Qualified immunity bid mostly rejected
A federal appeals court has rejected most of Butler County's chief judge's claims to qualified immunity in a sexual misconduct lawsuit, sending the case back to the trial court for further proceedings.
In a ruling issued Monday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit upheld a lower court's ruling that county President Judge Thomas Doerr could not claim immunity against two civil rights charges levied by the plaintiff, a woman who claims Doerr retaliated against her after ending a five-year sexual relationship between the two.
The appellate court, however, reversed the district court's ruling on one claim, ruling Doerr is entitled to qualified immunity as a defense against the allegation he interfered with the woman's First Amendment right to free association, remanding the case back to the lower court for further litigation.
Qualified immunity is a doctrine that keeps government officials generally not subject to civil suits, except in cases where a reasonable person would have known they were violating a clearly established constitutional right.
Doerr's alleged actions during this time period are the crux of the appellate court's ruling that he is not entitled to qualified immunity on two of the allegations, which allege the president judge violated the woman's First and Fourteenth Amendment rights against retaliation and to equal protection.
The lawsuit was filed in October 2017 by Crystal Starnes, a probation officer for the county who claims Doerr initiated an unwelcome sexual relationship as a “business relationship,” and retaliated against her at work following the end of that relationship.
Five years after their relationship ended, Starnes alleges in her suit, she asked for a transfer to another department, which was granted by Doerr.
She later asked to return to her previous position, and the judge allegedly denied that request, according to the lawsuit, despite personnel policy stating employees can transfer back to their previous jobs within 30 days of a transfer.
While Starnes' request was later approved, she alleges she faced continued discrimination in her new job, being denied an office, given different uniforms and deemed ineligible for overtime or “comp time.”
After she filed a discrimination complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, her complaint claims, she was placed on a “performance improvement plan,” despite receiving generally good reviews just two months prior.
“In sum, Starnes has pleaded that she spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern and that she suffered retaliation as a result of the exercise of her clearly established constitutional right,” wrote appellate Judge Thomas Hardiman in the decision.
What the court rejected was the district court's ruling that Doerr was not entitled to immunity on a claim he violated Starnes' First Amendment right to free association by allegedly harassing her then-boyfriend, who also was a county probation officer.
In the lawsuit, Starnes claims the chief judge and others harassed her boyfriend, whom she later married, to the point where he developed anxiety and was pushed into retirement after an extended leave from work.
She also alleges Doerr ran into the couple at a Lowe's store and “remarked that he hoped they were off the clock.”
While she did later marry her boyfriend, the court ruled, there is no case law explicitly protecting the association between unmarried partners, something required for qualified immunity to be waived.
“Neither the Supreme Court nor this court has held that unmarried, romantic partners have a fundamental right to intimate association,” the ruling stated. “Nor is there a robust consensus of persuasive authority recognizing such a right.”
Starnes' lawsuit has been in a holding pattern for nearly two years as the appellate court decided whether Doerr is entitled to qualified immunity on those claims.
