United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2007-02-02
42usc1983: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed
Case and law context
Role: applied; posture: civil; public-employee gender-discrimination suit against sheriff in individual capacity; interlocutory appeal by defendant from denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity; result: claimant-lost; claim:
Uncertainty
None recorded
Misfit
Two-prong qualified immunity: the court assumes/skips the merits prong for the main claim and decides only "would a reasonable official have known"; a defense block can be tied to the deprivation sub-claim it defeats only by matching free-text `count` values, and neither prong is addressable.
The qualified-immunity holding for the termination is really a merits-flavoured finding (legitimate non-discriminatory reason) expressed as "reasonableness"; it is neither a clean deprivation holding nor a clean clearly-established holding.
A large part of the opinion is appellate jurisdiction over interlocutory qualified-immunity denials (Johnson v. Jones / Behrens). v1 could hold it as a `scope procedural` x-interlocutory-jurisdiction block, but v0 quoted nothing from that part and the migration froze the quote set, so it is still unrecorded.
Basis is awkward on an interlocutory QI appeal: facts are those "the district court concluded may be reasonably inferred", plaintiff's non-contested admissions are used against her; [conceded] used for the undisputed-facts holdings and [law] for the immunity ruling.
B · Case × element grid
Top-level elements follow claim order in panels of up to six elements. Case rows repeat across panels. Every recorded block retains its holding and basis; multiple blocks are not merged into a case-level verdict. ✓ satisfied · ✗ not satisfied · ○ not reached · · not addressed. Muted blocks are not counted. Sub-element evidence remains on case and element pages.
Elements 1–6 of 20
Elements 7–12 of 20
| Case | Common-law absolute immunity (judicial, prosecutorial, legislative, witness functions) | Eleventh Amendment state sovereign immunity bar (official-capacity damages / retrospective relief) | Preiser / Heck v. Humphrey favorable-termination and habeas-exclusivity bar | Borrowed state personal-injury statute of limitations (42 U.S.C. § 1988; Wilson v. Garcia; Owens v. Okure) | Issue preclusion / collateral estoppel from prior state criminal or civil judgment (Allen v. McCurry) | Judicial standing prerequisite, separate from damages remedy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Johnson v. Caudill — 475 F.3d 645 (2007) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2007 (42usc1983: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 13–18 of 20
| Case | Statutory bar on injunctive relief against a judicial officer acting in a judicial capacity (1996 amendment) | Municipal policy or custom as moving force (Monell v. Department of Social Services) | District of Columbia exclusive Act of Congress inclusion clause (1979 amendment) | Rejected extra element: separate proof of "abuse of governmental power" (Collins v. City of Harker Heights) | Federal action / Fifth Amendment claim (outside § 1983 state-law scope) | Collateral-order appellate jurisdiction over interlocutory qualified-immunity denials (Mitchell v. Forsyth; Johnson v. Jones) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Johnson v. Caudill — 475 F.3d 645 (2007) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2007 (42usc1983: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | · not addressed | ○ not reached · basis not recordedNot counted: applied/merits | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 19–20 of 20
| Case | Appellate preservation / forfeiture of issue not raised in district court | Section 1983 malicious prosecution claim (Fourth Amendment / procedural due process) |
|---|---|---|
| Johnson v. Caudill — 475 F.3d 645 (2007) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2007 (42usc1983: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Johnson v. Caudill — 475 F.3d 645 (2007) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2007 — not · conceded (42usc1983: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Personal involvement / causal connection ("subjects, or causes to be subjected") | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: conceded; count: patrol-assignment and verbal equipment-request allegations; subject: count=patrol-assignment and verbal equipment-request allegations Footnote holding: workplace-condition complaints not tied to the sheriff's own acts cannot support individual-capacity liability. | requests-handled-by-subordinates-not-defendant | However, she alleges only that she informed other supervisors, not Sheriff Caudill, of her ongoing wish to work patrol.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_475.jsonl#/f3d/475/0645-01; Unicode character offsets [16331:16450] (end exclusive); SHA-256 30727309c1ebc11dd668c942b1108b6857a301484b72823436c570f211451717.Similarly, Johnson describes a number of items of equipment that she requested verbally, but such requests were processed by office manager Sean Hurd, not Sheriff Caudill.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_475.jsonl#/f3d/475/0645-01; Unicode character offsets [16451:16622] (end exclusive); SHA-256 30727309c1ebc11dd668c942b1108b6857a301484b72823436c570f211451717.These allegations may have been appropriate for a Title VII action, but lack sufficient connection to Sheriff Cau-dill’s actions to spawn individual-capacity liability under § 1983.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_475.jsonl#/f3d/475/0645-01; Unicode character offsets [16623:16804] (end exclusive); SHA-256 30727309c1ebc11dd668c942b1108b6857a301484b72823436c570f211451717. |
| Johnson v. Caudill — 475 F.3d 645 (2007) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2007 — not reached (42usc1983: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Action taken "under color of" state, territorial, or D.C. law | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| Johnson v. Caudill — 475 F.3d 645 (2007) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2007 — not reached (42usc1983: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Damages remedy (legacy CASE id; not a prerequisite for prospective relief) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| Johnson v. Caudill — 475 F.3d 645 (2007) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2007 — not reached (42usc1983: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Deprivation of Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection rights | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits count: termination; lawsuit-threat statement; subject: count=termination; lawsuit-threat statement Court skips the merits and resolves these on the reasonableness / clearly-established prong. | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| Johnson v. Caudill — 475 F.3d 645 (2007) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2007 — not · conceded (42usc1983: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Deprivation of Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection rights | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: conceded; count: computer-equipment denials; cohabitation warning; speeding suspension; training program; subject: count=computer-equipment denials; cohabitation warning; speeding suspension; training program Decided inside the qualified-immunity analysis: on plaintiff's own undisputed account male coworkers were treated the same, so no violation at all. | sex-discrimination-public-employment/no-disparate-treatment-of-comparators | However, the male detectives in the office did not have the Sheriffs Pack software either, nor were they provided with free internet access.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_475.jsonl#/f3d/475/0645-01; Unicode character offsets [4630:4770] (end exclusive); SHA-256 30727309c1ebc11dd668c942b1108b6857a301484b72823436c570f211451717.Johnson does not contest, however, that Sheriff Caudill warned the unmarried male officers under his charge that they too would face disciplinary action for similar conduct.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_475.jsonl#/f3d/475/0645-01; Unicode character offsets [5303:5476] (end exclusive); SHA-256 30727309c1ebc11dd668c942b1108b6857a301484b72823436c570f211451717.Johnson admits that she had exceeded the speed limit, and does not contest that three days’ suspension is the standard discipline for speeding, administered to males and females alike.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_475.jsonl#/f3d/475/0645-01; Unicode character offsets [5544:5728] (end exclusive); SHA-256 30727309c1ebc11dd668c942b1108b6857a301484b72823436c570f211451717.“the equal protection clause confers on a public employee a federal constitutional right to be free from gender discrimination.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_475.jsonl#/f3d/475/0645-01; Unicode character offsets [12518:12646] (end exclusive); SHA-256 30727309c1ebc11dd668c942b1108b6857a301484b72823436c570f211451717.Because Sheriff Caudill treated Johnson and her male coworkers similarly, he cannot be said in these instances to have violated Johnson’s constitutional right to be free from gender discrimination.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_475.jsonl#/f3d/475/0645-01; Unicode character offsets [14397:14594] (end exclusive); SHA-256 30727309c1ebc11dd668c942b1108b6857a301484b72823436c570f211451717. |
| Johnson v. Caudill — 475 F.3d 645 (2007) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2007 — not reached (42usc1983: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Suable "person" (natural person in individual capacity, official in official capacity for prospective relief, or municipality; excludes States) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / meritsSheriff sued in individual capacity only; suability not contested. | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| Johnson v. Caudill — 475 F.3d 645 (2007) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2007 — not reached (42usc1983: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Municipal policy or custom as moving force (Monell v. Department of Social Services) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| Johnson v. Caudill — 475 F.3d 645 (2007) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2007 — satisfied · law (42usc1983: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Qualified immunity for government officials sued in individual capacity (Harlow v. Fitzgerald; Pearson v. Callahan) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: law; count: "not afraid of lawsuits" statement; "make do" equipment response; subject: count="not afraid of lawsuits" statement; "make do" equipment response Plaintiff's failure to cite authority for the specific conduct is dispositive; the court does not decide whether the threat was a constitutional violation. | not-clearly-established/no-authority-for-specific-conduct | When Sheriff Caudill learned of Johnson’s intentions, he called a meeting with her at which time he allegedly told her that he was “not afraid of lawsuits” and would “no longer need” Johnson if she filed suit.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_475.jsonl#/f3d/475/0645-01; Unicode character offsets [5854:6063] (end exclusive); SHA-256 30727309c1ebc11dd668c942b1108b6857a301484b72823436c570f211451717.An official’s actions violate a “clearly established” constitutional right only if “in the light of pre-existing law [,] the unlawfulness” of the actions is apparent.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_475.jsonl#/f3d/475/0645-01; Unicode character offsets [11809:11975] (end exclusive); SHA-256 30727309c1ebc11dd668c942b1108b6857a301484b72823436c570f211451717.Johnson cites no authority indicating that such a statement violates clearly established law.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_475.jsonl#/f3d/475/0645-01; Unicode character offsets [15081:15174] (end exclusive); SHA-256 30727309c1ebc11dd668c942b1108b6857a301484b72823436c570f211451717.Even were this action discriminatory, frugality with the distribution of equipment is simply not "specific conduct ... proscribed by ... clearly established law.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_475.jsonl#/f3d/475/0645-01; Unicode character offsets [17311:17473] (end exclusive); SHA-256 30727309c1ebc11dd668c942b1108b6857a301484b72823436c570f211451717. |
| Johnson v. Caudill — 475 F.3d 645 (2007) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2007 — satisfied · law (42usc1983: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Qualified immunity for government officials sued in individual capacity (Harlow v. Fitzgerald; Pearson v. Callahan) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: law; count: termination; subject: count=termination The right (public employee free from gender discrimination) is clearly established in the abstract; immunity granted on the second step because the firing had an undisputed neutral trigger. Whether the task-force exclusion was itself justified is treated as irrelevant. | objectively-reasonable-conduct/termination-after-third-party-ended-core-job-function | After conferring with his supervisor, Sergeant Ruffin decided that the Virginia State Police would no longer fund Johnson’s drug purchases, effectively ending her ability to work with the drug task force.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_475.jsonl#/f3d/475/0645-01; Unicode character offsets [3087:3291] (end exclusive); SHA-256 30727309c1ebc11dd668c942b1108b6857a301484b72823436c570f211451717.When Sheriff Caudill learned in February 2004 that Johnson could no longer perform her central job function, he met with Johnson requesting an explanation.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_475.jsonl#/f3d/475/0645-01; Unicode character offsets [3494:3649] (end exclusive); SHA-256 30727309c1ebc11dd668c942b1108b6857a301484b72823436c570f211451717.Because Johnson was unable to offer an explanation of the incident sufficient to reverse the decision of the Virginia State Police, Sheriff Caudill terminated Johnson’s employment.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_475.jsonl#/f3d/475/0645-01; Unicode character offsets [3650:3830] (end exclusive); SHA-256 30727309c1ebc11dd668c942b1108b6857a301484b72823436c570f211451717.the question of Sheriff Caudill’s entitlement to qualified immunity condenses to whether a “reasonable officer in [his] position would have appreciated that he was violating [Johnson’s constitutional] right[ ]” to be free from gender discriminationSource: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_475.jsonl#/f3d/475/0645-01; Unicode character offsets [12792:13040] (end exclusive); SHA-256 30727309c1ebc11dd668c942b1108b6857a301484b72823436c570f211451717.the inquiry focuses on whether Sheriff Caudill, when faced with the knowledge that Johnson could no longer participate in the work for which she was hired, acted reasonably in terminating herSource: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_475.jsonl#/f3d/475/0645-01; Unicode character offsets [13470:13661] (end exclusive); SHA-256 30727309c1ebc11dd668c942b1108b6857a301484b72823436c570f211451717.We find Sheriff Caudill’s actions reasonable based on Johnson’s dismissal from the drug task force.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_475.jsonl#/f3d/475/0645-01; Unicode character offsets [13663:13762] (end exclusive); SHA-256 30727309c1ebc11dd668c942b1108b6857a301484b72823436c570f211451717. |
Court interpretations recorded from this case
interpretation
“the equal protection clause confers on a public employee a federal constitutional right to be free from gender discrimination.”
Johnson v. Caudill — 475 F.3d 645 (2007) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2007 (42usc1983: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)
“the equal protection clause confers on a public employee a federal constitutional right to be free from gender discrimination.”Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_475.jsonl#/f3d/475/0645-01; Unicode character offsets [12518:12646] (end exclusive); SHA-256 30727309c1ebc11dd668c942b1108b6857a301484b72823436c570f211451717.Requires purposeful discrimination / disparate treatment of similarly situated comparators (or facial classification) without the requisite level of scrutiny justification.
interpretation
An official’s actions violate a “clearly established” constitutional right only if “in the light of pre-existing law [,] the unlawfulness” of the actions is apparent.
Johnson v. Caudill — 475 F.3d 645 (2007) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2007 (42usc1983: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)
An official’s actions violate a “clearly established” constitutional right only if “in the light of pre-existing law [,] the unlawfulness” of the actions is apparent.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_475.jsonl#/f3d/475/0645-01; Unicode character offsets [11809:11975] (end exclusive); SHA-256 30727309c1ebc11dd668c942b1108b6857a301484b72823436c570f211451717.Two-prong test (which courts may address in either order under Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009)): (1) whether the official violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) whether the unlawfulness of the conduct was "clearly established" at the time so as to give fair warning (Hope v. Pelzer; Mullenix v. Luna).