Pursuant to5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be * publishe d an d is not prece dent except under the limite d circumstances set forthin5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 40518 S u m m ary C al en da r
W H IT N E YG U IL L O R Y , P l ai n t i f f –A pp el l ee v. C A R R O L L T H O M A S , S u p erin ten d en t , D efen d a n t–A p p ell a n t

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f ort he E as t er n D i st r i c tof Texas U SD C N o. 9: 07- C V

- 163

B ef ore H IG G IN B O T H A M , C L E M E N T , an d S O U T H W IC K , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * D r. C arrolT h om as, su peri n t en den tof the B eau m on tI n dep en den tSch ool D i st r i c t( “ B I SD ” ) has f i l ed an i nt er l oc ut or y appealof t he di st r i c tc our t ’ s deni al
o f q u a l i f i e d i m m u n i t y . W e AF FI RM

.

FA CT UAL & P ROCEDURAL HI S TORY In Jan u ary 200 0, B ISD hi red F erguson P arker as a ba n d d i rect or atO zen H i gh Sch ool( “ O H S ” ) i n B eau m on t , T exas. T h e f ol l ow i n g fal l , W h i t n ey G u i l l ory United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D December

14, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 09- 40518

Guillory was one of the students intervi ewed as part of the investigatio n. She deni ed 1 h avin ge xpe ri ence d orh avin gwitn es se d a nysexu al mi sc on ductb yP ark er . Th e di strict court noted that the record is not clear onex actly what Parker’s status was 2 withB I SD b etwe enth e ti meh e wa s initially su sp en de d a n d th e ti meh e we nt b ackt o wo rk

. However , th e di strict court co ncluded that “[t]h e re cord is fair lyc lear th at in eith er eve nt, Parker di d not h ave acontract with BI SD — a ndBIS D ha d no obli gationto make him th e Ozenband director again— when he was ac quitted of th e 2 001 Alle gation s.” The district court also explained that “th e C ourt’s ultimate conclusions here would be the same wh ether Parker resigned his position or was simplysuspe nded whilech arges onth e 2 001 Alle gation s were pe ndin g.” 2 be ga n he rf

r e s hm an ye ara tO H S and w as a m e m be ro f t he b and

. La t e r , dur i ng th e s a m e s c h o o l y e a r , P a r k e rw a s in d ic te d fo re x p o s in gh im s e lf to a 1 3 y e a r -o ld
m id d le s ch oo lstu d en t, h a vin g se xu a li n tercou rse w i th a 1 5 ye a r-ol d m i d d le
s c ho o ls t ude nt , a nd h av i ng s e xua li nt e r c o ur s e w i t h a 1 6 ye ar - o l d OH S s t ude nt (co ll e ctiv e ly, th e “2 0 0 1 A ll e g a tion s”). B IS D co n d u c te d its o w n fo r m a l in v e s t ig a tio n . A s a re s u lt o f th is 1 i n vest i gati on , t h e B ISD B oard of T rustees vot ed to susp en d P arker. P arker su b se qu en t l y w as t ri ed an d acqu i t t ed on t h e cr i m i n alcharges
r e l at e d t o the 200 1 A l l e ga t i o ns . BI SD o f fe r e d t o r e hi r e Par ke ra s t he b and di rect or. U pon hi s r eh i ri n g, Su peri nt e nde ntTho m as m etw i t h P arker t o di scuss

2 th e co n d itio n s o f h is r e in s ta te m e n t. T h e y in c lu d e d n o t h a v in gs tu d e n ts a lo n e in hi s of f i c e , n o tc l o s i n gh i s o f f i c e d o o r , n o tt o u c h i n go rh u g g i n gs t u d e n t s , a nd
m on t h l y or bi m on t h l y observati on s of P arker by D r. T h om as. E ve n p ri or to b ein g re h i red , P a rk er b eg a n to h a ve sex u a lrelati on s w i th G u i l l ory. A f

t er r et u rni n g t o hi s f orm er posi t i on as O H S ban d d i rect or, P arker and G ui l l or y s oughtt o c onc ealt hei rr e l a t i o ns hi p , whi c h co nt i nued t hro ugh 2004. O n oc c as i on, Parkerand G ui l l or y l ef tc am pus dur i ng sc hoolh our s t o have s exualN o. 09- 40518

Dr. Thomas, P arker, Guillory , an d th e Pipers are allAfrican-American. 3 3 i n t ercourse. O n D ecem ber 14, 200 4, G ui l l o r y’ s m o t he rdi s c o ve r e d ane ar l y- n ak ed P a rk er h i d i n g in G u i l l ory ’ s be d roo m cl ose t. H ou rs l a ter, G u i l l ory an d herpar ent s, C l a ren ce a n d T on ya P i p er, m et w i th D r. T h om a s an d B IS D ’ s attorn ey M elod y C h a p p ell

. T h ere i s a factu a ldisp u te
c o n c e r n in gw h a t w a s s a id d u r in gth is m e e tin g . G u illo r ya n d h e rp a r e n ts cla im D r . Tho m as t r i e d t o co nvi nc e t he m t o ke e p q ui e ta bo utt he i nc i de ntb y e xp l ai ni ng t hat “ t he m edi a w i l lm ake a bl ac k m an [ Parker ] l oo k bad. ” Th ey al so c l ai m t hat 3
w h e n C h a p p e ll a r r iv e d a n d D r . T h o m a s to l d h e r “ i t’s P a r k e ra g a in ,” C h a p p e ll b e g a n to m a k e s u c h co m m e n ts to D r . T h o m a s a s “I to ld y o u s o ,” a n d “I k n e w it
w ou l d hap pen aga i n . ” G u i l l ory an d her pa rents contend t h at C h ap pel l ’ s and D r. Thom as ’ s e xc hange m ad e i tc l e art hatChapp e l lha d a dv i s e d Dr

. Tho m as a nd ot h er B ISD of

f i ci al s not t o rehi re Pa rker af t er hi s acqu i t t al , b u tt h at her advic e h ad been di sregarded. B ISD an d D r. T h om as den y t h at t h ese c om m en t s w ere
m ad e o rt hatChapp e l lg av e a ny s uc h a dv i c e w he n Par ke rw as r e hi r e d. G u illo r yfile d a civ il s u it a g a in s t B IS D , D r . T h o m a s , a n d P a r k e r . T h e o n ly cl a i m releva n t h e r e is G u i l l ory ’ s S ection 19 8 3 cl a i m f or v i olati n g h er righ t t o b o d ily in te g r ity a s s e r te d a g a in s t D r . T h o m a s in h is in d iv id u a l ca p a c ity

. S ee42 U

. S. C

. § 1983. D r. T h om as m oved f or s u m m ary j u dg m en ton th e basi s of qu al i f i ed i m m u n i ty. In re sp on se, G u i l l ory arg u ed t h a t D r . T h om a s w a s n ot en ti tl ed to qu al i f i ed im m u n i t y becau se he act ed w i t h del iberate i n di f ference t ow ards h er consti t u t i on alri gh t s by rehi ri n g P arker w i t h ou tadeq u ate sup ervi si on or
r es t r i c t i ons des pi t e havi ng ac t ualnot i c e t hat Parkerpos ed a t hre att o G ui l l or y. I n a ddi t i o n, G ui l l o r y ac c us e d Dr

. Tho m as o f l at e r“ t ur ni ng a bl i nd e ye ” t o w ar dsN o. 09- 40518

Guillorydoe s not alle gethat Dr. Thomas had actu al notice that Parker was sexually 4 abu sing Guillo ry. R ath er, sh e alle ge s that at th e ti me the 200 1 Allegatio ns were ma de, and befo re Parker’s sexu al abu se of Guillo ry began, Dr. Thomas and BI SD received r eports that Parker was directing

inordin ate attentiontowards G uillory

. Since she was que stion ed a s part of B IS D’s intern al investigatio n of the 200 1 Alle gation s, Guillorycl aims that Dr. Thoma s “essenti ally conc edes thath e was on actu al notice thatP arker posed a threat of sexu ally ab u sin gGuillory .”

4 P a r k e r ’ s a c t u a ls e x u a l a b u s e o f G u i l l o r y . I n s u p p o r to f t h i s l a t t e rc l a i m, 4 G u i l l ory notes t h at Pa rker w as abl e t o t ak e h er of f sch oolg roun ds du ri n g school h ou rs t o abu se her. T h e di st ri ctcourthel d that D r. T h om as w as no t e n tit l ed to qu al i f i ed i m m u n i t y. Th e an al ysi s w as t h i s: ( 1) G u i l l ory al l eged a cl earl y est abli shed
con sti tu ti on a lri gh t – th e righ t t o b od i l y i n teg ri ty; (2) a ge n u i n e fact i ssu e ex i sts
c onc e r ni ngwhe t he rDr

. Th o m a s k ne w o f a p a t t e r n o f

i na p p r o p r i a t e s e x ual cond u ctby P arker t h at poi n t ed p l ai n l y t ow ard a c o nc l u si on t h at Pa rker ha d been
sexu al l y abu si n g stu d e n ts; ( 3) a gen u i n e facti ssue exi st s c on cerni n g D r. T h om as’ s c ou rse of

condu ct ; ( 4) a gen u i n e facti ssue exi st s c on cerni n g w h et h er D r. T h om a s a cted w i th de l ib era te i n d i ff ere n ce; a n d ( 5 ) a ge n u i n e fact i ssu e ex i sts concerni n g w h et h er D r. T h om as’ s c ou rse of condu ctcaused a vi ol ati on of G u illo r y ’ s co n s tit u tio n a l rig h ts
. DI S CUS S I ON A

. Ju ri sdic t i on G u illo r ych a lle n g e s o u rju r is d ic tio n to h e a rth i s i n te r lo c u to r ya p p e a l. G e ne r al l y, w e hav e j ur i s di c t i o n o nl y o ve ra ppe al s o f “ f i nalde c i s i o ns ” o f

t he d is tr ic t c o u r t. S ee 28 U

. S

. C

. § 129 1. H ow ever, w e h ave l i m i t ed j u ri sdi ct i on over an i n t erl ocutory ap pea l of a den i al of sum m ary j u dg m en t w h ere t h e basi s f orN o. 09- 40518

5 deni alw as qual i f

i ed i m m uni t y. Ki n n ey v. W eaver , 367 F

. 3d 337 , 346 ( 5th C ir

. 2 0 0 4 ) ( e n b a n c). W e m ay r evi ew on an i nt er l oc ut or y appeala di st r i c tcour t ’ s “ pure l y l egal que s t i o n” o f

w he t he rt he o f

f i c i al ’ s c o nduc tw as “ o bj e c t i ve l y unr e as o nab l e i n l i ght of cl ea rl y e stab l i sh ed l a w . ” Id

. at3 47
. W e m ayno tr e vi e w , t ho ugh , a f i ndi ng th a t a “g e n u in e is s u e o f fa c t e x is ts re g a r d in gw h e th e rth e d e fe n d a n t(s ) d id , in fact, en ga ge i n su ch con d u ct. ” Id

. at 34 6. Fi nal l y, a nd s t r ad dl i ng t he l e ga la nd fa c t u a ld i v i d e , “ t h e ma t e r i a l i t y o f a n yfa c t u a ld i s p u t e ” i s s u s c e p t ib l e t o r e v i e w, b u t n o t t h e g e n u in e n e s s o f th e d is p u te
. I d. at347- 48. A ccor di n gl y, t h e re is j u ri sdi ct i on t oda y t o revi ew f or er ror i n t h e di st ri ct court’ s “ assessi n g t h e l egal si gn i f i can ce of t h e cond u ct t h e di st ri ctcourtdeem ed
su ff i ci en tl y su p p orted f or p u rp ose s of su m m a r y ju d g m en t. ” Id

. a t 34 8
. In
m a k in gth is a s s e s s m e n t, G u illo r y ’ s v e r s io n o f th e fa c ts is a c c e p te d a s tr u e . I d. W e r e v i e w de no vo t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s c on cl u si on s c on cerni n g t h e m ater i al i t y of th e fa c ts
. I

d. at349. B

. L ia b ili ty A l th ou gh th i s a p p ea l solely con cern s q u a l i fi ed i m m u n i ty, w e b ri efl y n ote t he c i r c u m st ance s und erw hi c h a s c hools uper vi so rc an be l i abl e f oran e m p lo y e e ’ s s e x u a l a b u s e o f a s tu d e n t. D r . T h o m a s m a yb e s u b je c t t o lia b ility if t her e i s evi denc e a c c ept ed as t r ue o f t he f ol l ow i ng: (1) th e d efen d a n t l ea rn ed of facts or a pa tt e r n o f i n a p p rop ri a te s e xua lb e hav i o rb y a s ubo r di n ate po i nt i ng pl ai nl y t o w ar d t he con cl u sion th a t th e sub ord i n a te w a s sex u a l l y a b u sing the stu d en t; and ( 2) t he de fe nda nt de m o ns t r at e d d e l ibe r at e i ndi f fe r e nc e t o w ar d t he c ons t i t ut i onalr i ght s of t he st udent by fai l i ng t o t ake ac t i on t hat w as o bv i o us l y ne c e s s ar y t o pr e ve nto rs t o p t he a bus e ; a ndN o. 09- 40518

6 (3) su ch fa i l u re ca u sed a co n sti tu ti on a li nj u ry to t h e stu d en t. D o e v . T ay lorIn d ep . S ch

. D ist. , 1 5 F

. 3d 4 43, 4 55 (5t h C i r. 199 4) ( en ban c)

. I f D r. Thom as i s e nt i t l e d t o q ual i f i e d i m m uni t y, t ho ugh , t he s ui ti s t o b e di s m i s s e d. S ee Mitch ell v. F

o rsy th , 472 U

. S

. 511 , 526 ( 198 5) ( exp la in in g th at qua l i f i ed im m u n ityis a n im m u n ityfro m su it ra th e r th a n a d e fen se to lia b il ity). C

. Q u a lif

iedIm m u n ity A stu d en t i s cl a i m i n g t h a t a su p erv i sory off i ci a l a t h er sch oo l is lia b le
u n der S ect i on 198 3 f or an em pl oyee’ s s exu al abu se. W e revi ew t h e app l i cat i on of qu al i f i ed i m m u n i t y t o such fact s. The do c t r i ne o f

q ual i f i e d i m m uni t y pr o vi de s pr o t e c t i o n t o g o ve r nm e nt of f i c i al s w ho ar e e ngaged i n di sc r et i onar y f unct i ons . They w i l l “ gener al l y” be “sh i elde d from l i a b i l i ty for ci vilda m a ge s i n sofar as th eir con d u ct do es n ot viol a te
c le a r lye s ta b lis h e d s ta tu to r yo rco n s tit u tio n a l rig h t s o f w h ic h a re a s o n a b le p erso n w ou l d h a ve k n ow n . ” Ha rlo w v. Fitzg er a ld , 4 5 7 U .S

. 8 0 0 , 8 1 8 (19 8 2 ). T h e r e fo r e , w e a p p lya tw o -s te p a n a ly s is t o d e te r m in e w h e th e ra d e fe n d a n t is
en t i t l ed to qu al i f

i ed i m m u n ity . F i rst , vi ew i n g t h e evi den ce i n a l i gh tm ost fav o r ab l e t o t he pl ai nt i f f, w e de t e r m i ne i f

t he de fe nda nt ’ s c on duc tv i o l at e d t he p la in tiff

’ s co n s t i t u t i o n a l rig h ts
. Free m an v. G ore , 483 F

. 3d 404 , 410 ( 5th C i r. 2 0 0 7 ). If s o , th e n w e a s s e s s “w h e t h e rth e d e fe n d a n t’s a c tio n s w e r e o b je c tiv e ly
u n r e a s o n a b le in lig h t o f c le a r lye s ta b lis h e d la w a t t h e ti m e o f th e co n d u c t in q u estion

. ” Id

. at411. F o rth e p u r p o s e s o f th e q u a lifie d im m u n ity te s t, a c o n s tit u tio n a l rig h t is
c le a r lye s ta b lis h e d w h e n it is “s u ffic ie n tly c le a r th a t a r e a s o n a b le o ffic ia l w o u ld
u n d ersta n d th a t w h a t h e i s d oin g viol a tes th a t ri gh t. ” G a tes v. T ex. D ep’ tof Pr o t e c t i v e & R egulat o r y S ervs . , 5 37 F. 3d 4 04 , 4 19 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 8) ( c i t at i o nsN o. 09- 40518

7 o m itt e d ). I n a d d itio n , a n o ffic ia l’ s co n d u c t is co n s id e r e d o b je c tiv e lyre a s o n a b le

“ u n l ess al lreasonab l e of f i c i al s i n t h e defen da n t ’ s c i rcum st an ces w ou l d h ave then k n ow n tha t t h e con d u ct viol a te d t h e C on sti tu ti on . ” I d. H o w e v e r , a n o ff

ic ia l’s cond u cti s or di n ari l y n otobj ect i vel y reasona bl e i f i tvi ol ates a cl earl y est abli shed ri gh t , becau se “

a re a son abl y c om pet entpubl i c of f i c i als houl d know t he l aw go ve rn i n g h i s con d u ct. ” Harl ow , 4 5 7 U .S . a t 8 1 8 -1 9
. I n o r d e r t o d e t e r mi n e i f Dr

. T h o ma s i s e n t i t l e d t o q u a l i f i e d i mm u n i t y , we f i r stas se ss w het herthe fac t s al l ege d, take n i n a l i ght m os tfavor abl e t o G ui l l or y, dem on st rat e t h at D r. T h om as’ s con du ctvi ol ated a cl earl y est abli shed
c o n s tit u tio n a l rig h t. G ate s , 537 F. 3d at 418. I t i s i m por t ant t o r em em bert hat i t i s D r. T h om a s’ s con d u ct t h a t i s at i ssu e h ere . In h er a m en d ed com p l a i n t, G ui l l o r y al l e ge s t hatD r . Tho m as a c t e d wi t h de l ibe r at e i ndi f fe r e nc e by r e hi r i ng P arker desp i t e contr ary l egal ad vi ce and w ithou tan y rest ri ct i on s, safegu ards,
o ra de qua t e s upe r vi s i o n. She c l ai m s t hatD r . Tho m as ’ s a c t i o ns a nd i nac t i o ns
w ere a proxi m ate c au se of her sexua labu se by P arker. S c h o o lc h ild r e n “h a v e a lib e r ty in te r e s t in th e ir b o d ily in te g r it y t h a t is p r o te c te d b yth e D u e P r o c e s s C la u s e o f t h e F o u r te e n th A m e n d m e n t a n d

. . . p h ys i ca lsex u a l a b u se by a sch oo l em p l oy ee violates th a t ri gh t. ” Tay l o rI nde p. S ch

. D ist. , 15 F

. 3d at 445
. Th i s c on st i t u t i on alri gh tw as cl earl y est abli shed d u r in ga ll tim e s re le v a n t t o th is ca s e . I d. A s c ho o l s upe r vi s o r , s uc h as D r. T h o m a s , ca n b e lia b le fo ra n e m p lo y e e ’ s v io la tio n o f a s t u d e n t’s rig h t t o b o d ily i n t egri t y i f

t h e su pervi sory fai l u res t h at resul t ed i n the sexu ala bu se “ m an i fest
a de l ib era te i n d i ff

ere n ce to th e con sti tu ti on a lri gh ts of th a t chil d

. ” I d. Thi s l egal p r in c ip le w a s a ls o cle a r lye s ta b lis h e d a t a ll tim e s re le v a n t t o th is ca s e . I d.N o. 09- 40518

Th ere do not appear to be factu al finding s conc erning wheth er Dr. Thomas knew th at 5 Parker was specifically abu sing Guillo ry. However, Guillor y ar gu es th at Dr. Thomas kn ew or shoul d h ave known that Parker was “groomin g” herfor s exualab use when BI SD con ducte d it s inte rn al inves ti g ationintoth e 2 0 0 1 All egation s. 8 Ther e i s l i t t l e o rno di spu t e t hatt he s e xua la c t i vi t y o c c ur r e d, b utt he di stri ctcourtf

ou n d a gen u i n e i ssue of m ater i alfactregardi n g w h et h er D r. T h om as’ s con du ctw as a consti t u t i on alvi ol ati on . Sp eci f i cal l y, t h e di st ri ctcourt f ou n d gen u i n e facti ssues concerni n g D r. T h om as’ s kn ow l edg e of P arker’ s abu se of school chi l dren regardl ess of h i s acqu i t t al on cri m i n al cha rges. T h e d istr i ct
cou rt de scribed this all eg ed k n ow l ed ge as o n e “of a p a ttern of i n a p p rop r ia te
sexu alcondu ct by Pa rker t h at poi n t ed pl ai n l y t ow ard a concl u si on t h at Pa rker h ad been sexua l l y abu si n g st u den t s. ” Th e di st ri ctcou rta l so f ou n d gen u i n e fact 5 i s s ue s c o nc e r ni ng w he t he rD r . Thom as ac t e d w i t h de l ibe r at e i ndi f fe r e nc e t o t he
c o ns t i t ut i o nal r i ght s o f G ui l l o r y and o t he r O H S s t ude nt s , and w het h er D r. T h om as’ s c on du ctcaused P arker’ s vi ol ati on of G u i l l ory’ s c on st i t u t i on alri gh t s. W e l ack j u ri sdi ct i on t o an al yze w h et h er a reasona bl e vi ew of t h e evi den ce
w ou l d f i n d t h e fact u ald i spu t e g en u i n e, b u tw e h ave au t h ori t y t o deci de i f such
a d i sp u te w ou l d b e m a ter ia l. Ki n n ey , 3 67 F. 3d a t3 46
. W e c o nc l ude t hatt he d i sp u te i s m a terial

. W h eth er D r. T h om a s h a d k n ow l ed ge of a pa ttern of con d u ct,
w as del iberatel y i n di f ferent t o i t , an d the i n di f ference cau sed t h e vi ol ati on , are
m at er i alfac t s. Th e di st r i c tcour tdi d n oterri n det er m i ni ng t hat G ui l l or y had
a l l eg ed a v i olati on of a cl ea rl y e stab l i sh ed con sti tu ti on a lri gh t. W e now t u rn to w h et h er D r. T h om as’ s con du ctw as ob j ect i vel y reasona bl e. G ate s , 537 F. 3d a t 4 1 9
. W e h a v e a lr e a d yd is c u s s e d th a t a n o ffic ia l’ s co n d u c t is ord i n a ri l y n ot ob j ectively rea son a b l e if i t vi olates a cl ea rl y e stab l i sh ed ri gh t,N o. 09- 40518

If a defen dantpleaded that extraordin arycircumstances existed and canproveth at he 6 “neitherkne w norsho uld have known of th e relevantle gal standar d,” thenth e defendant may b e e ntitl edto qu alifi edimm u nitydes piteviol atin ga cl earlyest ab li sh edlaw. Harlow , 45 7 U .S. at 819 . However, this does not appear to b e th e ca se h ere. 9 becau se “

a r e as o nab l y c o m pe t e ntpub l i c o f f i c i als ho ul d kno w t he l aw go ve r ni ng h i s con d u ct. ” Harl ow , 4 5 7 U .S . a t 8 1 8 -1 9
. V i ew i ng t he e vi denc e i n a l i ght m os tfavor abl e t o G ui l l or y, s he has suff i ci en t l y al l eged t h at D r. T h om as’ s c on du ctvi ol ated her cl ear ly est abli shed consti t u t i on alri gh tt o bod i l y i n t egri t y, a ri gh tan y reasona bl y com petent s chool
o fficial w ou l d h a ve reco gn i ze d

. T h ere fore, D r. T h om a s’ s a l l eg ed con d u ct, if proved t rue, w as not obj ect i vel y reasona bl e. Id

. 6 W e c o nc l ude t hatt he di s t r i c tc o ur ta ppl i e d t he pr o pe rt e s tf o rde t e r m i ni ng
w he t he rD r . Par ke ri s e nt i t l e d t o q ual i f i e d i m m u n i t y. W e a l s o ho l d t hatt he fact u aldi spu t es i den t i f i ed i n t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s opi n i on are m ater i al

. Th eref ore, D r . Th om as i s notas a m at t erof l aw ent i t l ed t o q ual i f i ed i m m uni t y. W e A F F IR M an d R E M A N D f or f u rt h er proc eedi n gs.