ke d Cru tc he r-Sa nc he z if sh e wan te d to m eet up wit h hi m la te r. The fo rm er in m at e be cam e jealo us an d to ld Cru tc he r-Sa nc he z to le av e Herro n al on e. Cru tc he r-Sa nc he z le ft th e ba r an d di d no t se e Herro n ag ai n th at ni gh t. A ft er the bir

thday ou ti ng , Herro n be ga n te ll in g hi s co wor ke rs , in cl ud in g Ram ire z, tha t Cru tc he r-Sa nc he z was “ st al ki ng ” hi m an d t ha t h e n eed ed to fin d a way to ge t ri d o f he r. Eve n so , Herro n co nt in ue d to ha ve se x wit h Cru tc he r-Sa nc he z, an d th e two sp en t Ch ris tm as da y

an d New Yea r’s da y

to ge th er.

-5

-Ram ire z, at He r r on ’s di rect io n, is su ed Cru tc he r-Sa nc he z two di sc ip li na ry

no ti ces on Ja nu ary 11
, 20 07

. The fir st was a rep rimand fo r fai li ng to fo ll ow th e ch ai n of co m m an d aft e r s h e c o m

pl ai ne d di rect ly to W ag ne r th at a fem al e co -wo rk er was gi ve n au th or it y to ru n th e co nt ro l ro om de sp it e a la ck of la w en fo rcem en t ex pe rie nc e. The se co nd warn in g was fo r fai li ng to ret ur n sp eci al ke y s to th e jail (th e “ pi nk ke y s” ). Sh e to ok th e ke y s wit h he r whe n le av in g wor k on e da y , bu t tu rn ed aro un d an d he ad ed ba ck to th e jail up on real iz in g sh e ha d th em

. Thi s se co nd warn in g sa id sh e wou ld be di sc ip li ne d o r te rm in at ed if s he fai le d t o i m pr ov e.

On Ja nu ary 15
, Ram ire z dr aft ed a m em o li st in g in st an ces of he r fai lu res to fo ll ow po l ic y an d pr oc ed ur e, an d pl aced it in he r fil e. He te st ifi ed th at Herro n to ld hi m to rep hr as e th e le tt er b ecau se it was to o v ag ue . Ram ire z d id so . He con cl ud ed th e l e t t e r b y ex pl ai ni ng , “ The se are th e reas on s why I am writ in g th is le tt er of

reco m m en da ti on fo r term in at io n of Offi cer Alan a Sm it h.” Herro n th en reco m m en de d
Cru tc he r-Sa nc he z’s te rm in at io n. The ne xt da y , Cru tc he r-Sa nc he z wen t ou t dr in ki ng

an d sp en t th e ni gh t at a m al e fri en d’s ho us e. Sh e n o t i c e d se ve ral sh eri ff’s ve hi cl es

ou ts id e he r fri en d’s ho us e an d su sp ect ed sh e wou ld be fo ll owe d an d arre st ed if sh e tri ed to dr iv e ho m e. Sh e co nt act ed Herro n an d as ke d if he was ha vi ng he r fo ll owe d.
He sa id no , bu t co nf

ro nt ed he r th e ne xt da y an d accu se d he r of ha vi ng sex wit h h er fri en d.

Two co -wo rk ers te st ifi ed th at th ey were wit h Ram ire z whe n he rece iv ed a cal l fr o m Herro n. The y sa id Herro n in st ru ct ed Ram ire z to fir e Cru tc he r-Sa nc he z, to
pr ep are a le tt er, a n d t o co py W ag ne r’s si gn at ur e on to it

. Ram ire z an d W ag ne r
te st ifi ed ot he rwis e: th at W ag ne r, no t R a mi r e z , wr ot e th e te rm in at io n le tt er an d th at Ram ire z ne ve r fo rg ed th e sh eri ff’s sig na tu re. Herro n te st ifi ed th at he ne ve r sa w th e
te rm in at io n le tt er an d ha d no in pu t in to it s la ng ua ge

. On Ja nu ary 19
, Ram ire z ha nd ed
Cru tc he r-Sa nc he z th e le tt er te rm in at in g he r em pl oym en t wit h th e co un ty, effe ct iv e Ja nu ary 22 , 20 07

.

-6

-II.

Qua li fie d im m

un it y “ pr ot ect s ‘gov ern m en t of fic ia ls pe rfo rm in g di sc ret io na ry fu nc ti on s

... fro m li ab il it y fo r ci vi l da m ag es in so far as th ei r co nd uc t do es no t vi ol at e cl e a rly es ta bl is he d st at ut or y or co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s of whi ch a reas on ab le pe rs on

wou ld ha ve kn own .’ ” Cl

eg g v. Ar ka ns as Dep ’t of Co rr . , 49 6 F.3 d 92 2, 93 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ), ci ti ng Co

x v. Sug g , 48 4 F.3d 10 62
, 10 65 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ) ( qu ot in g Ha rl ow v. Fi tz ge ra ld

, 45 7 U.S. 80 0, 81 8 (1 98 2) ) (al te rat io n in or ig in al ). A qu al ifi ed im m un it y

an al y si s in vo lv es : fir st , whe t h e r th e fact s al le ge d es ta bl is h a vi ol at io n of a

co ns ti tu ti on al or st at ut or y rig ht an d se co nd
, whe th er th at rig ht was 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 n, su ch th at a reas on ab le of fic ia l wou ld ha ve kn own th at hi s act io ns were un la wfu l. Jo hn s o n v. Phil li ps , 66 4 F.3 d 23 2, 23 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ), ci ti ng Pea rs on v. Ca ll ah an , 55 5 U.S. 2 23 , 23 2 (2 00 9)

.

Den y in g qu al ifi ed im

m un it y , th e di st ric t co ur t ru le d th at “ a reas on ab le juro r

co ul d dr aw in fere nc es of di sc riminat io n, h a r a s sm en t, or co ns pi racy.” Reg ard in g 2
Cru tc he r-Sa nc he z’s cl ai m th at Ram ire z an d Herro n co ns pi red to vi ol at e he r

co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s in vi ol at io n of 42 U.S.C. § 19 85 (3 ), th e di st ric t co u r t fo un d is su es of fact whe th er th e de fen da nt s act ed ou ts id e th e sc op e of th ei r em pl oym en t fo r
pe rs on al reas on s, an d: “ The re is at le as t so m e ev id en ce t ha t su gg es ts an ag reem en t

am on g t he de fen da nt s t o d ep riv e th e p la in ti ff o f ri gh ts .”

On ap pe al
, Cru tc he r-Sa nc he z al so m en ti on s a cl ai m fo r qu id pr o qu o se xu al 2 ha ras sm en t. S h e d id no t pl ead th e cl ai m in he r Seco nd Am en de d Co m pl ai nt an d st at ed in he r op po si ti on to a m ot io n to di sm is s th at sh e was no t br in gi ng su ch a cl ai m

. The di st ric t co ur t di d no t ad dr es s th e cl ai m , th ou gh it men ti on ed qu id pr o qu o ha ras sm en t in th e or de r de nyin g su m m ary jud gm en t. Thi s ap pe al do es no t co ns id er a cl ai m of q ui d p ro qu o s ex ua l h aras sm en t ag ai ns t Her ro n.

-7

-A. Sexu al Haras sm en t b y Herro n

“Se x ua l ha ras sm en t by st at e act or s vi ol at es th e Fo ur te en th Am en dm en t a n d

es ta bl is he s a se ct io n 1 9 8 3 act io n.” Tugg le
, 34 8 F.3 d at 72 0. To pr ov e a ho st il ew or k- en vir onm en t se xua l ha

ra ssm ent cl ai m , Cru tc he r-Sa nc he z m us t sh ow (1 ) she w as

a m em be r of a pr ot ect ed gr ou p; (2 ) sh e was su bjec t to un welc om e ha ras sm en t; (3 ) th e ha ras sm en t was ba se d on se x; (4 ) th at it “af fect ed a te rm , c on di ti on , o r pr iv il eg e of

em pl oym en t; ” an d (5 ) th at he r em pl oyer kn ew or sh ou ld ha ve kn own of th e ha ras sm en t an d fai le d to ta ke ap pr op ria te rem ed ia l act io n. Sut her la nd v. Mi

ss ou ri Dep ’t of Cor r
. , 58 0 F.3 d 74 8, 75 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ), ci ti ng Al ag na v. Sm it

hvi ll e R-I I
Sch. Dis t. , 32 4 F.3 d 97 5, 97 9 (8 t h C i r

. 20 03 ). On ap pe al
, Herro n co nt en ds th at Cru tc h e r

- S a nc he z di d no t su ffi ci en tl y sh ow th e se co nd an d fo ur th el em en ts of he r cl ai m

.

I n r e ga rd to th e se co nd el em en t – whe th er Cru tc he r-Sa nc he z was su bje c t t o

un welc om e ha ras sm e n t

– H erro n arg ue s th at th ei r rel at io ns hi p was co ns en su al an d th us an y ha ras sm en t was welc om e. He em ph as iz es th at Cru tc he r-Sa nc he z so m et im es in it ia te d co nt act , sp en t Ch ris tm as da y wit h hi m , en ga ge d in m ut ua l se xu al act iv it y in

po li ce ve hi cl es , an d wen t to hi s ho us e se ve ral ti m es to ha ve se x. Howev er, vo lu nt ary

se xu al act iv it y m ay al so be un welc om e ha ras sm en t, a qu es ti on th at in th is cas e “ tu rn s la rg el y on cred ib il it y de te rm in at io ns co m m it te d to th e tri er of fact .” Se e Mer it or Sa v. Ba nk v. V

in so n , 47 7 U.S. 57 , 68 (1 98 6)

. Cru tc he r-Sa nc h e z te st ifi ed th at th e ha ras si ng co nd uc t be ga n sh or tl y aft er sh e st art ed wor k at th e jail an d in cl ud ed Herro n

“ lo ok in g he r up an d do wn” du rin g wor k, dr iv in g to th e pa rk in g lo t of he r se co nd job whi le rep eat ed ly cal li ng he r on th e ph on e, su bjec ti ng he r to co ns ta nt se xu al at te nt io n,

an d a s k i n g he r no t to te ll an y on e ab ou t th ei r se xu al rel at io ns hi p. Se e Quic k v. Don al ds on Co

. , 90 F.3 d 13 72
, 13 77 (8 th Ci r. 19 96 ) (“ [S]exu al ha ras sm en t in cl ud es

se xu al ad va nc es , req ue st s fo r se xu al fav or s, and ot he r ve rb al or ph y si cal co nd uc t of

a se xu al na tu re.”)

. Cru tc he r-Sa nc h e z m ad e a su ffi ci en t sh owi ng th at Herro n’s

co nd uc t t owa rd he r was un welc om e h aras sm en t.

-8

-Fo r th e fo ur th el em en t, Cru tc he r-Sa nc he z m us t sh ow ha ras sm en t “ su ffi ci en tl y

se ve re or pe rv as iv e to al te r th e co nd it io ns of [th e vi ct im 's] em pl oym en t an d crea te an ab us iv e wor ki ng en vi ro nm en t.” Tugg le , 3 48 at 72 0, ci ti ng Mer it or , 47 7 U.S. at 67 (ci ta ti on an d qu ot at io n om it te d)

. The Su pr em e Co ur t ha s “ m ad e it cl ear th at co nd uc t

m us t be ex tre m e to am ou nt to a ch an ge in th e te rm s an d co nd it io ns of em pl oym en t.”
Fa ra gh er v. Ci ty of Bo ca Ra to n , 52 4 U.S. 77 5, 78 8 (1 99 8)

. Sex ua l ha ras sm en t

“ st an da rd s are de m an di ng – to be act io na bl e, co nd uc t m us t be ex tre m e an d no t m erel y

ru de or un pl eas an t.” Al

ag na , 3 24 F.3 d at 98 0. “ Mo re th an a few is ol at ed in ci de nt s

are req ui red ,” an d th e al le ge d ha ras sm en t m us t be “so in ti m id at in g, of fen si ve , or ho st il e th at it po is on ed th e wor k en vi ro nm en t.” Scus a v. Nes tl e U.S.A. Co

. , 18 1 F.3 d
95 8, 96 7 (8 th Ci r. 19 99 ). Thi s co ur t ex am in es th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces to d e t e r mi n e if th e en vi ro nm en t was su ffi ci en tl y ho st il e. Nit sc he v. CEO of Osa

ge V al le y El ec. Co op . , 44 6 F.3 d 84 1, 84 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ). Th i s an al y si s in cl ud es

ex am in in g th e “fr e q u e n c y of th e di sc riminat or y co nd uc t; it s se ve rit y ; whe th er it is ph y si cal ly thre at en in g o r hu m il ia ti ng , o r a m ere o ffen si ve ut te ran ce; an d wh et he r it

un reas on ab ly in te rfer es wit h an em pl oyee's wor k pe rfo rm an ce.” Dunca n v. Gener al
Mo to rs Co rp . , 30 0 F.3 d 92 8, 93 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 ), q uo ti ng Ha rr is v. Fo rk li ft Sys ., In c. , 51 0 U.S. 1 7, 2 3 (1 99 3)

.

Bas ed on t h e fact s th e di st ric t co ur t li ke ly as su m ed
, Herro n’s act s crea te d a ho st il e wor k en vi ro nm en t. Herro n – ch ie f d e p u ty an d jail ad m in is tra to r du rin g Cru tc he r-Sa nc he z’s em

pl oym en t – ha d su pe rv i so ry au th or it y ov er he r. The re is

ev id en ce t ha t:

• Cru tc he r

- S a n ch ez he si ta te d an d vo ic ed he r co nc ern th e fir st ti m e sh e an d Herro n h ad sex

• Herro n a sk ed he r to ke ep th ei r rel at io ns hi p a sec ret

• Sh e was un aware of t he co un ty’ s h aras sm en t p ol ic y or t o wh om

to co m pl ai n

• He to ok ad va nt ag e o f he r whe n s he was i nt ox ic at ed an d v ul ne rab le

• Sh e fel t h aras se d b y Herro n’s l eeri ng an d fo ll owi ng he r to he r se co nd job

• Her co -wo rk ers rid ic ul ed he r as Herro n’s s ta lk er, at hi s u rg in g

-9

-• Sh e was su bjec t t o s e x u a l at te nt io n by Herro n du rin g al m os t al l he r

em pl oym en t wi th th e co un ty

• Sh e was fir ed for en di ng he r se xu al rel at io ns hi p wi th Herro n

Nex t, th is co ur t m

us t de te rm in e whe th er th e rig ht Herro n vi ol at ed was cl earl y

es ta bl is he d. “ Thi s se co nd st ep is a fact -in te ns iv e in qu iry an d m us t be un de rta ke n in li gh t of th e sp eci fic co nt ex t of th e cas e, no t as a br oa d ge ne ral pr op os it io n.” Mo or e

v. In de ha r , 51 4 F.3 d 75 6, 75 9 (8 th Ci r

. 20 08 ), qu ot in g Sa m uel so n v. Ci ty of New Ulm
, 45 5 F.3 d 87 1, 87 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ). Thi s co ur t lo ok s to th e st at e of th e la w at th e ti m e of th e in ci de nt

. Shek le to n v. Ei chen be rg er , 67 7 F.3 d 36 1, 36 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ).

“ Eve n in th e co m

pl e t e a b s e n c e of an y de ci si on s in vo lv in g si m il ar fact s, a rig ht can be ‘clear ly es ta bl is he d’ if a reas on ab le pu bl ic of fic ia l wou l d h a v e kn own th at th e

co nd uc t co m

pl ai ne d of was un la wfu l.” Turn er v. Ar k. In s. Dep ’t
, 29 7 F.3 d 75 1, 75 5 (8 th Cir . 20 02 ).

Acco rd i n g t o Herro n, th ere is no cas e in th is juri sd ic ti on whe re th e ha ras se r

was f o u n d l i a b l e un de r se ct io n 19 83 fo r be ha vi or li ke hi s. He arg ue s th at th e rig ht

to be free fro m se xu al ha ras sm en t is no t sp eci fic en ou gh to sa ti sf y th e Su pr em e Co ur t’s req ui rem en t of a pa rti cu la riz ed rig ht in And er so n v. Cr ei

gh to n , 48 3 U.S. 63 5, 64 0 (1 98 7) (“ The co nt ou rs of th e rig ht m us t be su ffi ci en tl y cl ear t h a t a reas on ab le of fic ia l wou ld un de rs ta nd th at wha t he is do in g vi ol at es th at rig ht

. Thi s is no t to sa y th at an of fic ia l a c t i o n i s p r ot ect ed by qu al ifi ed im m un it y un le ss th e ve ry act io n in

qu es ti on ha s pr ev io us ly be en he ld un la wfu l, bu t it is to sa y th at in th e li g h t of pr eex is ti ng la w th e un la wfu ln es s m us t be ap pa ren t.” (ci ta ti on om it te d) ). Howev er, “ th e rig ht to be free fro m ge nd er di sc riminat io n is cl earl y es ta bl is he d.” Wr ig ht v. Ro le tt e Cnt y, , 41 7 F.3d 87 9, 88 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ), qu ot in g Pete rs on v. Sco tt Cnt y. , 40 6 F.3d
51 5, 52 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ). It was cl earl y es ta bl is he d in 20 07 th at a su pe rv is or ’s

at te m pt to ha ve se x wit h a su bo rd in at e v i o l a t e s th e su bo rd in at e’s ci vi l rig ht s. Se e Mo ri ng v. Ar k. Dep ’t of Co rr . , 23 4 F.3 d 45 2, 45 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 ) (aff irming li ab il it y
ag ai ns t a su pe rv is or whe n th e se xu al ha ras sm en t co ns is te d of hi s at te m pt to ha ve se x wit h t he su bo rd in at e o ne ti m e).

-1 0-Bas ed on th e fact s th e di st ric t co ur t li ke ly as su m ed
, th e di st ric t co ur t co rrec tl y

de ni ed Herro n s um m ary jud gm en t b as ed on qu al ifi ed im m un it y

.

B. Co ns pi racy by

Ram ire z an d Her ro n

Cru tc he r-Sa nc he z al le ge s th at Ram ire z an d Herro n c o ns pi red to vi ol at e he r

co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s in vi ol at io n of 42 U.S.C. § 19 85 (3 ). In or de r t o s h o w a ci vi l rig ht s co ns pi racy un de r se c t i o n 19 85 (3 ), sh e m us t pr ov e: (1 ) th at th e de fen da nt s

co ns pi red
, (2 ) wit h th e in te nt to de pr iv e he r of eq ua l pr ot ect io n of th e la ws, or eq ua l

pr iv il eg es an d im m

un it ie s un de r th e la ws, (3 ) th at on e or m or e of th e co ns pi rat or s di d,

or cau se d to be do ne , a ny act i n fu rth eran ce o f th e o bjec t of th e co ns pi racy, an d (4 ) th at sh e was in

jure d or de pr iv ed of ha vi ng an d exe rci si ng an y rig ht or pr iv il eg e of a ci ti zen of th e Uni te d St at es

. Se e Lar so n ex re l. Lar

so n v. Mi ll

er , 76 F.3 d 14 46
, 14 54 (8 th Cir . 19 96 ).

Cru tc he r-Sa nc he z as se rts th at Ram ire z an d Herro n co ns pi red fo r pe rs on al

r eas on s to te rm in at e he r em pl oym en t, de pr iv in g he r of he r co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht t o
eq ua l p ro te ct io n. Her c la im is de feat ed by her o wn p le ad in gs

.

Cru tc he r-Sa nc he z fai ls to de m on st r at e th e fir st pr on g, th e ex is te nc e of a

co ns pi racy. “A c o n s pi racy cl ai m req ui res ev id en ce of sp eci fic fact s th at sh ow a ‘m eet in g of th e m in ds ’ am on g co ns pi rat or s.” Ba rs ta d v. Mur ra y Cnt y. , 42 0 F.3 d 88 0,
88 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ), ci ti ng Ro ge rs v. Br unt

ra ge r , 84 1 F.2 d 85 3, 85 6 (8 th Ci r. 19 88 ).
A go ve rn m en t en ti ty can no t co ns pi re wit h it se lf. Id

. , ci ti ng Cr os s v. Gener al Mo to rs Co rp . , 72 1 F.2 d 11 52
, 1 1 5 6 (8 th Ci r. 19 83 ). Howev er, go ve rn m en t ag en ts m ay

co ns pi re by act in g beyon d th e sc op e o f th ei r au th or it y or f or th ei r own be ne fit

. Se e Gar za v. Ci ty of Om ah a , 81 4 F.2 d 55 3, 55 6 (8 th Ci r. 19 87 ). Cru tc he r-Sa nc h e z’s pl ead in gs de feat he r cl ai m th at Herro n an d Ram ire z were act in g be y on d th e sc op e of th ei r au th or it y or fo r th ei r own be ne fit

. Sh e pl e a d e d on ly th at “ Defen da nt s Herro n

an d Ram ire z co m

m it th e afo rem en ti on ed to rts whi le act in g wit hi n th e co ur se an d

-1 1-sc op e of th ei r em pl oym en t an d whi le fu rth eri ng th e bu si ne ss of Dak ot a Co un ty.” A pl ai nt iff who pl ead s on ly th at th e go ve rn m en t act or “ act ed in th e co ur se an d sc op e of ‘[his ] em pl oym en t’ fai l[s ] to de m on st rat e th e ex is te nc e of a co ns pi racy.” Ba rs ta d
, 42 0 F.3 d at 88 7. The di st ric t co ur t erre d in de nyin g Herro n an d R a mi r e z su m m ary jud gm en t o n t he co ns pi racy clai m

.

C. Sex ua l Har as sm en t b y W ag ne r

Cru tc he r-Sa nc he z al le ge s t ha t Wagn er s ub jecte d h er t o a sex ua ll y

ho st il e

wor k e nv iro nm en t b y

ask in g h er o ut sev eral ti m es . The d is tri ct co ur t d en ie d h im

su m m ary jud gm en t, co nc lu di ng th ere wer e g en ui ne is su es of m at eri al fact ab ou t th e se ve rit y

an d p erv as iv en es s o f W ag ne r’s co nd uc t. Vie win g t he fact s m os t fav or ab ly to Cr ut ch er-S an ch ez, Wagn er’s co nd uc t was no t s uf fic ie nt ly sev ere o r
pe rv as iv e to crea te a se xu al ly hos ti le work en vi ro nm en t. The on ly alle ga ti on s
ag ai ns t Wagn er were th at he off ered he r a b ox of c ho co la te s an d a sk ed he r ou t

se ve ral ti m es . W

hi le in ap pr op ria te , hi s ac ts do no t re ach th e h ig h t hr es ho ld of “ so in ti m id at in g, o ffen si ve , or h os ti le th at it po is on ed th e wor k e nv iro nm en t.” Scus a , 18 1 F .3d at 9 67 . Cru tc he r-Sa nc he z fai ls to sh ow t ha t Wagn er’s act io ns affe ct ed he r em pl oym en t, as req ui red to m ak e a co lo rab le cla im of s ex ua ll y

ho st il e wor k

en vi ro nm en t. Se e Sut

her la nd , 58 0 F .3d at 7 51 . The d is tri ct co ur t er red in de nyin g Wagn er s um m ary jud gm en t.

* * * * * * *

The jud gm en t of th e di st ric t co ur t is affi rm ed in pa rt, rev ers ed in pa rt, an d th e

cas e rem an de d fo r pr oc eed in gs co ns is te nt wit h t hi s o pi ni on

.

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

-1 2-