## 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 94

__ __ __ __ __ _

Ch arv et te W il li am s, *

* App el le e, *

* App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s

v. * Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e

* Dis tri ct of Ne br as ka

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

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

*

* App el la nt

. *

__ __ __ __ __ _

Su bm it te d: Feb ru ary 16 , 20 12
Fi le d: Aug us t 3 , 20 12

__ __ __ __ __ _

Befo re GRUENDER, BENTON, and SHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ _
SHEPHERD, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

Ch arv et te W il li am s br ou gh t su it un de r 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 ag ai ns t th e Co un ty of

Dak ot a, Neb ras ka

, an d fo rm er co un ty o f f ic ia l Ro dn ey Herro n. Sh e al le ge d

de fen da nt s co m

m it te d ge nd er di sc riminat io n in vi ol at io n of h e r Fo ur te en th

Am en dm en t rig ht s. Herro n ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of su m m ary jud gm en t, 1

as se rti ng th at he was e nt it le d t o q ua li fie d i m m un it y . W e aff

irm.

The Hon or ab le Jo se ph F. Bat ai ll on , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1

Dis tri ct of Ne br as ka

.I. Back gr ou nd

In Ja nu ary 20 07

, th en Dak ot a Co un ty Ch ie f D e p u t y S he rif f Ro dn ey Herro n

hi red Ch arv et te W il li am s as a co rrec ti on al of fic er at th e Dak ot a Co un ty Ja il (DCJ ). 2

Herro n po ss es se d di rect au th or it y ov er DCJ em pl oyees un ti l Ja nu ary 20 08

, whe n he

ceas ed se rv in g as jail ad m in is tra to r. Afte r th at ti m e, he ret ai ne d au th or it y ov er DCJ

em pl oyees by vi rtu e of sh eri ff de pa rtment hi erar ch y , m ean in g th at W ill ia m s co ul d no t

d i s r e g a r d hi s di rect or de rs

. Herro n m ai nt ai ne d a co ns ta nt pr es en ce at DCJ

, a s h e

wor ke d fro m an of

fic e th ere. In Apr il or May 20 08

, W il li am s an d Herro n b e g a n a

se xu al rel at io ns hi p, whi ch co nt in ue d un ti l early Aug us t 20 08

. The rel at io ns hi p be ga n

to so ur in Ju ne ; a J u n e 23 em ai l fro m W il li am s to Herro n ex pr es se d W il li am s’s

di sc on te nt , st at in g,

I kn ow y ou do n’t li ke m e an d I kn ow y ou do nt wan t to be wit h m e ot he r th an se x if ev en th at an y m or e. I jus t ne ed cl os ur e.

. . . As fo r m e I ha ve

ne ve r fel t so un wan te d in m y li fe an d I am ti red of it an d t i r e d o f y ou bl owi ng m e of

f. I can jus t no t ta lk to y ou wit h ou t te ll in g y ou ho w I feel
be cau se th en I wil l ke ep on th in ki ng th at m ay be y ou wil l co m e aro un d.

I am do ne no w. This is m

y clo su re.

W il li am s ex p l a i n e d in res po ns e to in te rro ga to rie s th at by Ju ly sh e “ wan te d

ou t,” a nd “ th e to uc hi ng , gr op in g and se x was no lo ng er con se ns ua l.” Howev er, the

rel at io ns hi p con ti nu ed be cau se W il li am s feared sh e wou ld lo se he r job if sh e en de d

it

. Sh e ha d he ar d r um or s of ot he r DCJ em pl oyees who lo st th ei r job s aft er en di ng

se xu al rel at io ns hi ps wit h Herro n. W he n sh e as ke d Herro n whe th er sh e co ul d be fir ed

fo r “ m es si ng aro un d wit h [h im ], ” Herro n as su red he r th at sh e wou ld no t lo se he r job

. W il li am s cl ai m ed th at Herro n co m m it te d th e fo llo w ing unw el co m e ha ra ssm en t in Jul y

Fo r t he pu rp os es of th is ap pe al

, we ta ke as tru e th os e fact s th e di st ric t co ur t 2

fo un d or li ke ly as su m ed as tru e—s o lo ng as th ey are no t bl at an tl y co nt rad ic te d by th e

reco rd —an d m ak e al l reas on ab le in fere nc es i n fav or of th e pl ai nt iff reg ard in g an y

un res ol ve d fa ct ua l q ue st io ns . See i nf ra, p art II.A.

- 2

-20 08 : af

te r sh e su gg es te d t ha t t he y sh ou ld en d th ei r rel at io ns hi p, he walk ed by h er

wor ks ta ti on al l da y mak i n g s a d “ pu pp y do g face s” ; he wait ed fo r he r whe re

em pl oyees cl oc k ou t, an d whe n sh e arri ve d he g r a bb ed he r, hu gg ed he r, an d

co m pl im en te d th e sm el l of he r ha ir; an d on an ot he r oc cas io n, he be ga n hu gg in g an d

ki ss in g h er wh il e sh e was in hi s o ffi ce, an d t he n h ad in te rco ur se wit h h er.

The rel at io ns hi p en de d in earl y Aug us t 20 08

. So on th erea fte r, Wil li am s
le arn ed sh e was pr eg na nt by Herro n, bu t sh e in du ced a m is carr ia ge by ta ki ng
ib up ro fen in a su ic id e at te m pt

. W he n Herro n le arn e d o f th e pr eg na nc y an d

m is carr ia ge , he be cam e an gr y an d to ld W il l i a ms t h a t sh e wou ld co st hi m a lo cal

sh eri ff’s el ect io n. (Herro n was a can di da te fo r Dak ot a Co un ty Sh eri ff at th at ti m e.)

In earl y Sep te m be r 20 08 , Herro n a sk ed W il li am s if th ey co ul d c on ti nu e as fri en ds

. Sh e av oi de d hi m an d as ke d a fel lo w em pl oyee t o t e l l hi m to le av e he r al on e. In

Octo be r sh e tra ns ferr ed to th e ni gh t sh ift to av oi d se ei ng Herro n at wor k. Sh e di d no t

de si re t he tra ns fer, as it m ad e h er h om e li fe s ig ni fic an tl y m or e d iff

ic ul t.

W il li am s cl ai m ed th at sh e rece i v e d s p eci al tre at m en t whi le co nt in ui ng he r

se xu al rel at io ns hi p wit h Herro n, in cl ud in g th e ab il it y to ta ke pa id le av e at hi s req ue st

. Sh e al so pr ov id ed ev id en ce th at (1 ) Herro n ha d carr ie d on se xu al rel at io ns hi ps wit h

at le as t two ot he r fem al e DCJ em pl oyees, he ag gr es si ve ly pu rs ue d a rel at io ns hi p wit h

a th ird em

pl oyee aft er h av in g t wo s ex ua l en co un te rs wit h h er, an d th os e wom en al l

ei th er qu it or were f

i r e d ; ( 2 ) H e rro n rewar de d th e wom en who ga ve in to hi m wit h

wor kp la ce be ne fit s; (3 ) Herro n to ld on e of th os e wom en th at he wou ld fir e he r if sh e
di d no t d o w h a t h e wan te d; an d (4 ) ot he r DCJ su pe rio rs ha d en ga ge d in si m il ar

co nd uc t wi th fem al e em

pl oyees.

W il li am s br ou gh t su it ag ai ns t Herro n an d Dak ot a Co un ty in Ju ne 20 09

. In he r

se co nd am en de d co m

pl ai nt

, sh e al le ge d th at Herro n se xu al ly ha ras se d he r by crea ti ng

an d fo st eri ng a ho st il e wor k en vi ro nm en t, in vi ol at io n of he r Fo ur te en th Am en dm en t rig ht s. Acti ng in hi s in di vi d u a l cap aci ty, Herro n m ov ed fo r su m m ary jud gm en t in

- 3

-Apr il 20 11

, arg ui ng th at he was en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y

. Th e di st ric t co ur t

de ni ed th e m ot io n. Fi rs t, it co nc lu de d th at an em pl oyee’s rig ht to be free fro m ge nd er
di sc riminat io n was cl earl y es ta bl is he d un de r th e Fo ur te en th Am en dm en t. Seco nd

, it

co nc lu de d th at ge nu in e qu es ti on s of m at eri al fact ex is te d as to whe th er Herro n
vi ol at ed W il li am s’s co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s, in cl ud in g whe th er Herro n c o mm i t te d

wid es pr ead se xu al fav or it is m at DCJ an d whe th er hi s co nd uc t to ward s W il li am s was

su ffi ci en tl y se ve re or pe rv as iv e as to affe ct a te rm or co nd it io n of em pl oym en t. Bas ed

on th e di st ric t co ur t’s st at em en ts th at ge nu in e qu es ti on s of m at eri al fact ex is te d as to

w he the r Herro n vi ol at ed W il li am s’s co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s, we co nc lu de tha t the dis tr ic t

co ur t al so fo un d W il li am s sh owe d a co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n whe n vi ewin g th e fact s

in th e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to he r.

II. Ana lysis

On ap pe al

, Herro n arg ue s th at he was en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y , an d th at

th e di st ric t co ur t sh ou ld ha ve gr an te d hi m su m m ary jud gm en t on th at b a s i s

. As an

i n i t i al m at te r, we m

us t ad dr es s whe th er th is co ur t ha s juri sd ic ti on ov er Herr o n ’s

ap pe al

. If we fin d juri sd ic ti on is pr op er, we wil l co nt in ue to di sc us s whe th er Herro n

po ss es se d q ua li fie d i m

m un it y

.

A. Ju ris di ct io n

W e rev ie w qu es ti on s of su bjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on de no vo

. Cm ty. Fi n. Grp

., In c. v. Rep ub li c o f Ken y a, 66 3 F .3d 97 7, 98 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ). Thi s co ur t ge ne ral ly

la ck s juri sd ic ti on ov er in te rlo cu to ry ap pe al s ch al le ng in g th e de ni al o f a s u m m ary jud gm en t m ot io n. Kro ut v. Goe m m er, 5 83 F.3 d 55 7, 56 3- 64 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ).

Howev er, un de r th e co ll at eral -o rd er do ct rin e, th is co ur t ha s juri sd ic ti on ov er su ch an

a p p e a l whe n it in vo lv es a de ni al of qu al ifi ed im m un it y , so lo ng as th e ap pe a l

ch al le ng es on ly ab st ract is su es of la w. Id

. at 56 4. Rev ie w be co m es m or e co m pl ic at ed

whe n, as he re, an ap pe ll an t ch al l e n ge s is su es of bo th la w an d fact

. In th es e

- 4

-ci rcu m st an ces , we ap pl y de no vo rev ie w; y et in do in g so , we m us t ta ke as tru e th os e

fact s th e di st ric t co ur t fo un d or li ke ly as su m ed as t r u e , Bro wn v. Fo rtn er, 51 8 F.3 d

55 2, 55 7- 58 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ), so lo ng as t ho se fact s ar e n ot bl at an tl y co nt rad ic te d by

th e rec or d, Sc ot t v . Harri s, 5 50 U.S. 37 2, 38 0 (2 00 7) . As to an y un res ol ve d fa ct ua l

qu es ti on s, we m ak e al l reas on ab le in fere nc es in fav or of th e pl ai nt iff

. Bro wn, 51 8

F.3 d a t 5 58

.

B. Qual ifi ed Im m un it y

O n sum m ar y j udgm en t, gove rn m en t of fi ci al s poss es s quali fie d im m un it y un le ss (1 ) th e fa c t s pl ai nt iff ha s sh own am ou nt to a vi ol at io n of a co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht , a nd
(2 ) th e rig ht vi ol at ed was cl earl y es ta bl is he d whe n th e al le ge d m is co nd uc t oc cu rred

. A sh cro ft v. al -Kid d, 13 1 S. Ct

. 20 74

, 20 80 (2 01 1)

. A co ur t m ay be gi n it s an al y si s
wit h ei th er pr on g. Id

. Fo r ou r pu rp os es , we wil l fir st de te rm in e whe th er W il li am s ha s
sh own th at Herro n vi ol at ed he r Fo ur te en th Am en dm en t rig ht s, lo ok in g to th e fact s in

th e m an ne r de sc rib ed ab ov e. If sh e ha s m et he r bu rd e n , w e w i ll th en de te rm in e
whe th er t he vi ol at io n was cle arl y est ab li sh ed at t he ti m e it oc cu rred

.

1. Di d Her ro n Vi ol at e a Co ns ti tu ti on al Rig ht ?

To su ccee d on a Fo ur te en th Am en dm en t ho st il e-wo rk -en vi ro nm en t clai m fo r

se xu al ha ras sm en t, a pl ai nt iff m us t sh ow th at (1 ) sh e be lo ng s to a pr ot ect ed gr ou p, (2 )

sh e was su bjec te d to un welc om e se xu al ha ras sm en t, (3 ) th e ha ras sm en t was ba se d on

se x, and (4 ) th e ha ras sm en t affect ed a te rm , co nd it io n, or pri vi le ge of em pl oym en t.
Tug gl e v. Man ga n, 34 8 F.3 d 71 4, 72 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ). “ To be act io na bl e, ha ras sm en t

m us t be b o th ob

jecti ve ly an d su bjec ti ve ly of fen si ve , su ch th at a reas on ab le pe rs on

wou ld co ns id er it to be ho st il e or ab us iv e

. . . .” Eren be rg v

. M e t ho di st Hos p., 35 7

F.3 d 7 87 , 79 2 (8 th Cir . 20 04 ).

- 5

-On ap pe al

, Herro n co nt en ds th at W il li am s di d no t su ffi ci en tl y sh ow th e se co nd

an d fo ur th ele m en ts of h er cl ai m . W e ad dr es s ea ch in tu rn

.

In regar d to the se co nd el em en t, we fin d W il li am s pr es en te d su ffi ci en t ev id en ce

to sh ow sh e ad eq ua te ly co m m un ic at ed to Herro n t ha t h is co nd uc t was un welc om e.

See M e r i t o r Sav

. Ban k v. Vin so n, 47 7 U.S. 57

, 68 (1 98 6) (“ The co rrec t in qu iry is

whe th er re sp on de nt by her con du ct in di cat ed th at th e al le ge d s ex ua l ad va nc es were

un welc om e . . . .”) . The h aras si ng co nd uc t al le ge d b y W il li am s b eg an in Ju ly 200 8

an d in cl ud ed Herro n gr ab bi ng an d hu gg in g he r whi le sh e was cl oc ki ng ou t, m ak in g

po ut y face s at he r al l da y aft er sh e in fo rm ed hi m sh e no lo ng e r w i s h e d t o ha ve se x
wit h hi m , an d in it ia ti ng a se xu al en co un te r wit h he r in hi s of fic e. See id

. (n ot in g th at

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; qu es ti on “ tu rn s la rg el y

o n 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 ”); Qui ck 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 e s s e xu al

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

na tu re.”)

.

W il li am s in fo rm ed Herro n sh e was un com fo rt ab le co nti nui ng the ir relat io ns hi p

in la te Ju ne 20 08

, an d ag ai n in Ju ly—a n i ns ta nc e th at sp eci fic al ly pr om pt ed

wor kp la ce ha ras sm en t fro m Herro n. W il li am s al so in fo rm ed Herro n of he r co nc ern

th at sh e wou ld lo se he r job if sh e en de d th ei r rel at io ns hi p, whi ch sh e ba se d on th e

way h i s pa st rel at io ns hi ps wit h DCJ em pl oyees ha d en de d. See Qui ck

, 90 F.3 d at

13 77 -7 8 (ha ras si ng co nd uc t i s u nwe lc om e if it was u ni nv it ed an d o ffen si ve ; p ro pe r

in qu iry is whe th er pl ai nt iff in di cat ed by he r co nd uc t th at h a r a s s ment was

un welc om e). The refo re, we be li ev e W il li am s su pp li ed su ffi ci en t ev id en ce th at sh e

co ns id ered Herro n’s co nd uc t to be un welc om e ha ras sm en t, th at a reas on ab le pe rs on

wou ld ag ree, an d th at sh e co m m un ic at ed to Herro n th at hi s co nd uc t was un welc om e

in a way th at a reas on ab le pe rs on wou ld un de rs ta nd

.

- 6

-In reg ard to th e fo ur th el em en t, W il li am s m us t sh ow th at Herro n’s co nd uc t was

“ so se ve re or pe rv as iv e as to al te r a te rm , co nd it io n, or pr iv il eg e of [h er]

em pl oym en t.” D u n c a n v. Gen

. Mo to rs Co rp ., 30 0 F.3 d 92 8, 93 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 ).

Thi s el em en t pr es en ts a hi gh th res ho ld, req ui rin g a sh owi ng th at “ th e wor kp la ce [was ]

pe rm eat ed wit h di sc riminat or y in ti m id at io n, rid ic ul e, an d in su lt .” Id

. (q uo ti ng Harri s
v. Fork li ft Sy s., Inc., 51 0 U.S. 17

, 21 (1 99 3) ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. It

in cl ud es bo th a s u b

je ct iv e an d ob

jecti ve in qu iry. Id

. To de te rm in e whe th er th e

co nd uc t co m

pl ai ne d of was su ffi ci en tl y se ve re or pe rv as iv e, “ we lo ok to th e to ta li ty

of th e c i r cu m st an ces , in cl ud in g th e ‘frequ en cy 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 th reat en in g or hu m il ia ti ng , or a m ere of fen si ve

ut te ran ce; an d whe th er it u n r e a s on ab ly in te rfer es wit h an em pl oyee’s wor k

pe rfo rm an ce.’” Id. (q uo ti ng Harri s, 5 10 U.S. at 2 3)

.

As evi de nc ed by de po si ti on s of DCJ em pl oyees (in cl ud in g th at of W il li am s)

, Herro n es ta bl is he d a pe rv as iv e syste m of se xu al co erci on at DCJ

, en ti ci ng wom en to

en te r it wit h wor kp la ce be ne fit s an d se cu rin g th ei r co nt in ue d pa rti ci pa ti on wit h th e

th reat of n eg at iv e em

pl oym en t co ns eq ue nc es . Befo re Will ia m s, h e pu rs ue d at leas t

th ree ot he r DCJ em

pl oyees in th is m an ne r, al l of who m lo st th ei r job s aft er en di ng

th ei r rel at io ns hi ps wit h hi m

. Onc e W il li am s be ga n vi ewin g Herro n’s co nd uc t to ward

he r as un welc om e, he r em pl oym en t st at us be cam e jeop ard iz ed , a nd he r su bm is si on

to hi s co nd uc t be cam e a fact or weig hi ng on he r co n t i n u e d DCJ em pl oym en t. Tha t

co nd uc t in cl ud ed th e co nt in ua ti on of he r s e x u a l rel at io ns hi p wit h hi m , as well as

un w e l c o me gr ab bi ng , hu gg in g, an d di st ract iv e be ha vi or in th e wor kp la ce, an d an

un welc om e se xu al en co un te r in hi s of fic e. See Mo rin g v. Ar k

. D e p ’t of Co rr., 24 3

F.3 d 45 2, 45 6- 57 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 ) (o ne is ol at ed in ci de nt m ay be su ffi ci en tl y se ve re so

as to al te r te rm s an d co nd it io ns of em pl oym en t; co ur t fo un d co nd uc t was su ffi ci en tl y

se ve re whe n su pe rv is or en te red pl ai nt iff ’s ho te l ro om , sa t on he r be d, to uc he d he r le g,

an d le an ed in to ki ss h e r )

. Herro n’s co nd uc t was ren de red al l th e m or e se ve re an d

co erci ve by th e ab us iv e wor kp la ce en vi ro nm en t in whi ch it oc cu rred

, an en vi ro nm en t

th at hi s p rio r rel at io ns hi ps wit h DCJ em pl oyees h ad crea te d. Se e, e.g ., San do va l v

.

- 7

-Am

. Bl dg

. Mai nt

. In du s., In c., 57 8 F.3 d 78 7, 80 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (“ W he n jud gi ng th e

se ve rit y an d pe rv as iv en es s of wor kp la ce se xu al ha ras sm en t, th is co ur t ha s lo ng he ld

ha ras sm en t di rect ed to wa r d s o t h er fem al e em pl oyees is rel ev an t an d m us t be

co ns id ered .”). W il li am s exp la in ed th at Herro n’s con du ct m ad e h er v ery di st res se d,

res ul ti ng in de pr es si on , an xi et y , m is se d wor k

, c r yi n g whi le on th e job

, an d an

un de si red sh ift ch an ge

.

Loo ki ng to th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces , we be li ev e W il li am s sh owe d sh e

co ns id ered Herro n’s co nd uc t to be se ve re en ou gh to al t e r th e te rm s, co nd it io ns , or

pr iv il eg es of he r em

pl oym en t, an d th at a reas on ab le pe rs on wou ld co ns id er it th e

sa m e. See Onc al e v. Su nd own er Offs ho re Serv s., 52 3 U.S. 75

, 82 (1 99 8) (“ Co m m on

se ns e, an d an ap pr op ria te se ns it iv it y to so ci al co nt ex t, wil l en ab le co ur ts an d juri es

to di st in gu is h be twee n si m pl e te as in g or ro u g h ho us in g

. . . an d co nd uc t whi ch a

reas on ab le pe rs on in th e pl ai nt iff ’s po si ti on wou ld fin d se ve rel y ho st il e or ab us iv e.”).

W il li am s pr ovi de d ev ide nc e tha t H er ro n’ s co nduc t was se ve re, ph y si cal ly th reat en in g,

an d an un reas on ab le in te rfer en ce wit h he r wor k pe rfo rm an ce. The refo re, we be li ev e

W il li am s ha s su ffi ci en tl y sh own th e fo ur th el em en t of he r ho st il e-wo rk -en vi ro nm en t

cl ai m

. See Howard v. Burn s Bros ., 14 9 F .3d 83 5, 8 40 (8t h C ir. 1 99 8) (“ Onc e th ere
is ev id en ce of im

pr op er co nd uc t an d su bjec ti ve of fen se , th e de te rm in at io n of whe th er

th e co nd uc t ro se to th e le ve l o f ab us e is lar ge ly in t he ha nd s o f th e jury.”).

Herro n arg ue s on a p p e a l th at th e ab ov e an al y si s is no t en ou gh

. Rel y in g on
And ers on v. Crei gh to n, 48 3 U.S. 63 5 (1 98 7)

, he co n t e n d s th at to sa ti sf y th e fir st

qu al ifi ed -imm

un it y pr on g, W il li am s m

us t su p p o rt he r cl ai m us in g on ly th os e fact s

kn own to Herro n whe n th e vi ol at io n oc cu rred

. In And ers on , th e Su pr em e Co ur t he ld

th at whe n co ur ts an al y ze w h e th er a vi ol at ed rig ht is cl earl y es ta bl is he d, th ey m us t

co nd uc t an ob

jecti ve in qu iry lo ok in g to th e p a r t i c u l ar fact s of th e cas e, ul ti m at el y
de te rm in in g wh e t h e r “ 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 ” a co ns ti tu ti on al or st at ut or y rig ht

. Id

. at 64 0. The Co ur t fu rth er ex pl ai ne d

th at in th e co nt ex t of whe th er a po li ce se arch was su pp or te d by pr ob ab le cau se or

- 8

-ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces, the an al y sis “ w il l of te n req ui re ex am in at io n of th e in fo rm at io n

po ss es se d by th e se arch in g of fic ia ls .” Id

. at 64 1. Herro n co nt en ds t h a t t h i s s am e

ex am in at io n m

us t al so ap pl y to th e se co nd an d fo ur th el em en ts of W il li am s’s ho st il ewor k- en vi ro nm en t cl ai m , req ui rin g he r to sh ow each us in g on ly th os e fact s he kn ew
whe n t he vi ol at io n o ccu rred

.

W e reject Herro n’s arg um en t fo r th e fo ll owi ng reas on s. Fi rs t, in th e twen tyfiv e y ears si nc e And ers on was de ci de d, we are un aware of an y cas e th at ha s ap pl ie d

And ers on to se xu al -h aras sm en t cl ai m s in th e way Herro n su gg es ts

. Cf. Wr i gh t v.

Ro le tt e Co un ty, 41 7 F.3 d 87 9, 88 4- 86 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (co ur t di d no t ap pl y ad di ti on al

kn owl ed ge req ui rem en t whe n co nd uc ti ng qu al ifi ed -imm un it y an al y si s in se xu al

ha ras sm en t ho st il e-wo rk -en vi ro nm en t cl ai m co nt ex t). Seco nd

, to de te rm in e whe th er

a warra nt le ss se arch was jus ti fie d by pr ob ab le cau se or ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces , a co ur t

m us t co ns id er th e in fo rm at io n po ss es se d by th e of fic er whe n he co nd uc te d th e se arch ;
ho wev er, a de fen da nt ’s la ck of su bj ect iv e kn owl ed ge as to whe th er hi s ad va nc es were

un welc om e or were se rio us en ou gh to affe ct a te rm or co nd it io n of em pl oym en t is no t

de te rm in at iv e fo r pu rp os es of ho st il e-wo rk -en vi ro nm en t clai m s. Fi na ll y , And ers on
de al t o n ly wit h th e se co nd pr on g of th e qu al ifi ed -imm un it y an al y si s, an d do es no t

ap pl y to whe th er a pl ai nt iff ha s sh own a co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n oc cu rred

. See Oki n

v. Vil l. of Co rn wall -o n- Hud so n Po li ce Dep ’t, 57 7 F.3 d 41 5, 43 3 n.1 1 (2 d Ci r. 20 09 )
(ex pl ai ni ng th at And ers on ’s ob jecti ve ly reas on ab le in qu iry ap pl ie s on ly to th e se co nd

qu al ifi ed -imm

un it y pr on g; an of

fic er m ay no t av oi d li ab il it y un de r th e fir st pr on g by

cl ai m in g he po ss es se d an ob jecti ve ly reas on ab le be li ef th at hi s co nd uc t was la wfu l).

Bas ed on th e fo reg oi ng , we co nc lu de W il li am s ha s m et he r bu rd en to sh ow th at

H e r r on vi ol at ed he r Fo ur te en th Am en dm en t rig ht to be free fro m ge n d e r
di sc riminat io n.

- 9

-2. Was t he Rig ht Herro n Vi ol at ed Cle arl y Est ab li sh ed ?

N ex t, we m

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

es ta bl is he d. “ A Gov ern m en t of fic ia l’s co nd uc t vi ol at es cl earl y es ta bl is he d la w whe n,

at th e ti m e of t h e c h a l l e n ge d co nd uc t, ‘[t]he co nt ou rs of [a] rig ht [are ] su ffi ci en tl y
cl ear’ th at ev ery ‘reaso na bl e of f i c i a l wou ld ha ve un de rs to od th at wha t he is do in g
vi ol at es th at rig ht .’ ” al -Kid d, 13 1 S. Ct

. a t 2 0 8 3 (al te rat io ns in or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng
And ers on , 48 3 U.S. at 6 40 ). Thi s p ro ng is a fact -in te ns iv e in qu iry tha t l oo ks to th e

sp eci fic fact s of th e c a s e , a nd is no t sa ti sf ie d by ge ne ral pr on ou nc em en ts of la w.

Mo or e v. In de ha r, 51 4 F.3 d 75 6, 75 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ). Thu s, th e qu es ti on is whe th er

a reas on ab le of

fic ia l wou ld ha ve kn own th at th e sp eci fic co nd uc t Herro n en ga ge d in

am ou nt ed to a co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n. To an swe r it

, “ we lo ok to th e st at e of th e la w

at th e ti m e of th e in ci de nt .” Sh ek le to n v. Eich en be rg er, 67 7 F.3 d 36 1, 36 7 (8 th Ci r.

20 12 ). Eve n whe n no de c i s i o n i nv ol ve s 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 f i c i a l wou ld ha ve 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. Ark

. In s. Dep ’t, 29 7 F.3 d 75 1, 75 5 (8 th Ci r.

20 02 ).

W e fin d th at th e rig ht Herro n vi ol at ed was cl earl y es ta bl is he d. Hos ti le wor k

en vi ro nm en ts cau se d by se xu al ha ras sm en t ha ve lo ng be en reco gn iz ed as

c o n s t i t u t i o na l vi ol at io ns

. See, e.g ., Mo rin g, 24 3 F.3 d at 45 5- 56

. It is al so cl earl y

es ta bl is he d t ha t s uc h c la im s ca n a ris e fro m rel at io ns hi ps th at were o nc e co ns en su al

bu t la te r be cam e un welc om e. See

, e.g ., M uk ai da v. Hawai i, 15 9 F. Su pp . 2 d 12 11

, 12 31 (D

. H a w. 2 00 1) (en ou gh ev id en ce fo r ho st il e-wo rk -en vi ro nm en t cl ai m whe re

on ly so m e of e mp lo y er’s se xu al co nd uc t m ay ha ve be en un welc om e); Scel ta v.
Deli cat es se n Su pp or t Serv s., 89 F. Su pp

. 2d 13 11

, 13 18 (M.D. Fl a. 20 00 ) (reg ard in g
ho st il e-wo rk -en vi ro nm en t cl ai m s: “ [t]he re co m es a po in t in ti m e whe n co ns en su al

se xu al rel at io ns en d an d un welc om e se xu al ha ras sm en t be gi ns ”). Bec au se pr io r co ur t

de ci si on s in di cat e th at th e sp eci fic fact s of W ill ia m s’ s cl aim su pp or t Herro n’s li ab il it y

- 1 0

-fo r ge nd er di sc riminat io n, we fin d th at a reas on ab le pu bl ic of fic ia l wou ld ha ve kn own

Herro n’s co nd uc t was un la wfu l.

Herro n at te m

pt s to di st in gu is h hi s cas e on ap pe al by arg ui ng th at we m us t li m it

ou r cl earl y es ta bl is he d rig ht an al y si s to cas es in vo lv in g se ct i o n 1 9 83 an d qu al ifi ed

im m un it y ; he fu rth er as se rts th at th e type of cl ai m br ou gh t b y Wi ll ia m s ha s ne ve r gi ve n ris e to se c t i o n 1 9 8 3 li ab il it y

. W e ha ve pr ev io us ly he ld th at se ct io n 19 83

se xu al -h aras sm en t cl ai m s are tre at ed th e sa m e as se xu al -h a r as sm en t cl ai m s un de r

Tit le VII of th e Ci vi l Ri gh ts Act of 19 64

, 42 U.S.C. § 20 00 e et se q. See Mo or e v.

Fo rres t Ci ty Sch. Dis t., 5 24 F.3d 87 9, 8 83 (8t h C ir. 2 00 8) ; Weger v. Ci ty o f Lad ue , 50 0 F.3 d 71 0, 71 7 n.4 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ); Tug gl e v. Man ga n, 34 8 F.3 d 71 4, 72 0 (8 th Ci r.

20 03 ); se e al so W rig ht , 41 7 F .3d at 8 84 -8 5 (l is ti ng cas es ). I t sh ou ld be no su rp ris e

th at we ap pl y th e sa m e tre at m en t he re, m ak in g Tit le VII se xu al -h aras sm en t cas es
rel ev an t to ou r de te rm in at io n. As ex pl ai ne d ab ov e , a qu al ifi ed -imm un it y an al y si s
do es no t au gm en t a pl ai nt iff ’s bu rd en to sh ow he r ho st il e-wo rk -en vi ro nm en t cl ai m

. Th u s , b e cau se ou r cl ai m an al y si s is th e sa m e reg ard le ss of whe th er qu al ifi e d

im m un it y is im

pl ic at ed

, we m ay rel y on cas es no t in vo lv in g qu al ifi ed im m un it y whe n
de te rm in in g wh et he r a v io la ti on is cle arl y est ab li sh ed

.

3. Herr on W as Not Ent it le d t o Qu al ifi ed Im m un it y

“ Su m m ary ju d g m en t sh ou ld no t be gr an te d un le ss th e m ov in g pa rty ha s

es ta bl is he d th e rig ht to a jud gm en t wit h su ch cl ari ty as to le av e n o r oo m fo r

co nt ro ve rs y .” See Greer v. Sh oo p, 14 1 F.3 d 82 4, 82 6 (8 th Ci r. 19 98 ) (q uo ti ng Vacca

v. Viac om Bro ad

. of Mo

., I n c., 87 5 F.2 d 13 37

, 13 39 (8 th Ci r. 19 89 )) (in te rn al

qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Becau se we fin d th at W il li am s has sa ti sf ie d bo th pr on gs

of th e qu al ifi ed -imm

un it y an al y si s, we ag ree with th e di st ric t cou rt th at Herro n was

no t en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y , an d th at he was th eref or e no t en ti tl ed to su m

m ary jud gm en t o n t ha t b as is

.

- 1 1

-III. Co nc lu si on

W e ag ree wit h th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al o f Herro n’s su m m ary jud gm en t

mo t i on

. Tak in g th e fact s in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to W il li am s, sh e su ffi ci en t l y
sh owe d th at Herro n’s co nd uc t to ward he r was un welc om e ha ras sm en t, an d th at it was

se rio u s e no ug h to al te r a te rm or co nd it io n of he r em pl oym en t. In ad di ti on , sh e
sh owe d th at Herro n’s co nd uc t vi ol at ed a cl ear l y es ta bl is he d rig ht

, ba se d on th e

pa rti cu la r fac ts of t hi s ca se . Accor di ng ly, we affi rm

.

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

- 1 2

-