Opinion ID: 2994194
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Denius’s Equitable Claims

Text: The doctrine of qualified immunity does not apply to claims for equitable relief. See Burgess v. Lowery, 2000 WL 30073,  (7th Cir. Jan. 18, 2000) (There is no immunity from a suit for [equitable] relief.); Eberhardt v. O’Malley, 17 F.3d 1023, 1028 (7th Cir. 1994) (finding qualified immunity irrelevant to the plaintiff’s request for an order that he be reinstated); see also Wood v. Strickland, 420 U.S. 308, 314 n.6 (1975) (stating that immunity from damages does not ordinarily bar equitable relief as well). Therefore, we hold that the district court erred in concluding that the defendants in this case are shielded from all liability for their actions under the qualified immunity doctrine. As discussed above, Denius has a First Amendment right in confidential communications with his attorney and a Fourteenth Amendment right in maintaining the confidentiality of some medical and financial information. These rights are subject to a balancing of interests to determine whether the state has violated them. On the present record, the defendant has presented no justification for the burden he has placed on these rights by conditioning Denius’s employment on relinquishing them, and he is not entitled to prevail on summary judgment. Therefore, we reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendant on Denius’s claims for equitable relief and remand these claims for further proceedings.