Federal Qualified Immunity Barred Section 1983 Claims Against Auburn Officials and Employees

|

Ex parte Roberts, [Ms. SC-2024-0804, June 27, 2025] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2025). The Court (Wise, J.; Shaw, Bryan, and McCool, JJ., concur; Stewart, C.J., and Sellers and Mendheim, JJ., concur in the result; Cook and Lewis, JJ., recuse) grants in part and denies in part a mandamus petition and directs the Montgomery Circuit Court to dismiss Counts 3 and 4 of Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint on the ground of federal qualified immunity and to dismiss Plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees on the ground of State immunity.

Plaintiff Patti Northcutt, a former employee of Auburn University (“Auburn”), sued members of the Auburn University Board of Trustees (“the Board”) and employees of Auburn for poor workplace conditions, including FMLA violations. Mrs. Northcutt agreed to resolve her claims in exchange for backpay, and an agreement that her personnel file would contain no information relative to her claims so as not to interfere with her future employment and completion of her doctoral program at Auburn. Ms. *3. Patti and her husband then sued members of the Board for failing to enforce the terms of the previous settlement agreement, claiming that certain Auburn professors breached “the student/university contract” by requiring Patti to change her dissertation topic and advisors after completing a substantial portion of it. Ms. **4-5. Count 2 of Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint asserted § 1983 claims alleging Defendants had “retaliated against [Patti] because [she] took steps to enforce her First Amendment’s rights to freedom of expression and Count 3 asserted violations of the Equal Protection Clause by members of the Board.” Ms. *14. Plaintiffs sued all Defendants in their official capacities on injunctive relief claims and sued Auburn employees individually for monetary damages.

The Defendants asserted federal qualified immunity as to the § 1983 claims. “To overcome qualified immunity, the plaintiff must satisfy a two-prong test; he must show that: (1) the [public official] violated a constitutional right, and (2) this right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” Ex parte City of Vestavia Hills, 372 So. 3d 1143, 1148 (Ala. 2022). Ms. *26. “An official’s conduct violates clearly established law when the ‘contours of [the] right are sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right.’” Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 735 (2011). Ms. *28.

A § 1983 Equal-Protection Claim “class-of-one” claim “alleges not that it belongs to a protected class, but that it is the only entity being treated differently from all other similarly situated entities.” Ms. *33, quoting Chabad Chayil, Inc. v. School Bd. Of Miami-Dade Cnty., Fla., 48 F.4th 1222, 1233 (11th Cir. 2022). The Court holds this claim was barred by clearly established law as set out in Engquist v. Oregon Department of Agriculture, 553 U.S. 591 (2008). “Allowing ‘class-of-one’ equal protection claims, like Northcutts’, ‘in the context of public employment would impermissibly constitutionalize the employee grievance.’” Engquist, 552 U.S. at 609. Ms. *42. The Court further holds that the Auburn Defendants were entitled to federal qualified immunity as to the federal due process claim because “a federal due process claim can exist only if no adequate state remedies are available. See Flagship Lake Cnty. Dev. No. 5. LLC v. City of Mascote, Fla., 559 F. App’x 811, 815 (11th Cir. 2014).” Ms.*52.

Plaintiffs’ claim for breach of contract against Defendants in their official capacities included a claim for attorneys’ fees, which was barred by State immunity because any recovery would come from the state treasury. Ms. **59-60, citing Ex parte Town of Lowndesboro, 950 So. 2d 1203 (Ala. 2006). The Court declines to address dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims for monetary damages against the Defendants in their individual capacities because Defendants’ arguments were based on the merits of the claims and not whether they were entitled to State immunity. Ms. *63, citing Ex parte City of Bessemer, 142 So. 3d 542, 549 (Ala. 2013).

Related Document

Categories: 
Share To: