Opinion ID: 166064
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Qualified Immunity for a Private Corporation

Text: 11 The District Court held that qualified immunity only potentially shields Mr. Johnson, not Sunflower, from liability in this case. Rosewood Servs., 2003 WL 22090897 at . The court cited cases stating that qualified immunity protected government officials and reasoned that when applied to private defendants, qualified immunity must only apply to individuals and not corporations. Id. (citing Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982); Baptiste v. J.C. Penney Co., 147 F.3d 1252, 1255 (10th Cir.1998)). The District Court's conclusion, however, is contrary to existing Circuit precedent. 12 In DeVargas, this Court stated that [i]n the area of § 1983 immunities, the critical distinction is not between employer and individual defendants, but between defendants that are governmental bodies and other defendants. 844 F.2d at 723. We further observed that the reasons for extending qualified immunity beyond government officials apply equally to all private defendants acting pursuant to contract, whether individuals or corporations. Id. Consequently, we held that when private parties act pursuant to contractual duties and perform governmental functions, they can claim qualified immunity. That a private party defendant is a corporation should not change this result. Id. 13 Under DeVargas, then, the fact that Sunflower is a corporation does not preclude it from arguing that it is entitled to assert qualified immunity. We therefore hold that there is no bar against a private corporation claiming qualified immunity. 14