Document: 468 U.S. 183 104 S.Ct. 3012 82 L.Ed.2d 139 Ralph DAVIS, etc., et al.v.Gregory Scott SCHERER. No. 83-490. Supreme Court of the United States Argued April 16, 1984. Decided June 28, Rehearing Denied Aug. Syllabus To avoid conflicts interest, an order Florida Department Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (Department) required that proposed outside employment members Patrol be approved by Department. Appellee, a employee, originally received permission in 1977 to accept part-time with County Sheriff's Office, but was later revoked. When appellee refused quit his job, Director Patrol, 1977, ordered appellee's terminated. While administrative appeal pending, he settled dispute, reinstated. But friction between superiors continued, resigned 1979 after suspended from Patrol. Appellee then filed present suit against appellants, certain former officials seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He requested declaration appellants had violated Due Process Clause Fourteenth Amendment discharging him without formal pretermination or prompt post-termination hearing, sought award money damages. Granting relief, court ultimately held forfeited their qualified immunity 1983 because even though due process rights were not "clearly established" at time discharge followed regulations appellee. The concluded therefore appellants' belief legality conduct unreasonable they entitled immunity. Appeals affirmed. Held: A plaintiff who seeks damages for violation constitutional statutory may overcome defendant official's only showing those clearly established issue. made no such showing. Whether official prevail defense depends upon objective reasonableness as measured reference law. No other circumstances are relevant issue Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 800, 102 2727, 73 396. Pp. 190-197. (a) As District recognized, there authoritative precedent Circuit right state employee hearing well question. Nor it unreasonable, principles, conclude been provided fundamentals process. Thus, correctly demonstrated rights. 191-193. (b) Appellants did forfeit federal merely failed comply clear regulation. contended statute regulation, although itself actionable 1983, should deprive provisions. If view adopted, would disrupt proper balance interests vindication citizens' public officials' effective performance duties. always fair, sound policy, demand compliance regulation on pain Officials subject plethora rules, often so voluminous, ambiguous, contradictory, flux can them selectively. In these circumstances, err side caution. 193-196. 710 F.2d 838, reversed remanded. Mitchell D. Franks, Tallahassee, Fla., appellants. Richard G. Wilkins, Washington, D.C., States, amicus curiae, special leave Court. Bruce S. Rogow, Fort Lauderdale, Justice POWELL delivered opinion 1 this case challenge holding Appeals, loses deprivation if is found have command 2 * controversy arose when Gregory Scherer, employed radio-teletype operator, applied work Escambia Office reserve deputy. letter troop commander, Capt. K.S. Sconiers, dated September 1, granted work. noted rescinded "should [the] interfere . your duties department." 543 F.Supp. 4, 8 (ND Fla.1981). Later month, Sconiers informed memorandum explained trial, determined deputy could conflict 3 continued second despite revocation permission. Oral discussions exchange letters among ensued. Sgt. Clark, immediate superior, advised violating instructions; invested too much uniforms give up Lt. Wiggins, next highest officer chain command, orally job. Wiggins saw two jobs 4 Clark submitted memoranda described conversations also wrote explaining reason resign employment. So advised, recommended Col. J.E. Beach, director three days dual-employment policy. number documents, including own approving request rescinding approval; subsequent refusal job; Wiggins.1 On basis Beach October 24, 5 November 10, Career Service Commission. Before Commission heard dismissal, dispute. settlement reinstated backpay. January 1979, "to further harassment remove cloud over employability." Id., 11. 6 Northern Florida, 1983.2 Appellee's complaint alleged job hearing.3 7 rights.4 property interest procedures constitutionally "inadequate" Amendment. 14. Further, declared unconstitutional Florida's provisions governing removal employees, Fla.Stat. 110.061 (1977). Finally, "due dismissal." 16. Five entry Court's order, Fifth decided Weisbrod Donigan, 651 334 (1981). 1978 wellestablished permanent hearing. motion reconsideration, vacate its prior nevertheless reaffirmed monetary It reasoned proof "sole way" claim Applying "totality circumstances" test Scheuer Rhodes, 416 232, 247-248, 94 1683, 1691-1692, 40 90 (1974), "if violates agency's explicit regulations, which force law, [that] evidence unreasonable." F.Supp., 19.5 respect, personnel "a complete investigation charge opportunity [for employee] respond writing." 20.6 "followed contrary department's rules regulations"; therefore, "not challenged Ibid. explicitly relied stating "[i]f departmental adopted [appellee's] any kind awarded." amending judgment discuss whether issue, previous opinion; indicate analysis Clause. 9 amended declaring civil service unconstitutional. State's reconsideration repealed Legislature. newly enacted statute, Fla.Stat., ch. 110 (1982 Supp.1983), insofar "they fail provide hearing." 21. 10 affirmed opinion. Scherer Graham, 838 (CA11 1983). We probable jurisdiction, 464 1017, 547, 78 722 (1983), consider properly denied do seek review finding violated. now concedes lacked jurisdiction adjudicate constitutionality 1981, we immunity.7 reverse. II 11 posture case, decision undisputed.8 This Court—based entirely law—resolves merits underlying does not, however, decide Even defendants violate enjoy protects liability unless applicable standard. precise standard determining assert has clarified recent cases, see Wood Strickland, 420 308, 95 992, 43 214 (1975); Butz Economou, 438 478, 98 2894, 57 895 (1978); 396 (1982). requires us application where provision Federal Constitution. 12 immunity, written before our supra, rests surrounding separation U.S., S.Ct., 1691-1692. cases 322, 1000, comprised separate inquiries: inquiry into light subjective mind. rejected mind favor wholly Under Harlow, "are shielded reasonable person known." 818, 2739. "objective [his] law." (footnote deleted). "circumstances" 13 suggests, reconciled ways. First, urges record evinces established. Second, view, that, absent rights, regulation—although irrelevant claim—was decisive neither submission consistent cases. A. 14 contends reliance "superfluous," Brief 19, posttermination recognized rejecting contention, (CA5 1981), contrary. State discharged hearing.9 15 process.10 stated above, several times Department's objection took advantage opportunities reasons believing permitted retain statement information senior And law full evidentiary termination. B 16 ground affirmance substance relied. submits failing 17 makes either bears asserts 1983.11 recognizes Fitzgerald available whose conforms legal reasonableness." 819, Nonetheless, contravenes "objectively reasonable" fairly expected conform norms. argues lawfulness early lawsuit summary judgment. suit, face, reasoning some force. decline, adopt it. "objective" component good-faith test, "an liable 'clearly established' violation." 498, 2906 (emphasis added); accord, Procunier Navarette, 434 555, 562, 855, 859, 55 24 (1978). sued violations lose provision.12 18 acknowledge course statutes regulations. For reason, appealing proposition circumstance what deciding claims choose "between evils inevitable alternative." 813-814, 2736-2737. submission, strike doctrine act fear harassing litigation reasonably anticipate rise unjustified lawsuits quickly See 506-507, 2910-2911; 814, 818-819, 2737, 2738-2739. Yet, indeterminate amount right—one defined perhaps foreshadowed violation—merely And, suits, enjoyed might depend meaning purpose questions judges unable resolve 19 proposes new rule limited requiring plaintiffs allege advanced important designed protect once door opened inquiries, difficult limit scope principled manner. large discretion extract various codes seem sufficiently warrant denial judgments extensive appreciated applicability importance become more difficult, possible consequences conduct,13 trial courts frivolous suits protracted litigation. 20 Such police officers prison wardens, say nothing higher level executives levels routinely make close decisions exercise broad authority necessarily delegated them. These "often enforce selectively." P. Schuck, Suing Government 66 (1983). "[O] fficials range must swiftly firmly risk action deferred will futile constitute virtual abdication office." 246, 1691.14 III 21 showing, reversed, remanded proceedings 22 ordered. 23 BRENNAN, whom MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, STEVENS join, concurring part dissenting part. (1982), establish show acts omissions plaintiff's objectively reasonable—specifically, "violate 2737. today purport change Yet holds meaningful notice heard, reaches essentially ignoring both facts events my plainly conclusion seriously dilutes Harlow's careful effort preserve availability actions governmental critical "avenue guarantees." 2736. Accordingly, I dissent portion reversing damages.1 25 determine necessary within court's familiar province: (1) particular omission (2) given cause know, events, Court, asks Its brief treatment includes findings fact respect here. surprising since findings—which summarily erroneous—demonstrate never fired dual ever persuade decisionmaker disciplined. 26 receive approval employment, regular Upon request, obtained commander security guard movie set. Some weeks later, revoked memos indicating wish relinquish Apparently informing appellee, and, nearly week intermediate superior terminate same day, believe caused interest. Although suggested each ways create conflict, "[n]o one identified plaintiff; [and job] testified didn't know was." Meanwhile, copies exchanged soliciting views, him. summarized: 27 "By certified 25, terminated FHP 20, 1977. At termination writing verbally charged making decision, Beach. notified Beach's 8-9. 28 employees engage very secondary fired, "was revoked." 8, n. 1. Moreover, being terminated, successfully argued prohibiting validly void. 9. short, warned continue retention constituted grounds termination, indeed otherwise. challenge, decisionmaker, created 29 By warn result protected denying deprivation, most fundamental requirements law—meaningful heard. Contrary conclusion, long date learned fired. ago 1914, emphasized "[t]he requisite heard." Grannis Ordean, 234 385, 394, 34 779, 783, 58 L.Ed. 1363. 1925, government failure afford kinds deprivations liberty "violates first essential Connally General Construction Co., 269 391, 46 126, 127, 70 322. 1950's, maintaining cannot abridged E.g., Slochower Board Education, 350 551, 76 637, 100 692 (1956); Wieman Updegraff, 344 183, 215, 97 216 (1952); Regents Roth, 408 564, 576-577, 92 2701, 2708-2709, 33 548 (1972). 30 1972, six years 31 "[b]efore deprived afforded 'except extraordinary situations valid stake justifies postponing until event.' Boddie Connecticut, 401 371, 379, 91 780, 786, 113. 'While "[m]any controversies raged about Clause," except emergency (and one) [a protected] ., "notice appropriate nature case" becomes effective.' Bell Burson, 402 535, 542, 1586, 1591, 90. rare need preceded see, e.g., Central Union Trust Co. Garvan, 254 554, 566, 41 214, 65 403; Phillips Commissioner, 283 589, 597, 51 608, 611, 75 1289; Ewing Mytinger & Casselberry, Inc., 339 594, 870, 1088." 570, 7, 2705, 7. 32 Similarly, 1974, based exhaustive WHITE "where legitimate entitlement meeting specific conditions, requires, insure arbitrariness administration finally discharged." Arnett Kennedy, 134, 185, 1633, 1659, (concurring part). id., 170, 1652 (opinion POWELL, J.,); 203, 1668 (Douglas, J., dissenting); 212-227, 1673-1680 (MARSHALL, dissenting). finally, February 1976, than year half summarized principles sources traced 19th century: "Procedural imposes constraints individuals 'liberty' 'property' consistently form individual Wolff McDonnell, 418 539, 557-558, 2963, 2975, 935 (1974). See, 596-597, 1289 (1931). Dent West Virginia, 129 114, 124-125, 231, 234, 623 (1889). 'right condemned suffer grievous loss kind, involve stigma hardships criminal conviction, principle basic society.' Joint Anti-Fascist Comm. McGrath, 341 123, 168, 71 624, 646, 817 (1951) (Frankfurter, concurring). requirement 'at manner.' Armstrong Manzo, 380 545, 552, 85 1187, 1191, 62 (1965). 1363 (1914)." Mathews Eldridge, 424 319, 332-333, 96 893, 901-902, 47 (1976). Goss Lopez, 419 565, 729, 725 Perry Sindermann, 593, 2694, 570 (1972); Fuentes Shevin, 407 67, 556 Stanley Illinois, 405 645, 1208, 551 Connell Higginbotham, 403 207, 1772, (1971) (per curiam); Wisconsin Constantineau, 400 433, 507, 515 (1971); Goldberg Kelly, 397 254, 1011, 287 (1970); Sniadach Family Finance Corp., 395 337, 89 1820, 349 (1969). 35 ambiguity repeated pronouncements Two discharge, Attorney "[c]areer attained status career system acquired positions emoluments thereof seniority Fla.Op.Atty.Gen. 075-94, p. 161 (1975). here, involving Jacksonville, City Civil Board, left doubt thought required: 36 "Where employer chooses postpone nonprobationary secure full-evidentiary reducing accorded. include rebut reasons. Effective rebuttal charges responsibility decision." Thurston Dekle, 531 1264, 1273 (1976), vacated grounds, 901, 3118, 1144 37 months issued undoubtedly intended practice like Thurston.2 provides pertinent part: 38 "Upon receiving report Division shall true concerning offense. completed contain made. thorough study all violation, decides dismissal actions." Order 43, 1.C (Sept. 1977), quoted 19-20. 39 ignores demonstrating unreasonableness conduct. Instead, relies 1981) curiam), "authoritative precedent" "well question." Ante, 192. Weisbrod, simply declared—without citation just discussed, Thurston—that "the indicates disregard well-settled rights" "Weisbrod offers hold delay her rights." F.2d, 336. unclear per curiam Weisbrod—unlike case—was 335. event, Appeals' dubious cursory ipse dixit rendered four hardly persuasive, less controlling, rejection assertion "unreasonable process." support relying told discontinue "took ." retaining Patrol—the 12. Indeed, was, according jeopardy, chance try " 'some hearing' employment." 192, 10. sum, "violate[d] known," affirm One reported addressed appellee; Wiggins' Clark's Appellant Davis Executive Chester Blakemore succeeded position party capacity. J. Eldridge division Vehicles; discharge. Amendment, coerced inadequate infringed privacy guaranteed First Ninth Amendments. claims. Williams Treen, 671 892 1982), cert. denied, 459 1126, 103 762, 74 977 se unreasonable. 899. specified replaced current lacks standing question constitutionality. Cf. Golden Zwickler, 394 103, 956, 113 concession appellate remaining case. unconstitutional, "Federal presented," 1254(2). Flournoy Wiener, 321 253, 263, 64 548, 553, 88 708 (1944); Leroy Great Western 443 173, 99 2710, 61 (1979). 1254(2), retains decline issues related invalid. suit. below, contested doubt, partial dissent, knowledge precedents construed explains length, "some hearing," (1972), provided. determination require balancing competing interests—of State—implicated 335, 903, considered met, supra; (1974); Bishop Wood, 426 341, 2074, 48 684 (1976); Codd Velger, 429 882, (1977), occasion specify minimally acceptable cites establishing elaborate notice, respond, received. bear 577, 2709. undisputed. contend here procedural govern acknowledged 2738. recover itself, 820, 36, 2740, many Maine Thiboutot, 448 2502, 555 (1980) (holding creates statutes). discuss, conferred Rather, extent damages, forfeits violation. noted, laws authorized promulgation brought federal, state, officials. apply Bivens Six Unknown Narcotics Agents, 388, 1999, 619 (1971). 504, 2909. Neither nor regulation—of law—unless upon. understand intent adopted. understanding eludes trained lawyers access legislative materials. unfair impracticable generally. breach "ministerial" duty—established regulation—to follow terminating discretionary, inapposite grants ministerial, functions. contention mistakes "ministerial duty" exception respects. duty gave equally applies discretionary ministerial duty, 193-194, purportedly substantial measure discretion. Amy Supervisors, Wall. 136, 138, 101 (1871); Kendall Stokes, How. 87, 98, 506, 833 (1845). determine, example, "complete investigation" "thorough information" sufficient justify 6, supra. ignored fails take instance authority; remains however egregiously abused. agree erred ante, 189, concur vacating paragraph order. Because standards set forth whether, contends, department defeat knowledge. seems plain me, existence analysis. Regardless thinks presence clear-cut obviously safeguard employees' certainly suggests depriving 821, 2740 (BRENNAN, least reliable post hoc parsing 815-819, 2737-2739.

Category: 1