Court Opinion

ID: 9630701
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 10:17:57.606346+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:41.818455
License: Public Domain

WINTERSHEIMER, Justice,
dissenting.
I must respectfully dissent from the disposition and analysis provided by the majority opinion in regard to qualified immunity. Here, qualified immunity is available because the constitutional rights of the plaintiff were not established by the enact*839ment of a local county government ordinance. In this matter, we must apply federal constitutional law and analysis to a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case in this jurisdiction or in state courts. There has been created no federal constitutional right in a local government ordinance which addresses local merit board procedures. There is nothing in the ordinance cited which would meet the test of objective legal reasonableness to put the official on notice that a disagreement with the merit board at the time would amount to unconstitutional conduct. The ordinance does not clearly establish rights which are consistent with the Section 1983 analysis found in Mumford v. Zieba, 4 F.3d 429 (6th Cir.1993).
Accordingly, in the absence of a clearly recognized constitutional right which was established in the manner directed by applicable federal precedent, Jefferson County Judge Armstrong is entitled to qualified immunity. It would appear that at the time he was acting in the best interests of the county and the corrections department in regard to a very difficult employment matter. Armstrong, Bishop and Karsner are entitled to the defense of qualified immunity.