Court Opinion

ID: 2963750
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:14:42.141904+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:45.580617
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

        December 4, 1995        [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                           
                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1726 

                                     SUSAN HAYES,

                                 Plaintiff, Appellee,

                                          v.

                     STATE OF RHODE ISLAND DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS
                                     REGULATION,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                                                
                                      __________

                                 MAURICE A. PARADIS,
                                Defendant, Appellant.
                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

                [Hon. Raymond J. Pettine, Senior U.S. District Judge]
                                          __________________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                            Selya and Cyr, Circuit Judges.
                                           ______________

                                 ____________________

            Steven  E. Snow,  Thomas R.  Noel and  Partridge,  Snow &  Hahn on
            _______________   _______________      ________________________
        brief for appellant.
            Amato  A.  DeLuca,  Miriam   Weizenbaum  and  Mandell,   DeLuca  &
            _________________   ___________________       ____________________
        Schwartz, Ltd. on brief for appellee, Susan Hayes.
        ______________

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                      Per Curiam.  Defendant-appellant Maurice C. Paradis
                      __________

            has filed this interlocutory appeal from the district court's

            denial of his  motion for  summary judgment on  the issue  of

            qualified immunity that would shield him from damages in this

            sex  discrimination  suit.    Plaintiff-appellee  Susan Hayes

            argues that under Johnson v. Jones, ___  U.S. ___, 115 S. Ct.
                              _______    _____

            2151 (1995), this court lacks appellate jurisdiction.

                      Paradis has raised two issues on appeal.  The first

            issue is  a  purely legal  one:   whether in  1991, when  the

            challenged conduct occurred, there was a clearly  established

            right  under  the  fourteenth  amendment's  equal  protection

            clause to be  free from sex discrimination  in the workplace.

            Under Johnson,  "a district  court's pretrial rejection  of a
                  _______

            proffered  qualified  immunity  defense  remains  immediately

            appealable  as a collateral order to the extent that it turns

            on a pure issue  of law . . .  ."  Stella v. Kelley,  No. 95-
                                               ______    ______

            1223, slip op.  at 10 (1st Cir.  Aug. 23, 1995).   Exercising

            this jurisdiction, we  summarily affirm the  district court's
                                   _________ ______

            purely  legal   determination  that,  at  the   time  of  the

            challenged conduct, there existed a clearly established right

            under the  fourteenth amendment's equal protection  clause to

            be  free from  sex  discrimination  in  the workplace.    See
                                                                      ___

            Lipsett v.  University of Puerto  Rico, 864 F.2d  881, 884-85
            _______     __________________________

            (1st  Cir. 1988)  (holding  that sex-based  discrimination is

                                         -2-

            actionable under 42 U.S.C.   1983 as a violation of the equal

            protection clause). 

                      Paradis' second  argument on appeal  is as follows:

            even if there was  a clearly established constitutional right

            to be  free from sex  discrimination in the  workplace, "[i]t

            cannot  be   said  that   Paradis'  action   was  objectively

            unreasonable    given    the   extraordinary    circumstances

            confronting him."   Although cloaked as a purely legal issue,

            this   argument  is  actually   fact-based.    The  objective

            reasonableness of Paradis' conduct (under clearly established

            law) will necessarily turn on an  issue of fact:  whether the

            conduct  was  motivated by  sex-based  animus.   See  Poe  v.
                                                             ___  ___

            Haydon,  853 F.2d 418, 431 (6th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 488
            ______                                      ____________

            U.S.  1007  (1989).    Under  Johnson,  "a  district  court's
                                          _______

            pretrial  rejection of  a qualified  immunity defense  is not

            immediately appealable to the extent that  it turns on . .  .

            an issue of fact . . . ."  Stella, supra, at 6-7.  Therefore,
                                       ______  _____

            we lack jurisdiction to  consider the second issue raised  by

            this appeal.

                      Affirmed in  part, dismissed in part,  and remanded
                      ___________________________________________________

            for further proceedings.  Costs to appellee.
            _______________________   _________________

                                         -3-