Opinion ID: 2599590
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Qualified Immunity, Bowman and Patton

Text: Goldbarth objects to the actions Bowman and Patton took in relation to WSU's sexual harassment policy. His claims implicate issues of immunity. We focus on qualified immunity. Qualified immunity shields public officials from personal liability unless their conduct violates clearly established constitutional rights. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 73 L. Ed.2d 396, 102 S. Ct. 2727 (1982). See Jilka, Immunity Under Section 1983, 65 J.K.B.A. 30 (June-July 1996). Once a defendant raises qualified immunity as an affirmative defense to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show: (1) the violation of a constitutional right and (2) that the constitutional right was clearly established. Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 232, 114 L. Ed.2d 277, 111 S. Ct. 1789 (1991); Latta v. Keryte, 118 F.3d 693, 697-98 (10th Cir. 1997). Citing Siegert, Bowman contends Goldbarth fails to meet either of these burdens. We agree. A brief review of Siegert supports our decision. Siegert was a physician who worked under the supervision of Gilley. Siegert left his employment under threat of termination for dilatory performance. Siegert submitted Gilley's name as a reference. Gilley gave an unfavorable recommendation. Siegert brought a § 1983 suit against Gilley alleging Gilley's defamatory statements deprived him of a constitutionally protected liberty interest (a new job) without due process. The Supreme Court held that Siegert failed to allege the violation of a constitutional right, much less one that was clearly established. 500 U.S. at 233. The alleged underlying injury was defamation. Although defamation is a tort, it is not a constitutional deprivation. Siegert teaches us to initially search Goldbarth's petition for allegations of an underlying constitutional deprivation. Goldbarth alleges that Bowman's investigation and issuance of findings violated his First Amendment right to free speech. His specific allegations are that: (1) the investigation was unauthorized and improper; (2) it spanned a period of nearly six months; (3) Bowman made misleading, false and defamatory statements about him in the findings; and (4) Bowman asked leading questions of the persons being interviewed. Goldbarth also alleges (1) Patton unilaterally decided that a formal hearing should be convened and (2) the Policy discourage[s] the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. Notably, there is no allegation that the Policy has interfered or chilled Goldbarth's speech. Applying Siegert we find no allegation here that the actions of Bowman and Patton individually resulted in a deprivation of any constitutional right. As in Siegert, defamation cannot support a § 1983 claim because it is merely tortious conduct. Bowman's asking leading questions in interviews and conducting a 6-month investigation do not even appear to be tortious conduct. Goldbarth's First Amendment claims are directed at the Policy, for example, its vagueness and overbreadth. Goldbarth fails to link his allegations concerning Bowman and Patton with a First Amendment deprivation. Moreover, it is important to repeat that WSU has taken no adverse action against Goldbarth. WSU merely investigated complaints against him (through Bowman) and attempted to call a faculty panel hearing (through Patton). As the district judge observed: [Goldbarth] has, with the filing of this action, staged a pre-emptive strike, rather than awaiting the normal process of administrative procedure leading to a final determination by WSU. Goldbarth `must articulate the clearly established constitutional right and the defendant's conduct which violated the right with specificity.' Albright v. Rodriguez, 51 F.3d 1531, 1535 (10th Cir. 1995) (quoting Romero v. Fay, 45 F.3d 1472, 1475 [10th Cir. 1995]). He has failed to do either. Goldbarth alleges Bowman's investigation was illegal (an allegation without merit). He does not contend the investigation (if illegal) denied him First Amendment rights. This is a necessary but absent allegation. Tonkovich v. Kansas Bd. of Regents, 159 F.3d 504, 518 (10th Cir. 1999), said: The plain wording of the statute contains an element of causation. In other words, a defendant may not be held liable under § 1983 unless he or she subjected a citizen to the deprivation, or caused a citizen to be subjected to the deprivation (dismissing § 1983 first amendment claims against university officials involved in sexual harassment proceedings on qualified immunity grounds). Goldbarth argues unsuccessfully that an investigation alone may support a § 1983 claim, citing Patrick v. City of Overland Park, Kan., 937 F. Supp. 1491 (D. Kan. 1996). The Patrick facts differ substantially from Goldbarth's. Patrick was seeking a congressional seat. He alleged government officials, including the Overland Park Mayor and Chief of Police, illegally conducted a criminal background investigation of him. Patrick asserted the investigation was motivated solely by a desire to obtain damaging information that might be used against him in the congressional campaign. The federal district court denied the Patrick defendants' motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The deprivation was the illegal investigation of Patrick's background. Under K.S.A. 22-4707(a), it is illegal for a criminal justice agency to request information on a citizen's criminal record unless it has a legitimate need for the information. The investigation in Patrick was illegal by statute and its purpose illegitimateto discredit Patrick and to prevent him from holding political office. An investigation of a sexual harassment claim alone cannot constitute the violation of a constitutional right because federal law requires such an investigation. Under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 86 Stat. 373, as amended, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 (1994) et seq. (Title IX) educational institutions receiving federal funds may be liable for sexual harassment of a student by a teacher. See Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools, 503 U.S. 60, 74-75, 117 L. Ed.2d 208, 112 S. Ct. 1028 (1992). Title IX is enforceable through an implied private cause of action. See Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677, 683, 60 L. Ed.2d 560, 99 S. Ct. 1946 (1979). If school officials have actual notice of sexual harassment and fail to act, they will be liable under Title IX. See Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School Dist., 524 U.S. 274, 285, 141 L. Ed.2d 277, 118 S. Ct. 1989 (1998). Title IX regulations specifically require that each recipient of federal financial assistance designate at least one employee to coordinate its efforts to comply. The recipient carries the responsibility of assuring that no discrimination occurs in any educational program, an assurance that implies allowance of an investigation of any complaint. See 34 C.F.R. § 106.8 (1999). Universities have the right to implement sexual harassment policies because eradicating sexual harassment is a legitimate goal. Kracunas v. Iona College, 119 F.3d 80, 88 (2d Cir. 1997). Similarly, under Title VII (42 U.S.C. § 2000e [1994] et seq.), once an employer receives a complaint of sexual harassment, it must take immediate and appropriate corrective action. 29 C.F.R. § 1604.11(d) and (e) (1999). See also Gebser, 524 U.S. at 286-88 (discussing school liability under Titles VII and IX). Goldbarth makes the alternative argument that, even if an investigation of sexual harassment claims is allowed, Bowman should have known that no such investigation was necessary here. Goldbarth relies on the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights, Sexual Harassment Guidelines. Goldbarth argues that Bowman should have known the allegations against him fell squarely within the sphere of acceptable classroom conduct. The Guidelines give the following example of the application of free speech rights to allegations of sexual harassment: Example 1: In a college level creative writing class, a professor's required reading list includes excerpts from literary classics that contain descriptions of explicit sexual conduct, including scenes that depict women in submissive and demeaning roles. The professor also assigns students to write their own materials, which are read in class. Some of the student essays contain sexually derogatory themes about women. Several female students complain to the Dean of Students that the materials and related classroom discussion have created a sexually hostile environment for women in the class. What must the school do in response? Answer: Academic discourse in this example is protected by the First Amendment even if it is offensive to individuals. Thus, Title IX would not require the school to discipline the professor or to censor the reading list or related class discussion. 62 Fed. Reg. 12046 (1997). According to Goldbarth, this example exonerates him and should have made clear to Bowman that an investigation was unnecessary. Goldbarth's alternative argument also fails. This Guidelines' example was not published until March 13, 1997. Bowman began her investigation in January 1997. WSU has neither disciplined Goldbarth nor censored him. The Guidelines' example does not prohibit an investigation. Goldbarth also relies on Silva v. University of New Hampshire, 888 F. Supp. 293 (D. N.H. 1994), and Cohen v. San Bernardino Valley College, 92 F.3d 968 (9th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom., Beeman v. Cohen, 520 U.S. 1140 (1996), for the proposition that the individual conduct of Bowman and Patton may serve as the basis for a First Amendment violation. In Silva and Cohen, the professor was actually sanctioned by the university and college for classroom speech. Silva was formally reprimanded in writing, later suspended without pay, and then suspended from his teaching duties for a semester. Cohen was formally found to have engaged in sexual harassment and was ordered to provide a syllabus concerning all aspects of his teaching style and methods, to attend a sexual harassment seminar, and to undergo a formal evaluation procedure. The federal courts in both cases ultimately held the sanctions were not justified. WSU's sexual harassment policy has not been applied to Goldbarth's speech. Patton merely recommended that a faculty panel be convened to hear the complaint. Further, to the extent the Policy has been applied by Bowman, Goldbarth's speech and/or conduct was not found to be in violation of the Policy. Goldbarth has failed to allege the deprivation of a constitutional right. Even if he had made this allegation, Goldbarth has not met Siegert's second inquiry (showing that a constitutional right was clearly established). Under Siegert, we also inquire whether the deprivation was of a clearly established right. In order for a right to be clearly established, the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he [or she] is doing violates that right. Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640, 97 L. Ed.2d 523, 107 S. Ct. 3034 (1987). Gerramone v. Romo, 94 F.3d 1446, 1451 (10th Cir. 1996), held that there must be a Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit opinion on point, or the clearly established weight of authority from other courts must have found the law to be as the plaintiff maintains. See generally, Meeker, Clearly Established Law in Qualified Immunity Analysis for Civil Rights Actions in the Tenth Circuit, 35 Washburn L.J. 79 (1995). Cohen illustrates the weakness of Goldbarth's position. Cohen involved a college professor who allegedly violated a sexual harassment policy. The Ninth Circuit held the sexual harassment policy was unconstitutionally vague as applied to Cohen. 92 F.3d at 972. In finding a violation, Cohen observed that the college applied the nebulous outer reaches of the policy to Cohen. 92 F.3d at 972. The court also held, however, the college officials were entitled to qualified immunity because the legal issues were not readily discernable and the appropriate conclusion to each [was] not so clear that the officials should have known that their actions violated Cohen's rights. 92 F.3d at 973. In other words, the officials did not violate any clearly established law when they applied the sexual harassment policy to Cohen. Clearly Bowman and Patton are entitled to qualified immunity.