Gonzalez v. Lee County Housing Authority

PUBLISH
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
_______________________
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
12/02/98
No. 97-2952
_______________________ THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 96-131 CIV-FTM-99D
LUZ GONZALEZ,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LEE COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY,
Defendant,
PATRICIA MORAN, individually
and in her official capacity
as Executive Director of the
Lee County Housing Authority,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(December 2, 1998)
Before HATCHETT, Chief Judge, BLACK, Circuit Judge, and KRAVITCH,
Senior Circuit Judge.
KRAVITCH, Senior Circuit Judge:
After being fired from her job at the Lee County Housing
Authority (“LCHA”), Luz Gonzalez (“Gonzalez”) brought suit against
the LCHA and against Patricia Moran (“Moran”), the LCHA Executive
Director, in her individual and official capacities, pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 and 42 U.S.C. § 3617, a provision of the Fair Housing
Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601-3619, 3631. Moran moved for summary
judgment in her individual capacity on the basis of qualified
immunity. The district court denied this motion, and Moran filed
an interlocutory appeal.1
We reverse the district court’s judgment as to Gonzalez’s
First Amendment claim brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Even viewing
the evidence in the light most favorable to Gonzalez, a reasonable
person in Moran’s position would not have known that Gonzalez’s
letter of September 28, 1995, constituted speech on a matter of
public concern. See infra Part III. On the other hand, we affirm
the district court’s judgment as to Gonzalez’s claim brought under
42 U.S.C. § 3617. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable
to Gonzalez, a reasonable person in Moran’s position would have
known that her termination of Gonzalez’s employment was unlawful.
See infra Part IV.
I.
The record, for purposes of summary judgment, reveals the
following: Gonzalez worked for the LCHA from October 1993 to
October 1995. She began as an Administrative Clerk and assumed the
1
The district court also granted Moran’s motion for summary judgment in
her official capacity and denied Gonzalez’s motion for partial summary
judgment as to Gonzalez’s contract claim. The sole issue on appeal,
however, is whether the district court erred in denying summary judgment
to Moran in her individual capacity.
1
position of Property Manager in May 1995. Her duties as Property
Manager included overseeing the day-to-day operations of the Low
Income Housing Program and the Rural Community Economic Development
Rural Housing Program. At all times, she worked under Moran.
According to Gonzalez, Moran directed her to engage in certain
actions that, in Gonzalez’s view, violated the anti-discrimination
laws that apply to public housing programs.2 For example, Moran
complained when Gonzalez attempted to place a white woman with a
black child in a vacant apartment, and Moran told Gonzalez that she
did not want a black person placed in a vacant elderly housing
unit.3 Moran’s efforts to force Gonzalez to discriminate were a
central cause of the arguments that arose between Gonzalez and
Moran.4 Finally, during August and September 1995, Gonzalez
“confront[ed]” Moran about the fact that Moran wanted Gonzalez to
take certain actions that violated the rules and regulations of the
2
See R1-20, Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Support of Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment, Ex. A, ¶ 5, at 1 (“While I worked at the housing
authority, Ms. Moran directed me to engage in certain job acts that I
thought violated the laws about discrimination [sic] the regulations that
apply to the housing programs. Despite my concerns, I did as she asked
because she was my boss.”).
3
See id., Ex. A, Attach. 3, ¶ 8, at 2 (“I never know who you will want
me to house even if they are next on the waiting list. If it’s a white
girl with a black baby, you complain, if we have a vacancie on the
lederly site, you do not want me to put a black person on that site
. . . .”); accord R1-33, Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for
Summary Judgment of Defendant Moran in her Individual Capacity, Ex. B,
¶ 8, at 2. This letter from Gonzalez to Moran is reproduced as Appendix
A, infra. The quotations from the letter that appear throughout this
opinion are unedited.
4
See App. A, ¶ 9 (“[T]he times that you and me had argue is because you
had forced me to discriminate, or rip-off people . . . .”).
2
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”).5 These
confrontations concerned, inter alia, Moran’s desire to
discriminate against specific potential tenants: two white women
with black children and an elderly black man.6
On September 20, 1995, Moran called Gonzalez into Moran’s
office and criticized Gonzalez for failing to fill apartment
vacancies at the LCHA during the prior two months.7 An argument
ensued, in which Gonzalez raised her voice.8 On September 21,
Moran presented Gonzalez with a letter that stated in part: “This
is to advise you that under no circumstance will I ever again
tolerate your violent outburst of yesterday. . . . [I]f anything
like that occurs again you will be terminated immediately.”9
Gonzalez refused to sign the letter.
5
See R1-20, Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Support of Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment, Ex. A, Attach. 4, at 1.
6
Gonzalez stated:
[F]or about 2 months I have been confronting Ms. Moran on
things that she want me to do and are against HUD rules and
regulations and against the Department of Labor.
The following are only some of those things:
****
7) I had to enforce the authority Ms. Moran gave me, to house
two white girls that came up on the waiting list, but as Ms.
Moran opinion they were no good just because they had babies
from black men.
Example: Victoria Fisher -- 14153 Warner Circle
Chandra Sharp -- 9831 Poplar Grove Lane
Also had to do the same thing for Mr. Steven Thomas, who lives
now at 9750 Feathertree Lane, because Ms. Moran did not want
me to put any black person on the elderly site.
See id., Ex. A, Attach. 4, at 1-2.
7
See App. A, ¶ 1.
8
See id., ¶ 2.
9
See R1-33, Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment
of Defendant Moran in her Individual Capacity, Ex. A, at 1.
3
According to Gonzalez’s complaint, Gonzalez called a member of
the LCHA Board of Commissioners (the “LCHA Board”) on September 27
to complain about, inter alia, discriminatory rental practices at
the LCHA.10 On the same day, Gonzalez phoned an employee at the HUD
office in Jacksonville, Florida, to lodge the same complaint.11
Gonzalez also called the Chairman of the LCHA Board, James Puccio
(“Puccio”), to report the alleged discrimination.12 Gonzalez does
not claim that Moran knew about these phone calls.
On September 28, Gonzalez wrote Moran a four-page letter,
reproduced as Appendix A, infra. In the letter, Gonzalez
complained about various aspects of Moran’s management, including
Moran’s discriminatory directives, and stated that Moran’s efforts
to force Gonzalez to discriminate were a central cause of the
arguments between them.13
On October 2, Moran fired Gonzalez. In the termination letter
given to Gonzalez, Moran stated that Gonzalez had exhibited
“offensive or antagonistic conduct toward superiors, fellow
employees, or the public; criticism of orders, rules and policies,
10
See R1-15, Amended Complaint, ¶ 15, at 5.
11
See id., ¶ 16, at 5-6.
12
See id., ¶ 17, at 6.
13
See App. A, ¶¶ 8-9. In addition, on September 29, Gonzalez wrote Moran
a one-page letter in which she complained that another LCHA employee had
been spreading information about Moran’s reprimand of Gonzalez. See R1-
20, Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Support of Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment, Ex. A, Attach. 2.
4
or conduct interfering with proper cooperation of employees, or
which impairs the efficiency of the Authority.”14
On October 4, according to Gonzalez’s affidavit testimony, she
and other LCHA employees met with Puccio to discuss “problems
[they] saw at the housing authority and with the practices of Ms.
Moran.”15 On October 9, Gonzalez sent a letter to Puccio in which
she requested that the LCHA Board review her termination.16 The
LCHA Board did not reverse Moran’s decision.
Gonzalez then filed suit against the LCHA and against Moran in
her official and individual capacities. Gonzalez claimed that
Moran, in her individual capacity, violated: (1) Gonzalez’s First
Amendment rights by terminating Gonzalez’s employment in
retaliation for her “objections and complaints about the operations
of the Defendants,” giving rise to a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983;17
and (2) 42 U.S.C. § 3617 by terminating Gonzalez’s employment in
retaliation for her “complaints and refusal to participate in the
discriminatory rental practices of the Defendants.”18 Moran moved
for summary judgment in her individual capacity on both claims.
14
See R1-33, Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment
of Defendant Moran in her Individual Capacity, Ex. D, at 1.
15
See R1-20, Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Support of Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment, Ex. A, ¶ 10, at 2.
16
See id., Ex. A, Attach. 4.
17
See R1-15, Amended Complaint, ¶ 34, at 8.
18
See id., ¶ 30, at 7-8. Gonzalez also brought these two claims against
LCHA and against Moran in her official capacity. See id., ¶¶ 30, 34, at
7-8. Furthermore, Gonzalez alleged that LCHA and Moran, in her official
capacity, breached Gonzalez’s employment contract. See id., ¶ 39, at 9.
5
The district court, without elaboration, ruled that “issues of
material fact” precluded the court from granting summary judgment
in Moran’s favor.19 Moran appeals the district court’s denial of
that motion.
II.
A.
This court lacks interlocutory jurisdiction to review a
district court’s denial of summary judgment where the moving party
appeals based solely on the argument that the district court erred
in evaluating evidentiary sufficiency. See Cottrell v. Caldwell,
85 F.3d 1480, 1484 (11th Cir. 1996) (citing Johnson v. Jones, 515
U.S. 304, 313, 115 S. Ct. 2151, 2156 (1995)). We do have
interlocutory jurisdiction to review the denial of a summary
judgment in qualified immunity cases, however, where our review
requires a determination of the clearly established law that
existed at the time of the allegedly unlawful acts. See Cottrell,
85 F.3d at 1484 (citing Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 528, 105
S. Ct. 2806, 2816 (1985)). In the latter case, we have
jurisdiction even if the district court, as it did here, simply
ruled that “issues of material fact” precluded summary judgment.
See Cottrell, 85 F.3d at 1484-85 (citing Behrens v. Pelletier, 516
U.S. 299, 304, 116 S. Ct. 834, 838 (1996)).
B.
19
R1-44, Order, at 2. The district court also granted Moran’s motion for
summary judgment in her official capacity and denied Gonzalez’s motion
for partial summary judgment as to Gonzalez’s contract claim. Id.6
We review de novo the district court’s denial of a defendant’s
summary judgment motion that is based on the affirmative defense of
qualified immunity. See Walker v. Schwalbe, 112 F.3d 1127, 1130
(11th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, __ U.S. __, 118 S. Ct. 1794 (1998).
In exercising interlocutory jurisdiction in such cases, we have the
discretion to accept the district court’s findings of fact, if they
are adequate. See Cottrell, 85 F.3d 1480, 1486. Where, as here,
the district court has made no specific findings of fact, we must
make such findings ourselves after full review of the record.
A party seeking summary judgment must demonstrate that “there
is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving
party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The moving party bears the initial burden
of informing the court of the basis for its motion and of
identifying those materials that demonstrate the absence of a
genuine issue of material fact. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477
U.S. 317, 323, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 2552-53 (1986). When the non-
moving party bears the burden of proof on an issue at trial, the
moving party need not “support its motion with affidavits or other
similar material negating the opponent’s claim,” id. at 323, 106
S. Ct. at 2553, in order to discharge this initial responsibility.
Instead, the moving party simply may “‘show[]’--that is, point[]
out to the district court--that there is an absence of evidence to
support the nonmoving party’s case.” Id. at 325, 106 S. Ct. at
2554 (quoting Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 159, 90
S.Ct. 1598, 1609 (1970)).
7
In response to a properly supported motion for summary
judgment, “an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations
or denials of the adverse party’s pleadings, but . . . must set
forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for
trial.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). If the non-moving party fails to
“make a sufficient showing on an essential element of her case with
respect to which she has the burden of proof,” then the court must
enter summary judgment for the moving party. See Celotex, 477 U.S.
at 323, 106 S. Ct. at 2552. In determining whether genuine issues
of material fact exist, we resolve all ambiguities and draw all
justifiable inferences in favor of the non-moving party.
See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S. Ct.
2505, 2513 (1986).
C.
In analyzing a defense of qualified immunity, we first
consider whether “the defendant government official [has proved]
that he was acting within the scope of his discretionary authority
when the alleged wrongful act occurred.” Evans v. Hightower, 117
F.3d 1318, 1320 (11th Cir. 1997). If the defendant has met this
burden, “the plaintiff must then demonstrate that the defendant
violated clearly established law based upon objective standards.”
Id. Because it is undisputed that Moran was acting within the
scope of her discretionary authority when she fired Gonzalez, we
consider only the second part of the qualified immunity analysis in
our resolution of Gonzalez’s claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and
3617.
8
This circuit has established stringent standards for a
plaintiff seeking to overcome the affirmative defense of qualified
immunity asserted by a government official in an individual
capacity. “Qualified immunity protects government officials
performing discretionary functions from civil trials (and the other
burdens of litigation, including discovery) and from liability if
their conduct violates no ‘clearly established statutory or
constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have
known.’” Lassiter v. Alabama A & M Univ., Bd. of Trustees, 28 F.3d
1146, 1149 (11th Cir. 1994) (en banc) (quoting Harlow v.
Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S. Ct. 2727, 2738 (1982)). “For
the law to be clearly established to the point that qualified
immunity does not apply, the law must have earlier been developed
in such a concrete and factually defined context to make it obvious
to all reasonable government actors, in the defendant’s place, that
‘what he is doing’ violates federal law.” Lassiter, 28 F.3d at
1149 (quoting Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640, 107 S. Ct.
3034, 3039 (1987)). “For qualified immunity to be surrendered,
pre-existing law must dictate, that is, truly compel (not just
suggest or allow or raise a question about), the conclusion for
every like-situated, reasonable government agent that what
defendant is doing violates federal law in the circumstances.”
Jenkins by Hall v. Talladega City Bd. of Educ., 115 F.3d 821, 823
(11th Cir.) (en banc) (quoting Lassiter, 28 F.3d at 1150), cert.
denied, __ U.S. __, 118 S. Ct. 412 (1997).
III.
9
Moran is entitled to summary judgment in her individual
capacity on Gonzalez’s section 1983 claim only if Moran’s conduct
did not violate clearly established First Amendment rights of which
a reasonable government official in Moran’s position would have
been aware. Because resolution of this question requires us to
determine the contours of clearly established law, we have
interlocutory jurisdiction to review the district court’s denial of
summary judgment. See Cottrell v. Caldwell, 85 F.3d 1480, 1484
(11th Cir. 1996).
A public employee must satisfy four conditions in order to
prevail in a section 1983 action alleging that she was fired in
retaliation for constitutionally protected speech. See Bryson v.
City of Waycross, 888 F.2d 1562, 1565 (11th Cir. 1989). First, the
employee must demonstrate that the speech allegedly resulting in
her termination can “be fairly characterized as constituting speech
on a matter of public concern . . . .” Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S.
138, 146, 103 S. Ct. 1684, 1690 (1983), cited in Bryson, 888 F.2d
at 1565.20 Second, the employee must show that her First Amendment
interests outweigh “the interest of the State, as an employer, in
promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through
its employees.” Pickering v. Board of Educ. of Township High Sch.
20
Even where a public employee’s speech does not touch upon a matter of
public concern, that speech is not “totally beyond the protection of the
First Amendment,” Connick, 461 U.S. at 147, 103 S. Ct. at 1690, but
“absent the most unusual circumstances, a federal court is not the
appropriate forum in which to review the wisdom of a personnel decision
taken by a public agency allegedly in reaction to the employee’s
behavior,” id.10
Dist. 205, 391 U.S. 563, 568, 88 S. Ct. 1731, 1734-35 (1968), cited
in Bryson, 888 F.2d at 1565. If these two prerequisites are
satisfied, then the employee must prove that her speech played a
“substantial part” in the employer’s termination decision. See Mt.
Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 287,
97 S. Ct. 568, 576 (1977), cited in Bryson, 888 F.2d at 1565-66.
Finally, the employee must rebut successfully any attempt by the
employer to demonstrate that “it would have reached the same
decision . . . even in the absence of the protected conduct.” Mt.
Healthy, 429 U.S. at 287, 97 S. Ct. at 576, cited in Bryson, 888
F.2d at 1566.
At the outset, we note that our review of Gonzalez’s section
1983 claim concerns solely Gonzalez’s letter to Moran on September
28. Although evidence indicates that Gonzalez and Moran previously
argued about compliance with discrimination rules, see infra Part
IV.B.2, we are unable to perform a Pickering review of Gonzalez’s
speech on those occasions because the record does not disclose the
“manner, time, and place” of Gonzalez’s statements. See Connick,
461 U.S. at 150-55, 103 S. Ct. at 1692-93 (describing elements of
Pickering balancing test). Accordingly, we pretermit our review of
that speech and leave this question for the district court.21
21
Similarly, we pretermit our review of other instances of Gonzalez’s
speech because of the lack of causation evidence required under Mt.
Healthy. See 429 U.S. at 287, 97 S. Ct. at 576 (stating that the
employee must prove that her speech played a “substantial” part in the
employer’s termination decision). No evidence indicates that Moran, when
firing Gonzalez, knew about Gonzalez’s pre-termination conversations with
the HUD official and LCHA Board members. Similarly, Gonzalez’s
discussions with Puccio on October 4 obviously played no role in
Gonzalez’s termination on October 2. Thus, Gonzalez’s speech in these
11
In reviewing Gonzalez’s letter of September 28, the threshold
question is whether the letter can “be fairly characterized as
constituting speech on a matter of public concern . . . .”
Connick, 461 U.S. at 146, 103 S. Ct. at 1690. According to Moran,
the letter does not satisfy the public concern requirement because
Gonzalez did not distribute her letter publicly and because
Gonzalez has not shown that her letter addressed specific matters
that already had drawn significant public attention. In Connick,
however, the Supreme Court held that the public concern requirement
was satisfied where a government employee spoke about an important
matter of public interest, even though the employee spoke only
within the workplace and even though the specific matter addressed
had not drawn significant public attention prior to her speech.
See id. at 149, 103 S. Ct. at 1691.22
instances cannot form the basis of a successful claim under § 1983. See
Hughes v. Bedsole, 48 F.3d 1376, 1386 (4th Cir. 1995) (pretermitting
review of § 1983 free speech claim based on lack of causation evidence).
22
In Connick, Assistant District Attorney Myers opposed District Attorney
Connick’s decision to transfer her. See 461 U.S. at 140-41, 103 S. Ct.
at 1686. As a result of her discontent, Myers prepared and circulated
to other assistant district attorneys a questionnaire concerning office
transfer policy, office morale, the need for a grievance committee, the
level of confidence in supervisors, and whether employees felt pressured
to work in political campaigns. See id. at 141, 103 S. Ct. at 1687.
Connick then terminated Myers. See id.The Connick Court analyzed each of the questions in the
questionnaire separately. Most of the questions were not “of public
import in evaluating the performance of the District Attorney as an
elected official,” 461 U.S. at 148, 103 S. Ct. at 1690, but simply
“reflect[ed] one employee’s dissatisfaction with a transfer and an
attempt to turn that displeasure into a cause cèlèbre,” id. at 148, 103
S. Ct. at 1691. The Court, however, held that the question concerning
whether assistant district attorneys felt pressured to work in political
campaigns did touch upon a matter of public concern in light of: (1) the
constitutional guarantees protecting employees from having to work for
political candidates not of their own choice; and (2) the “demonstrated
interest in this country that government service should depend upon
12
In order to determine whether the letter satisfies the public
concern requirement, we must analyze its “content, form, and
context . . . as revealed by the whole record,” Connick, 461 U.S.
at 147-48, 103 S. Ct. at 1690, and evaluate whether Gonzalez’s
purpose was “to raise issues of public concern, on the one hand, or
to further her own private interest, on the other,” Morgan v.
Ford, 6 F.3d 750, 754 (11th Cir. 1993). This question is one of
law, not of fact. See Connick, 461 U.S. at 148 n.7, 103 S. Ct. at1690 n.7. If it is unclear whether the letter satisfies the public
concern requirement, then Moran is entitled to qualified immunity
on Gonzalez’s section 1983 claim because Moran’s actions did not
violate Gonzalez’s clearly established First Amendment rights.
See Badia v. City of Miami, 133 F.3d 1443, 1445 (11th Cir. 1998)
(per curiam).
meritorious performance rather than political service.” Id. at 149, 103
S. Ct. at 1691.
The Connick Court thus held that the public concern requirement was
satisfied even though Myers did not publicize the questionnaire and even
though no evidence indicated that the public, at the time Myers
circulated the questionnaire, knew about the District Attorney’s unlawful
practice of pressuring his employees to work on political campaigns. We
reject Moran’s contention that Peterson v. Atlanta Hous. Auth., 998 F.2d
904 (11th Cir. 1993), indicates a contrary rule. Although Peterson’s
inter-office speech did concern an issue that had received media
scrutiny, see id. at 916, the court specifically noted that public
awareness of the problem was not necessary to satisfy the public concern
requirement, see id. at 917 n.25; see also Morgan v. Ford, 6 F.3d 750,
754 n.5 (11th Cir. 1993) (“[A] court cannot determine that an utterance
is not a matter of public concern solely because the employee does not
air the concerns to the public.”); Deremo v. Watkins, 939 F.2d 908, 911
n.3 (11th Cir. 1991) (stating that an employee’s effort to communicate
her concerns to the public is a relevant, but not dispositive, element
in the public concern analysis).
13
In large part, the letter simply blames Moran for creating a
poor working atmosphere at the LCHA.23 We thus conclude that much
of the letter does not touch upon matters of public concern.
See Connick, 461 U.S. at 148-49, 103 S. Ct. at 1690-91 (stating
that most of the elements of an employee’s questionnaire were “mere
extensions of [her] dispute over her transfer” and holding that
“the First Amendment does not require a public office to be run as
a roundtable for employee complaints over internal office
affairs”).
We must evaluate every element of the letter, however, in
order to determine whether Gonzalez has satisfied the public
concern requirement. See Connick, 461 U.S. at 149, 103 S. Ct. at
1691 (holding that one question in an employee’s questionnaire
constituted speech on a matter of public concern). In particular,
Gonzalez’s accusations about Moran’s discriminatory behavior merit
scrutiny. The letter, unedited, states in part:
All I have learned from this place is to agravate myself
day after they, because of the things that I see and
hear.
I never know who you will want me to house even if they
are next on the waiting list. If it’s a white girl with
a black baby, you complain, if we have a vacancie on the
lederly site, you do not want me to put a black person on
that site, if the client has HIV, you complain, if it’s
23
See, e.g., App. A, ¶ 3 (“[W]hen things get a little blurry, you turn
into a very critical, and verbally abusive person.”); id., ¶ 4 (“I have
seen and also received a lot of verbal abuse along with my co-workers.”);
id., ¶ 5 (“[Y]ou have no consideration for your staff.”); id., ¶ 14
“[Y]ou are a terrible instigator among all of us in this
office . . . .”); id., ¶ 15 (stating that Moran only gives “miserable
raise[s]”); id., ¶ 16 (criticizing Moran for blaming others for her own
mistakes); id., ¶ 18 (blaming Moran for “creating this miserable
environment”).
14
a white that has not been in the job for too long, you do
not want me to house them, because it will become a
negative rent.
If you remember, that the times that you and me had argue
is because you had forced me to discriminate or rip-off
people . . . .24
It is unclear whether this portion of the letter can “be
fairly characterized as constituting speech on a matter of public
concern . . . .” Connick, 461 U.S. at 146, 103 S. Ct. at 1690. On
the one hand, a public official’s authorization of discriminatory
rental practices unquestionably is an important matter of general
public interest. See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 3601 (“It is the policy of
the United States to provide . . . for fair housing throughout the
United States.”); cf. Connick, 461 U.S. at 149, 103 S. Ct. at 1691(holding that the pressuring of public employees to work in
political campaigns is a matter of public concern). Moreover, a
public employee’s statement may satisfy the public concern
requirement even where, as here, the employee speaks within the
workplace, after an adverse employment decision, about a specific
matter that had not drawn significant public attention prior to her
speech. See Connick, 461 U.S. at 149, 103 S. Ct. at 1691.
On the other hand, three unrebutted facts suggest that
Gonzalez’s purpose in writing this part of the letter was to blame
Moran for Gonzalez’s dissatisfaction with the stressful conditions
of her own employment. First, this portion of the letter does not
specifically address the legal rights of the potential tenants, but
24
See App. A, ¶¶ 7-9.
15
rather concerns (a) Gonzalez’s own aggravation and confusion, (b)
Moran’s complaints to Gonzalez, and (c) the arguments between Moran
and Gonzalez.25 Second, the letter as a whole focuses on Gonzalez’s
theory that Moran, by breaking rules, was harming the office
environment.26 Third, Gonzalez’s “complaints . . . were in large
measure conveyed in light of a reprimand, still fresh, which
appellant believed unfairly attributed responsibility to
her . . . .” Pearson v. Macon-Bibb County Hosp. Auth., 952 F.2d
1274, 1278 (11th Cir. 1992).27 Viewed in combination, these facts
25
See App. A, ¶¶ 7-8 (stating that Gonzalez becomes aggravated at work
and cannot predict whether Moran will want to rent to certain tenants);
id., ¶ 8 (stating that Moran complains to Gonzalez when Gonzalez rents
in a non-discriminatory manner); id., ¶ 9 (stating that Moran and
Gonzalez argue when Moran forces Gonzalez to break the rules).
This portion of the letter thus differs from the element of the
employee’s speech in Connick that satisfied the public concern
requirement. See 461 U.S. at 149, 103 S. Ct. at 1691. Even though Myers
circulated the questionnaire as a result of her employment grievance, the
actual question about whether assistant district attorneys were forced
to work on political campaigns did not refer explicitly to Myers’s self-
interest.
26
See, e.g., id., ¶ 6 (“[Y]ou do not follow Rules and Regulations . . .,
which causes so much confusion not only to me, also to every person in
this office.”); id., ¶ 10 (“You can not keep blaming me for this place
starting to fall apart. You owe all this to yourself, because you are
the one that bend the rules all the time.”); id., ¶ 19 (stating that
Moran creates a “miserable environment” in the office).
27
In Pearson, a hospital nurse alleged that her employer violated § 1983
by discharging her for comments she made about her supervisors’
assignment of cleaning responsibilities and about operating room
cleanliness. See id. at 1276-77. In holding that her comments did not
satisfy the public concern requirement, we explained:
Pearson’s complaints primarily pertained to the assignment of
cleaning responsibilities in the O.R. and the allocation of
blame among the nurses responsible for O.R. conditions on
those occasions when cleaning duties were neglected. It was
only incident to speaking on these concerns that appellant’s
remarks touched on conditions that might be potentially
hazardous to patients. Appellant’s complaints, furthermore,
were in large measure conveyed in light of a reprimand, still
fresh, which appellant believed unfairly attributed
responsibility to her for poor O.R. conditions. In essence,
16
indicate that Gonzalez, even though she was involved in a
continuing battle with Moran over Moran’s discriminatory
directives, see infra Part IV, wrote this portion of the letter in
order to “further her own private interest,” rather than “to raise
issues of public concern,” Morgan, 6 F.3d at 754; see Ferrara v.
Mills, 781 F.2d 1508, 1515-16 (11th Cir. 1986) (holding that the
public concern requirement was not satisfied where the teacher’s
speech was based on the teacher’s personal concerns that collegiate
registration contributed to his inability to enforce discipline).
Because housing discrimination by a public housing authority
is an issue of significant public importance, a public official
ordinarily would know that an employee’s statement addressing this
issue constitutes speech on a matter of public concern. See Kurtz
v. Vickrey, 855 F.2d 723, 727 (11th Cir. 1988) (stating that the
content of the speech is an important factor in the public concern
analysis). Due to the unique confluence of facts in this case,
however, we hold that the evidence, even viewed in the light most
favorable to Gonzalez, would not have compelled a reasonable
official in Moran’s position to believe that Gonzalez’s letter
constituted speech on a matter of public concern. See Badia, 133
F.3d at 1445; see also Jenkins by Hall v. Talladega City Bd. of
Educ., 115 F.3d 821, 823 (11th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, __
U.S. __, 118 S. Ct. 412 (1997). We therefore hold that Moran is
Pearson’s comments concerned the circumstances of her own
employment.
Id. at 1278-79.
17
entitled to qualified immunity on Gonzalez’s section 1983 claim,
and we reverse the district court’s denial of summary judgment to
Moran in her individual capacity on this claim.
IV.
Gonzalez also claims that Moran violated 42 U.S.C. § 3617, a
provision of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601-3619, 3631, by
terminating Gonzalez’s employment “in retaliation of her complaints
and refusal to participate in the discriminatory rental practices
of the Defendants.”28 According to section 3617, it is unlawful to
coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any
person in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of
his having exercised or enjoyed, or on account of his
having aided or encouraged any other person in the
exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or protected
by section 3603, 3604, 3605, or 3606 of this title.
Section 3604 proscribes, inter alia, racial discrimination in the
rental of housing. See 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b).
A.
Moran contends that she is entitled to qualified immunity on
Gonzalez’s section 3617 claim. It is a matter of first impression
for this court whether a public official sued in her individual
capacity under section 3617 may assert the defense of qualified
immunity. We conclude that the qualified immunity defense is
available in such cases.
28
R1-15, Amended Complaint at 7-8, ¶ 30.
18
In resolving this question, we rely on the Supreme Court’s
qualified immunity jurisprudence relating to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.29In Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S. Ct. 1683 (1974), the
Supreme Court held that state executive-branch officials may assert
a qualified immunity defense when sued in their individual
capacities under section 1983 for deprivations of federal rights
under color of state law. See id. at 247, 94 S. Ct. at 1692(stating that “in varying scope, a qualified immunity is available
to officers of the executive branch of government . . . .”). The
Scheuer Court reasoned that executive officials under common law
enjoyed a qualified immunity from civil damage actions and that
Congress did not intend to abolish this immunity when it enacted
section 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13, now
codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See 416 U.S. at 239-48, 94 S. Ct. at
1688-92. The Court also relied on the importance of according
immunity to executive officials’ actions. See id. at 245-47, 94
S. Ct. at 1691-92.30
29
This jurisprudence is not directly applicable here because Gonzalez
brought her Fair Housing Act claim under 42 U.S.C. §§ 3617 and 3613, not
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
30
The Supreme Court’s reasoning in subsequent cases confirms its analysis
in Scheuer. For example, in Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622,
638, 100 S. Ct. 1398, 1409 (1980), the Court stated: “Where the immunity
claimed by the defendant was well established at common law at the time
§ 1983 was enacted, and where its rationale was compatible with the
purposes of the Civil Rights Act, we have construed the statute to
incorporate that immunity.” Likewise, in City of Newport v. Fact
Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247, 101 S. Ct. 2748 (1981), the Court held that
municipalities are immune from punitive damages in actions brought under
§ 1983 because: (1) municipalities enjoyed that immunity at common law,
see id. at 259-63, 101 S. Ct. at 2756-58; (2) neither the language nor
legislative history of § 1983 demonstrates Congress’s intent to abolish
that immunity, see id. at 263-66, 101 S. Ct. at 2758-59; and (3) such
19
Applying the reasoning of Scheuer, we hold that Moran is
entitled to assert the defense of qualified immunity in this
section 3617 action. Neither the text31 nor the legislative
history32 of section 3617 indicates that Congress intended to
abrogate the qualified immunity to which executive-branch officials
were entitled under common law. Because of this fact and in light
of the importance of protecting officials’ decision-making
capacity,33 we conclude that executive-branch officials sued in
their individual capacities under section 3617 may assert the
defense of qualified immunity.
immunity is compatible with the policy goals of § 1983, see id. at 266-
71, 101 S. Ct. at 2759-62.
31
The fact that § 3617 is silent as to qualified immunity indicates that
Congress did not intend to preclude the common-law qualified immunity
defense in § 3617 actions. Cf. Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259,
268, 113 S. Ct. 2606, 2613 (1993) (“Certain immunities were so well
established in 1871, when § 1983 was enacted, that we presume that
Congress would have specifically so provided had it wished to abolish
them.”) (internal quotation omitted); Fact Concerts, 453 U.S. at 258, 101
S. Ct. at 2755 (“One important assumption underlying the Court’s
decisions in this area is that members of the 42d Congress were familiar
with common-law principles, including defenses previously recognized in
ordinary tort litigation, and that they likely intended these common-law
principles to obtain, absent specific provisions to the contrary.”).
32
The substance of § 3617: (1) appeared in the amendment to H.R. 2516
that was introduced and later tabled by Senators Mondale and Brooks, see
114 Cong. Rec. at 2270; (2) was included in Senator Dirksen’s approved
substitute amendment to H.R. 2516, see 114 Cong. Rec. at 4573; and (3)
was part of the bills passed by the Senate, see id. at 5992, and the
House of Representatives, see id. at 9621; see also Pub. L. 90-284, Title
VIII, § 817, 82 Stat. 89 (1968). No aspect of the legislative history
suggests that Congress intended to deprive public officials of the
ability to assert a qualified immunity defense in a § 3617 action. See,
e.g., S. Rep. No. 721 (1968), reprinted in 1968 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1837
(concerning relevant public law, but not addressing § 3617).
33
See Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 814, 102 S. Ct. 2727, 2736
(1982) (stating that qualified immunity is necessary to avoid “the
expenses of litigation, the diversion of official energy from pressing
public issues, and the deterrence of able citizens from acceptance of
public office”).
20
In reaching this conclusion, we follow the only other court of
appeals that has considered the matter. See Samaritan Inns, Inc.
v. District of Columbia, 114 F.3d 1227, 1238-39 (D.C. Cir. 1997)
(allowing public officials sued in their individual capacities
under section 3617 to plead the affirmative defense of qualified
immunity); see also Baggett v. Baird, No. Civ.A.4:94CV0282-HLM,
(N.D. Ga. Feb. 18, 1997) (granting summary judgment on the basis of
qualified immunity in section 3617 action). Our holding also is
consistent with various decisions in which this court and others
have held that public officials are entitled to assert the defense
of qualified immunity when sued under a federal statute other than
section 1983.34 Furthermore, we do not believe that Burrell v.
34
See Lussier v. Dugger, 904 F.2d 661, 663-64, 670 n.10 (11th Cir. 1990)
(the Rehabilitation Act of 1973); see also Cullinan v. Abramson, 128 F.3d
301, 307-12 (6th Cir. 1997) (the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act), cert. denied, __ U.S. __, 118 S. Ct. 1560 (1998);
Torcasio v. Murray, 57 F.3d 1340, 1343 (4th Cir. 1995) (the Americans
with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973); Lue v. Moore,
43 F.3d 1203, 1205 (8th Cir. 1994) (the Rehabilitation Act of 1973);
McGregor v. Louisiana State Univ. Bd. of Supervisors, 3 F.3d 850, 862 &
n.19 (5th Cir. 1993) (the Rehabiliation Act of 1973); Cronen v. Texas
Dep’t of Human Servs., 977 F.2d 934, 939-40 (5th Cir. 1992) (Food Stamp
Act of 1977); Doe v. Attorney General of the United States, 941 F.2d 780,
797-99 (9th Cir. 1991) (the Rehabilitation Act of 1973); Christopher P.
by Norma P. v. Marcus, 915 F.2d 794, 798-801 (2d Cir. 1990) (the
Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975); P.C. v. McLaughlin,
913 F.2d 1033, 1040-42 (2d Cir. 1990) (the Education for All Handicapped
Children Act of 1975 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973); Affiliated
Capital Corp. v. City of Houston, 735 F.2d 1555, 1569-70 (5th Cir. 1984)
(the Sherman Antitrust Act); National Black Police Ass’n v. Velde, 712
F.2d 569, 574-80 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 and the Crime Control Act of 1973). But see Samuel v. Holmes, 138
F.3d 173, 178 (5th Cir. 1998) (holding that qualified immunity is not an
available defense in retaliation claims brought under the False Claims
Act). We stress, however, that our opinion in this case should not be
construed to address whether qualified immunity is available in actions
brought under statutes other than § 3617.
21
Board of Trustees of Ga. Military College, 970 F.2d 785 (11th Cir.
1992), counsels a contrary conclusion.35
35
In Burrell, this court held that a public official sued in an
individual capacity under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) may not assert a defense
of qualified immunity. The court reasoned:
Unlike in section 1983 actions, public officials . . . will
not be subject to liability under section 1985(3) unless their
actions were motivated by ‘some racial, or perhaps otherwise
class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus.’ . . . We hold
that this additional safeguard obviates the need for granting
public officials qualified immunity in section 1985(3)
actions.
970 F.2d at 794. Because section 3617, like 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3),
requires a showing of discriminatory intent, see Sofarelli v. Pinellas
County, 931 F.2d 718, 722-23 (11th Cir. 1991), Burrell might suggest that
the qualified immunity defense is not available in a § 3617 action.
For several reasons, we decline to extend Burrell’s holding to
section 3617 actions. Initially, we note that this court has not
extended Burrell to 42 U.S.C. § 1981 actions even though § 1981, under
General Building Contractors Ass’n v. Pennsylvania, 458 U.S. 375, 386-91,
102 S. Ct. 3141, 3147-50 (1982), requires a showing of purposeful
discrimination. See Johnson v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 126 F.3d 1372,
1379-80 (11th Cir. 1997) (holding that defendant officials were entitled
to qualified immunity on § 1981 claim but, under Burrell, could not
assert qualified immunity on § 1985(3) claim). In light of the Johnson
court’s implicit decision to limit Burrell, we hesitate to extend Burrell
here.
Furthermore, our research reveals no case other than Burrell in
which a court of appeals or the Supreme Court has barred the qualified
immunity defense on the ground that the statute creating liability
requires a showing of discriminatory intent. In other circuits, for
example, public officials may assert the qualified immunity defense in
a § 1985(3) action. See Southard v. Texas Bd. of Criminal Justice, 114
F.3d 539, 555 (5th Cir. 1997); Brown v. City of Oneonta, N.Y., Police
Dep’t, 106 F.3d 1125, 1133 (2d Cir. 1997); Vaughn v. U.S. Small Business
Admin., 65 F.3d 1322, 1324-30 (6th Cir. 1995); Simmons v. Poe, 47 F.3d
1370, 1376-78 (4th Cir. 1995); Bisbee v. Bey, 39 F.3d 1096, 1101-02 (10th
Cir. 1994); Howard v. Suskie, 26 F.3d 84, 87 (8th Cir. 1994); Prokey v.
Watkins, 942 F.2d 67, 71-74 (1st Cir. 1991); Auriemma v. Rice, 910 F.2d
1449, 1457-59 (7th Cir. 1990); Hobson v. Wilson, 737 F.2d 1, 24 (D.C.
Cir. 1984).
Finally, although we do not question Burrell’s result, we are not
convinced of one of its premises. Contrary to the Burrell court’s
statement that plaintiffs in § 1983 actions need not demonstrate
discriminatory intent, see 970 F.2d at 793-94, discriminatory intent is
a requisite element of § 1983 claims based on equal protection, see
Mencer v. Hammonds, 134 F.3d 1066, 1070 (11th Cir. 1998), cert. denied,
__ U.S. __, __ S. Ct. __, 67 U.S.L.W. 3177 (U.S. Nov. 9, 1998)(No. 98-
403); see also Edwards v. Wallace Community College, 49 F.3d 1517, 1524
(11th Cir. 1995) (“[A]lthough intent is irrelevant for a qualified
immunity inquiry per se, it is relevant if intent is an element of the
underlying alleged constitutional violation.”) (citations omitted). For
22
B.
Having determined that Moran may assert a qualified immunity
defense against Gonzalez’s section 3617 claim, we must ascertain
whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to
Gonzalez, a reasonable person in Moran’s position would have known
that her actions violated rights clearly established under
section 3617. See Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102
S. Ct. 2727, 2738 (1982). Because we must determine the contours
of clearly established law, we have interlocutory jurisdiction to
review the district court’s denial of summary judgment on this
claim. See Cottrell v. Caldwell, 85 F.3d 1480, 1484 (11th Cir.
1996). Our inquiry involves two stages. First, we determine what
a reasonable government official, in Moran’s position, would have
believed to be the clearly established law in 1995. See infra Part
IV.B.1. Second, we evaluate whether the evidence, viewed in the
light most favorable to Gonzalez, indicates that Moran should have
known that her termination of Gonzalez violated clearly established
law. See infra Part IV.B.2.
1.
To determine what a reasonable government official, in Moran’s
position, would have believed the Fair Housing Act permitted when
she terminated Gonzalez, we look to the law as it stood in 1995.
Although Gonzalez has not proffered any applicable, previously
decided cases that clearly established that Moran’s alleged conduct
all of these reasons, we decline to extend Burrell’s holding to § 3617
actions.
23
violated the Fair Housing Act, our review of the statutory
provisions and the applicable regulation lead us to conclude that
no public official, in Moran’s position, could reasonably have
believed that federal law permitted her to fire an employee for
refusing to discriminate against tenants on the basis of race.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s decision that Moran was
not immune from suit.
Ordinarily, a plaintiff who seeks to overcome a state
official’s affirmative defense of qualified immunity must cite case
law, in force at the time of the defendant’s actions, that would
have made it absolutely clear that the defendant’s conduct violated
federal law. There is no case from the U.S. Supreme Court, this
Circuit, or the relevant state Supreme Court, that would have
established that a person violates section 3617 by firing an
employee for refusing to discriminate against potential tenants on
the basis of race. Cf. Jenkins by Hall v. Talladega City Bd. of
Educ., 115 F.3d 821, 826 n.4 (11th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied,
__ U.S. __, 118 S. Ct. 412 (1997) (explaining that decisions from
only these courts clearly establish the law for the purposes of
qualified immunity). The absence of such a case is not fatal to
Gonzalez’s claim, however, because this case differs from the
typical qualified immunity case in which the plaintiff sues a
public official pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and asserts the
violation of some (often generally worded) constitutional right.
Although the assertion of such broadly conceived rights, without
the benefit of sufficiently illuminating case law, may fail to
24
overcome the hurdle of qualified immunity, see Lassiter v. Alabama
A & M Univ., Bd. of Trustees, 28 F.3d 1146, 1150 (11th Cir. 1994)
(en banc); Jenkins, 115 F.3d at 825 n.3, we have acknowledged the
possibility that some federal statutory provisions will be
sufficiently clear on their own to provide defendants with fair
notice of their obligations under the law, see Santamorena v.
Georgia Military College, 147 F.3d 1337, 1340 n.6 (11th Cir. 1998);
Lassiter, 28 F.3d at 1150 n.4.36 Cf. United States v. Lanier, __
U.S. __, 117 S. Ct. 1219, 1227 (“[G]eneral statements of the law
are not inherently incapable of giving fair and clear warning, and
. . . may apply with obvious clarity to the specific conduct in
question, even though ‘the very action in question has [not]
previously been held unlawful.’”) (quoting Anderson v. Creighton,
483 U.S. 635, 640, 107 S. Ct. 3034, 3039 (1987)). Section 3617
provides just such an explicit statement of what the Fair Housing
Act demanded of the defendant in this case.
Section 3617 renders it unlawful to “interfere with any
person . . . on account of his having aided or encouraged any other
person in the exercise or enjoyment of . . . any right granted or
protected by section 3603, 3604, 3605, or 3606 of this title.”
Section 3604, in turn, bars racial discrimination in the “terms,
36
See also Hansen v. Soldenwagner, 19 F.3d 573, 575 (11th Cir. 1994)
(“Pre-existing law – whether it be case law or statutory law – must be
available to instruct in a concrete way the government agent, given the
circumstances.”); Leeks v. Cunningham, 997 F.2d 1330, 1333 (11th Cir.
1993) (determining whether clear “statutory or case law” existed at the
time of the defendant’s actions); accord Samaritan Inns, 114 F.3d at 1239(affirming the district court, which had ruled, without relying on
materially similar pre-existing case law, that the defendants did not
have qualified immunity in a § 3617 case).
25
conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in
the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith .
. . .” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b). Section 3617, read in conjunction
with section 3604, therefore, straightforwardly states the
unsurprising (and presumably uncontroversial) proposition that the
Fair Housing Act prohibits “interfering” with any person because
she “aided or encouraged” another person’s exercise of her right to
rent property free from racial discrimination.37 Any reasonable
public official, having read the plain terms of this statute,
certainly would have understood that federal law makes it unlawful
to terminate an employee for refusing to discriminate against
potential tenants on the basis of race. To the extent any federal
statute, standing alone, can provide a potential defendant with
concrete notice, “that is, truly compel (not just suggest or allow
or raise a question about), the conclusion for every like-situated,
reasonable government agent that what [she] is doing violates
federal law,” we believe that section 3617 provides such notice in
the circumstances of this case. Lassiter, 28 F.3d at 1150. Cf.
37
Sofarelli, 931 F.2d at 722-23, confirms that § 3617 permits a
plaintiff to sue public officials who interfere with the plaintiff’s
efforts to provide housing on a race neutral basis as long as the
plaintiff can allege and establish that race played some role in the
defendant’s conduct. See also Baytree of Inverrary Realty Partners v.
City of Lauderhill, 873 F.2d 1407, 1409 (11th Cir. 1989) (stating that
non-minority developers have standing to assert § 3617 claims against
local government officials). Even though Sofarelli probably raises a
question about the legality of Moran’s alleged conduct in this case,
because Sofarelli involved different facts, it alone cannot, under our
precedent, clearly establish the relevant pre-existing law because it
would not compel the conclusion that firing an employee for failing to
discriminate against tenants on the basis of race violates the law. See
Lassiter, 28 F.3d at 1150.
26
Baggett.38 Just as generally stated constitutional principles,
standing alone, without materially similar case support, would have
provided fair warning to the Supreme Court’s hypothetical welfare
officials who sold foster children into slavery, see Lanier, __
U.S. at __, 117 S. Ct. at 1227-28, the statutory provisions at
issue in this case, standing alone, provide fair warning and thus
clearly establish that the Fair Housing Act prohibits firing an
employee for refusing to discriminate against tenants on the basis
of race.
Alternatively, even if a public official credibly could argue
that the language of the statute provided insufficient notice, its
implementing federal regulation, adopted in 1989, removes all doubt
about whether federal law makes it illegal to fire an employee for
refusing to discriminate on the basis of race. As this regulation
pointedly restates, section 3617 prohibits
38
The district court in Baggett considered whether §§ 3604 and 3617,
standing alone, without the benefit of illuminating case law,
sufficiently had established the relevant pre-existing law to permit the
plaintiffs to overcome the defendants’ assertion of qualified immunity,
as contemplated in Lassiter. Baggett. The court explained that, in light
of the statute, “no competent government agent reasonably could believe
that truly egregious acts of discrimination . . . would not violate
federal law,” but concluded that because the plaintiffs’ claims posed a
“sophisticated legal issue” the defendants remained immune. Id.
Gonzalez’s claims in this case, however, present no such complications.
Gonzalez has alleged and offered evidence that Moran fired her because
Gonzalez refused to discriminate against tenants on the basis of race,
precisely the type of egregious discrimination that the plain language
of the statute warns against and which the Baggett court explained no
competent official could reasonably claim federal law permitted.
Finally, and to avoid confusion, we do not cite Baggett as a case that
clearly establishes the law on this point; our precedent firmly states
that a district court opinion cannot accomplish that result, see Jenkins,
115 F.3d at 826 n.4. We cite the case only as a persuasive illustration
that the provisions at issue here, standing alone, clearly establish the
law in a case alleging conduct so plainly at odds with the statutes.
27
[t]hreatening an employee or agent with dismissal or an
adverse employment action, or taking such adverse
employment action, for any effort to assist a person
seeking access to the sale or rental of a dwelling or
seeking access to any residential real estate-related
transaction, because of the race, color, religion, sex,
handicap, familial status, or national origin of that
person or of any person associated with that person.
24 C.F.R. § 100.400(c)(3) (codifying Implementation of the Fair
Housing Amendments Act of 1988, 54 Fed. Reg. 3232, 3292 (1989))
(emphasis added).39
A public official forfeits qualified immunity by violating the
clear command of a federal regulation that, like
section 100.400(c)(3), reinforces a statute and thus helps to
provide the basis for a cause of action. The Supreme Court has
concluded that administrative regulations, in and of themselves, do
not provide sufficient notice to override officials’ qualified
immunity when the plaintiff alleges a violation of broadly
conceived constitutional rights. See Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183,
39
Although Gonzalez herself did not cite § 100.400(c)(3) before the
district court or initially on appeal, we must evaluate the clearly
defined scope of § 3617 sua sponte, regardless of whether the
implementing regulation was proffered as relevant legal authority. In
Elder v. Holloway, 975 F.2d 1388 (9th Cir. 1991), rev’d, 510 U.S. 510,
114 S. Ct. 1019 (1994), the plaintiff in a § 1983 action appealed the
district court’s determination that the defendants were entitled to
qualified immunity. The plaintiff failed to inform either the district
court or the Ninth Circuit of factually similar pre-existing case law
that indicated the illegality of the defendants’ actions. See id. at
1390. Although the Ninth Circuit noticed that a pre-existing case
appeared to proscribe defendants’ actions, see id. at 1391, the court
held that a plaintiff may not benefit on appeal from precedent that
neither he nor the district court cited. See id. at 1394-96. The
Supreme Court reversed, holding that an appellate court is required to
determine the clearly established law sua sponte, based on “its ‘full
knowledge of its own [and other relevant] precedents,’” 510 U.S. at 516,
114 S. Ct. at 1023 (citing Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183, 192 n.9, 104
S. Ct. 3012, 3018 n.9 (1984)) (brackets in Elder). Accordingly, we must
determine the clearly established contours of § 3617 sua sponte.
28
193-96, 104 S. Ct. 3012, 3018-20 (1984); see also Childress v. Small Bus.
Admin., 825 F.2d 1550, 1553 (11th Cir. 1987)(quoting Davis, 468 U.S. at194 n.12, 104 S. Ct. at 3019 n.12); Harbert International, Inc. v. James,
157 F.3d 1271, 1285-86 (11th Cir. 1998). As the Supreme Court explained,
because every failure to obey a regulation could potentially
provide the basis for the assertion of a constitutional right--even
one “that was not clearly defined or perhaps not even foreshadowed
at the time of the alleged violation”--the mere breach of a
regulation cannot, in itself, defeat a defendant’s qualified
immunity. Davis, 468 U.S. at 195, 104 S. Ct. at 3019. The reason
for this rule is obvious given the rationale underlying the
qualified immunity doctrine: public officers should have fair
warning of what actions will expose them to the threat of lawsuits
and eventual liability. “[O]fficials can act without fear of
harassing litigation only if they reasonably can anticipate when
their conduct may give rise to liability for damages . . . .”
Davis, 468 U.S. at 195, 104 S. Ct. at 3019. Accordingly, we do not
expect state officials to be aware of every regulation that
indirectly might give rise to a possible constitutional claim.
As this line of cases expressly acknowledges, however, the
logic they employ does not apply where a statute or regulation
specifically creates the plaintiff’s cause of action, because in
those instances, government officials are on notice of the
parameters of their exposure to suit and liability. See Davis, 468
U.S. at 194 n.12, 104 S. Ct. at 3019 n.12 (“[I]f a statute or
regulation does give rise to a cause of action for damages, clear
29
violation of the statute or regulation forfeits immunity only with
respect to damages caused by that violation.”); Childress, 825 F.2d
at 1553 (“[N]either federal nor state officials lose their immunity
by violating the clear command of a statute or regulation . . .
unless that statute or regulation provides the basis for the cause
of action sued upon.”)(quoting Davis, 468 U.S. at 194 n.12, 104
S. Ct. at 3019 n.12); Harbert, 157 F.3d at 1285 (same).40 As the
Supreme Court subsequently described its decision in Davis:
Davis, in short, concerned not the authorities a court
may consider in determining qualified immunity, but this
entirely discrete question: Is qualified immunity
defeated where a defendant violates any clearly
established duty, including one under state law, or must
the clearly established right be the federal right on
which the claim for relief is based? The Court held the
latter.
Elder v. Holloway, 510 U.S. 510, 515, 114 S. Ct. 1019, 1023 (1994).
Thus, where a plaintiff’s claim arises under a specific statutory
cause of action, a regulation interpreting that statute can provide
sufficient notice to abrogate a defendant’s qualified immunity.41
40
See also W.B. v. Matula, 67 F.3d 484, 500-01 (3d Cir. 1995) (examining
regulations to determine parameters of clearly established law); Torcasio
v. Murray, 57 F.3d 1340, 1350-52 (4th Cir. 1995) (stating that
administrative guidelines “may provide some evidence that it is . . .
established that the ADA applies to state prisons”); Doe by and through
Doe v. Petaluma City Sch. Dist., 54 F.3d 1447, 1452 (9th Cir. 1995)
(“[A]n obligation to act might arise from something other than decisional
law, such as a regulation or policy that an official is legally bound to
follow.”).
41
This holding is consistent with the principle that individuals
presumptively have notice of their legal duties under federal
regulations. See, e.g., Heckler v. Community Health Servs. of Crawford
County, Inc., 467 U.S. 51, 65-66, 104 S. Ct. 2218, 2227 (1984) (“[T]he
regulations governing the cost reimbursement provisions of Medicare
should and did put respondent on ample notice of the care with which its
cost reports must be prepared . . . .”); Ed Taylor Constr. Co. v.
Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm’n, 938 F.2d 1265, 1272 (11th
30
Gonzalez’s claim in this case asserts, not some general
constitutional claim premised on Moran’s breach of a duty
established in an administrative regulation, but a specific
violation of the federal statute and regulation under which she
brought suit. See R1-15, Amended Complaint, ¶ 33, at 8 (bringing
suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3613).
The special concurrence argues that section 100.400(c)(3)
“should not be deemed the source of clearly established law”
because no authoritative case has yet approved it as valid or
applied it to a specific set of facts. Special Concurrence at __.42
Moran has conceded, however, “that the validity of [section]
100.400(c)(3) under Chevron would have been apparent to a
reasonable public official in 1995.” Moran Supp. Br. at 5.43 Moran
also should not have needed a court to explain to her that the
Cir. 1991) (holding that OSHA regulation placed employers on notice of
federal construction requirement; stating that “[w]hether or not
employers are in fact aware of each OSHA regulation and fully understand
it, they are charged with this knowledge and are responsible for
compliance”).
42
The special concurrence also expresses “doubt that a regulation which
on its face purports only to be an executive department’s ‘interpretation
of [unlawful] conduct’ can be the basis of clearly established law.”
Special Concurrence at __. The regulation at issue in this case,
however, is more than a mere interpretation: it is binding law. See
King v. Housing Auth. of City of Huntsville, 670 F.2d 952, 954 (11th Cir.
1982) (holding that HUD has the authority to promulgate binding
regulations) (citing statute under which § 100.400 promulgated); 24
C.F.R. § 100.400(c) (“Conduct made unlawful under [§ 3617] includes, but
is not limited to, the following: [listing types of unlawful conduct].”)
(emphasis added).
43
Indeed, § 100.400(c)(3) was patently valid because a reasonable public
official would have no reason to believe that § 100.400(c)(3) represents
an impermissible construction of § 3617 or is contrary to clearly
expressed Congressional intent. See Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural
Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842-43, 104 S. Ct. 2778,
2781-82 (1984).
31
regulation applied to the facts alleged here. The regulation
states that section 3617 prohibits dismissing an employee for
“assist[ing] a person seeking access to the . . . rental of a
dwelling . . . because of the race . . . of that person or of any
person associated with that person.” This language unmistakably
instructs that it is illegal to fire an employee for refusing to
discriminate against prospective tenants on the basis of race.44
Where, as here, a regulation plainly and specifically describes a
public official’s behavior, the official is on notice that she is
subject to liability for its violation, and thus, that she will not
be able to claim qualified immunity.
Accordingly, we hold that sections 3617 and 3604, which were
in effect in 1995, truly would have compelled a reasonable public
official in Moran’s position to conclude that federal law
prohibited firing an employee for refusing to rent public housing
in a racially discriminatory manner. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604(b),
3617; see also Jenkins, 115 F.3d at 823. Alternatively, we hold
that section 100.400(c)(3), promulgated under the Fair Housing Act
44
In fact, Moran’s Supplemental Brief all but abandons any attempt to
argue that the regulation is ambiguous. Instead, Moran argues that the
regulation does not clearly establish that the Fair Housing Act prevents
a public official from firing an employee for any reason or for
insubordination. See Moran’s Supp. Br. at 5-6. This argument misses the
point. As long as Gonzalez presents evidence in support of her
allegation that Moran fired her for refusing to engage in racial
discrimination, and that evidence is sufficient to survive a motion for
summary judgment, see infra Part IV.B.2, Moran’s actual motivation for
firing Gonzalez presents classic questions of fact and credibility that
the jury will have to resolve. For purposes of resolving the issue of
qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage of the case, we must
view the evidence in the light most favorable to Gonzalez and determine
whether her allegations, if true, would violate clearly established law.
32
and also in effect in 1995, compels the same conclusion.
Accordingly, we conclude that if Gonzalez’s evidence regarding
Moran’s conduct and motivation is sufficient to withstand summary
judgement under Rule 56, the conduct would violate clearly
established federal law, and Moran, therefore, would not be
entitled to qualified immunity.45
45
The special concurrence advances the attractive proposition that since
the Civil War and the more recent “great crusade for civil rights,”
racial discrimination in rental practices is so inherently evil as to bar
an assertion of qualified immunity without the need for supporting case
law or legislation. Special Concurrence at __. Certainly, we agree that
racial discrimination, in any context, is evil and wish that the concept
was as universally acknowledged and readily accepted as the special
concurrence suggests. Regrettably however, in the years since the Civil
War and the adoption of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth
Amendments, the recognition of equality in all aspects of life has
neither been axiomatic nor obvious, see, e.g., Plessy v. Ferguson, 163
U.S. 537, 16 S. Ct. 1138 (1896) (establishing the separate but equal
doctrine almost 30 years after the ratification of the Fourteenth
Amendment), but has emerged only gradually, see, e.g., Brown v. Board of
Educ., 347 U.S. 483, 74 S. Ct. 686 (1954) (striking down segregation in
public schools more than 80 years after the Fourteenth Amendment); Loving
v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 87 S. Ct. 1817 (1967) (striking down—only 30
years ago—a statute that criminalized interracial marriage). Indeed,
Congress has recognized the continuing need for legislation to eradicate
the cancer of racial discrimination by enacting measures such as the
Voting Rights Act, Title VII, and, in this context, the Fair Housing Act.
We also have no quarrel with the special concurrence’s observation
that, in the appropriate case, a government official’s conduct might be
so egregious that the violation of federal law is obvious, even in the
absence of case law or legislation recognizing the illegality of
materially similar acts; deference to the Supreme Court’s holdings
requires nothing less. See Lanier, __ U.S. at __, 117 S. Ct. at 1225-26.
Unlike the conduct at issue in Lanier, which was so repugnant that it had
escaped prior contemplation in the relevant sources of authority, the
conduct in this case is both outrageous and specifically addressed in the
Fair Housing Act. Standing alone, or as further clarified by regulation
24 C.F.R. § 100.400(c)(3), the Fair Housing Act “stake[s] out a bright
line” such that the law prohibiting racial discrimination in rental
practices was clearly established in the “concrete and factually defined
context” we required in Lassiter, 28 F.3d at 1149-50. As a result,
Moran’s assertion of qualified immunity must fail, and we need not
consider this additional teaching of Lanier.
33
2.
The remaining question is whether the evidence, viewed in the
light most favorable to Gonzalez, indicates that Moran should have
known that her actions violated clearly established prohibitions of
the Fair Housing Act. We review this issue under the framework
established in Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-27, 106
S. Ct. 2548, 2552-55 (1986). See supra Part II.B.
In her Amended Complaint, Gonzalez specifically alleged that
during her employment at LCHA, Gonzalez objected to Moran’s orders
that Gonzalez deny housing to individuals based on race and that
Gonzalez “skip” individuals on the housing waiting list because of
race.46 Gonzalez generally alleged that Moran violated section 3617
by terminating Gonzalez’s employment “in retaliation of her
complaints and refusal to participate in the discriminatory rental
practices of the Defendants.”47
Gonzalez, of course, bears the burden of demonstrating that
Moran should have known that her actions violated clearly
established prohibitions of section 3617. Thus, under Celotex,
Moran may prevail on her summary judgment motion without bringing
forth “affidavits or other similar materials” negating Gonzalez’s
claim. See 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S. Ct. at 2553. Nonetheless,
Moran must at least “‘show[]’--that is, point[] out to the district
court--that there is an absence of evidence to support” Gonzalez’s
46
See R1-15, Amended Complaint, ¶ 1, at 1-2; id., ¶¶ 11-12, at 5.
47
Id., ¶ 30, at 7-8.
34
case. See id. at 325, 106 S. Ct. at 2554 (quoting Adickes v. S.H.
Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 159, 90 S. Ct. 1598, 1609 (1970)).
We are not convinced that Moran satisfied her initial summary
judgment burden. In her memorandum in support of her motion for
summary judgment, Moran cited no record evidence that would rebut
Gonzalez’s section 3617 claim, and it is doubtful that Moran
“show[ed]” or “point[ed] out” the “absence of evidence to support”
Gonzalez’s claim. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325, 106 S. Ct. at
2554. For example, in responding to the allegation that Gonzalez
objected to Moran’s directive to deny housing based on race,48 Moran
simply asserted that Gonzalez was referring to two white women with
black babies and that these women ultimately did receive LCHA
housing.49 Gonzalez, however, need not show that applicants
actually were denied housing based on race,50 but rather that Moran
fired Gonzalez based in significant part on Gonzalez’s efforts to
rent public housing in a non-racially discriminatory manner.51
Because Moran does not even address Gonzalez’s claim that Moran
terminated Gonzalez’s employment “in retaliation of her complaints
and refusal to participate in the discriminatory rental practices
48
See id., ¶ 1, at 1; id., ¶ 11, at 5.
49
See R1-33, Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment
of Defendant Moran in her Individual Capacity, at 8.
50
Indeed, if Gonzalez successfully thwarted Moran’s intent to deny
housing based on race, as would be consistent with Moran’s assertion,
then Gonzalez obviously made an “effort to assist a person seeking access
to the . . . rental of a dwelling,” 24 C.F.R. § 100.400(c)(3), and thus
Gonzalez enjoyed the protections of § 3617.
51
See supra Part IV.B.1.
35
of the Defendants,”52 Moran appears to have failed to point out the
absence of evidence supporting Gonzalez’s claim. See Celotex, 477
U.S. at 325, 106 S. Ct. at 2554.53
Even assuming, arguendo, that Moran did meet her Celotex
burden, we would hold that Gonzalez did not “rest upon the mere
allegations” of her complaint, but rather “set forth specific facts
showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(e). In her memorandum in opposition to Moran’s motion for
summary judgment, Gonzalez relied upon the affidavit that Gonzalez
previously filed in support of her motion for partial summary
judgment.54 That affidavit contained several important pieces of
52
R1-15, Amended Complaint, ¶ 30, at 7-8.
53
Similarly, Moran did not respond effectively to the allegation that
Gonzalez resisted Moran’s orders to “skip” individuals on the housing
waiting list because of race. See id., ¶ 12, at 5. Moran simply
contended that this allegation was “founded upon a single instance in
which defendant Moran purportedly told the plaintiff not to offer low-
income housing to an individual who was felt to be suffering from a
mental disorder.” R1-33, Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for
Summary Judgment of Defendant Moran in her Individual Capacity, at 8.
Section 3617, however, prohibits interference with the housing
rights of the mentally disabled. See 24 C.F.R. § 100.400(c)(3) (stating
that § 3617 prohibits the dismissal of an employee based on the
employee’s effort to provide rental housing to a person with a handicap);
see also 42 U.S.C. § 3617 (prohibiting interference with efforts to
assist others in enjoying rights established under § 3604); 42 U.S.C. §
3604(f) (prohibiting discrimination based on renter’s handicap); 42
U.S.C. § 3602(h)(1),(3) (defining handicapped person as person with
substantially limiting mental impairment or person regarded as such).
Because Moran did not dispute that Gonzalez resisted Moran’s orders to
“skip” individuals on the housing waiting list, Moran’s admission that
she ordered Gonzalez to skip an individual based on that person’s mental
condition tends to support, rather than refute, Gonzalez’s claim that
Moran fired her “in retaliation of her complaints and refusal to
participate in the discriminatory rental practices of the Defendants.”
R1-15, Amended Complaint, ¶ 30, at 7-8.
54
See R1-37, Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant Moran’s
Motions for Summary Judgment, at 3 (“The facts, as relied upon by the
Court for the purposes of these motions, should be as they have been
presented by the Plaintiff in her Amended Complaint and the Affidavit
36
evidence. First, Gonzalez testified that Moran directed her to
engage in actions that, in Gonzalez’s view, violated the anti-
discrimination laws that apply to public housing programs.55
Second, attached to the affidavit and incorporated by
reference therein56 was the letter written by Gonzalez to Moran on
September 28, 1995.57 According to that letter, Moran complained
when Gonzalez attempted to place a white woman with a black child
in a vacant apartment and tried to place an elderly black man in a
vacant unit.58 Of particular note, Gonzalez also stated in the
letter that Gonzalez’s refusal to discriminate was a central cause
of the arguments between Moran and Gonzalez.59
Third, attached to the affidavit and incorporated by reference
therein60 was the letter written by Gonzalez to Puccio on October
9, 1995.61 In that letter, Gonzalez stated that during August and
September 1995, Gonzalez “confront[ed]” Moran about the fact that
attached to ‘Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Support of Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment’ . . . .”) (footnote omitted).
55
See R1-20, Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Support of Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment, Ex. A, ¶ 5, at 1.
56
See id., Ex. A, ¶ 8, at 1 (“A copy of my letter is attached to and
incorporated into this Affidavit. It is marked as Attachment 3.”).
57
See App. A.
58
See App. A, ¶ 8.
59
See App. A, ¶ 9.
60
See R1-20, Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Support of Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment, Ex. A, ¶ 11, at 2 (“A copy of my [October 9] letter [to
Puccio] is attached to and incorporated into this Affidavit. It is
marked as Attachment 4.”).
61
See id., Ex. A, Attach. 4.
37
Moran wanted Gonzalez to take certain actions that violated HUD
rules and regulations.62 These confrontations concerned, inter
alia, Moran’s desire to discriminate against specific potential
tenants: two white women with black children and an elderly black
man.63
Gonzalez thus made an affirmative showing that, in the time
immediately preceding Moran’s decision to fire her, a serious rift
was developing between Moran and Gonzalez concerning Gonzalez’s
refusal to comply with Moran’s directives to deny housing to
individuals based on race. Indeed, the record suggests that
Gonzalez’s refusal to follow Moran’s discriminatory directives was
a central cause of the problems between them. Moreover, when
Gonzalez, in the context of a wide-ranging personal complaint about
office conditions, stated in writing that Moran was forcing
Gonzalez to discriminate,64 Moran’s displeasure with Gonzalez’s
recalcitrance probably sharpened even further. Viewed in the light
most favorable to Gonzalez, the evidence thus suggests that
Gonzalez’s termination represented the culmination of a long-
standing and intensifying disagreement in which Moran’s
discriminatory directives played an important role, and that Moran
62
See id., Ex. A, Attach. 4, at 1.
63
See id., Ex. A, Attach. 4, at 2.
64
See App. A, ¶ 9 (“[T]he times that you and me had argue is because you
had forced me to discriminate, or rip-off people . . . .”); see also id.,
¶ 8 (“I never know who you will want me to house even if they are next
on the waiting list. If it’s a white girl with a black baby, you
complain, if we have a vacancie on the lederly site, you do not want me
to put a black person on that site . . . .”).
38
fired her based in significant part on Gonzalez’s resistance to
Moran’s discriminatory orders.
This inference finds additional support in the termination
letter that Moran herself sent to Gonzalez. As a reason for
Gonzalez’s termination, the letter cites Gonzalez’s “criticism of
orders, rules and policies,”65 and Moran has brought forth no
evidence showing that the phrase “orders, rules and policies”
refers to anything other than Moran’s own discriminatory
directives.
Accordingly, we hold that Gonzalez has brought forth
sufficient evidence to create the reasonable inference that Moran
fired her based in significant part on Gonzalez’s efforts to rent
public housing in a non-racially discriminatory manner. Because a
reasonable official in Moran’s position should have known that such
an action was unlawful, see 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604(b), 3617; 24 C.F.R.
§ 100.400(c)(3), we affirm the district court’s decision to deny
Moran’s motion for summary judgment on this claim.
V.
For the foregoing reasons, we REVERSE the district court’s
denial of summary judgment to Moran in her individual capacity as
to Gonzalez’s section 1983 claim; we AFFIRM the district court’s
denial of summary judgment to Moran in her individual capacity as
to Gonzalez’s section 3617 claim; and we REMAND the case for
further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
65
See R1-33, Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment
of Defendant Moran in her Individual Capacity, Ex. D, at 1.
39
APPENDIX A
Reproduced below, unedited, is the text of
Gonzalez’s letter to Moran dated September 28, 1995.66
Dear Ms. Moran
[¶ 1] On Wednesday, September 20, 1995, you called me in your office to insult me blaming me for all the vacancies
LCHA has in all the sites for the past 2 months. You had told me that I am not doing my job.
[¶ 2] I felt hurt and raised my voice at you, because I could not believe what you said to me. I have done more than
I am supposed to do for this business and everyone is a witness to that.
[¶ 3] You are the kind of person that whenever things go fine, you are happy, but when things get a little blurry, you
turn into a very critical, and verbally abusive person.
[¶ 4] In two years that I have been here, I have seen and also received a lot of verbal abuse along with my co-
workers. You had called my co-workers words and names that I can not even write in this letter.
[¶ 5] It is very sad to say that you have no consideration for your staff. All you know is to exploit people and then
if someone complaints you threaten us we will loose our jobs, because you happen to be the “Executive
Director”.
[¶ 6] I suppose you were not happy for what you did to me on September 20, 1995, on Thursday, September 21, 1995
you had sent me to Charleston Park in Alva and without even saying a good morning to me you gave me a
letter, a reprimend and asked me to sign it, which I refused because it is a lie. You also started yelling at me
because I refused to sign the reprimend. You wrote in the reprimend that you will not tolerate my violent
outburst, that I have a problem with language interpretation. You needed to write in the reprimend that my
outburst was provoked by you and you had also said I have a problem following Rules and Regulations, that
is correct too, but it is because you do not follow Rules and Regulations, you changed them, if it is not on a
daily basis, it is on a weekly basis, which causes so much confusion not only to me, also to every person in this
office.
[¶ 7] You had also said to me that you made me from a Receptionist to a Property Manager, well I have learned
everything on my own, because you had never trained me or have anyone training me at this job. I had to work
my way up all by myself, learning from my mistakes. If you look at my file when I put an application to work
here, I brought you reference letters from my other jobs. I was not a nobody when I came to work here. All
I have learned from this place is to agravate myself day after they, because of the things that I see and hear.
[¶ 8] I never know who you will want me to house even if they are next on the waiting list. If it’s a white girl with
a black baby, you complain, if we have a vacancie on the lederly site, you do not want me to put a black person
on that site, if the client has HIV, you complain, if it’s a white that has not been in the job for too long, you do
not want me to house them, because it will become a negative rent.
[¶ 9] If you remember, that the times that you and me had argue is because you had forced me to discriminate, or rip-
off people (meaning that if someone moves after the 5th. of the months, you do not want me to pro-rate the rent
and charge them from the 1st. of the month.
[¶ 10] You can not keep blaming me for this place starting to fall apart. You owe all this to yourself, because you are
the one that bend the rules all the time. More examples are, if I give a tenant a violation, which is part of my
job and the tenant does not like it, they come to you and then you will not back me up, causing for the tenants
66
See R1-20, Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Support of Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment, Ex. A, Attach. 3; R1-33, Memorandum of Law in Support
of Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendant Moran in her Individual
Capacity, Ex. B.
40
not to respect my position. Another good example will be last year when I did the re-certification inspections
that I had found Ms. Loretta Huff with a cat inside the unit. After I mentioned the tenant she needed to get rid
of the pet, she called you and then you called me in your office to tell me to “stay away from the elderly site”.
A few months ago you received a complaint from a tenant at the elderly site about so many cats around, and
then you wanted me to take care of the problem. There are plenty of violation over on that site, but if I try to
do my job, is either you get upset or your good friend Mr. Edward Kross (board member that you
recommended), will come to this office and complaint about me doing my job and I will be asked to back out.
[¶ 11] Also, when Mr. Willie Christmas, tenant from Charleston Park, Alva took you to Legal Aid, you told Legal Aid
that the eviction was done while you were on vacation, trying to blame the mistake on me, but what you forgot
is that I do not process evictions unless you order me, and also you were the one that singed all the paperwork
before you left on vacation. Here again, the mistake was made, because the bookeping department gives the
notices for eviction out and then you do not file thru with them. First tenants have no respect for eviction
notices and that is why we keep loosing money all the time.
[¶ 12] You also drive the company car, and most of the time is not available for the rest of the staff that do inspections,
banck deposits, etc. Libby has to use her car to do FSS inspections or go to meetings, Sylvia has to use her car
to do the bank deposits, and I have to use my car all the time for inspections and to go to Alva. If I tell you I
need the car to do an inspection, is either you tell me to reschedule for another day or will give me 10 minutes
to come back, which it is impossible. You get very upset if someone uses the car after 3:00 P.M., because you
want the car for you to leave a 3:30 P.M. most of the time. We do not consider that a company car, it is your
personal car.
[¶ 13] Also, I had reported to you all the complaints we had received of Mr. Richard Wombwell, the Senior Aide you
have at Barrett Park. There are plenty of verbal and written complaints against Mr. Wombwell about him being
unrespectful to tenants, fresh with the spanish married women, and even denied the use of the LCHA lawn
mower to the tenants he does not like, or timed them with same. You said he was going to help me with the
tenants problems, collecting rent, delivering notices and rent receipts, give out violations to the tenants, things
that he has denied to do, but on the other hand you had approved a lot of social activities, that he uses LCHA
money to buy refreshments and candy all the time. He also got a brand new TV and a VCR with LCHA money
for entertainment. I reported to you the time Mr. Wombwell asked me if I could give violations to his
“buddies” so they would not get mad at him. Today, I had to write you a complaint about Mr. Wombwell
asking the bookeeper if I still work for LCHA, which make me think why someone that does not even work
for LCHA, because he is an employee for Dr. Ella Piper, knows if I am going to be fired or not. On the other
hand I heard the bookeeper suplying him with all the updates about me.
[¶ 14] The communication problems that I have with staff members, maintenance members, are all caused by you
because you are a terrible instigator among all of us in this office and that is very sad. You had always make
us feel we do not worth anything and nothing is appreciated.
[¶ 15] You keep giving us a miserable raise if any every year, because there is no money, but then you went ahead
and bought yourself a new computer that you hardly look at it, the TV and VCR for Barrett Park, to keep Mr.
Richard Wombwell happy and also a few more toys.
[¶ 16] Writing this type of letter is not me, but you had pushed me to do it, you had been very unfair with me and my
co-workers and that LCHA could be a wonderful place to work if things are done the right way and if we could
accept our mistakes, starting with you, instead of putting the blame on somebody else.
[¶ 17] You had also mentioned to some staff members about the money I asked you to lend me to buy my car and I
need to remind you that God is my witness I have never asked you for that money, because I did not know that
well to do something like that. You offered me that money and told me that I could pay you anyway I could
and I accepted and also wrote my debt to you in a piece of paper that I signed, compromising myself to give
$100.00 every month. I have done this every months, but since I had a problem this month and could not give
you any money this month, you even called me at my house on Tuesday, September 26, 1995 around 7:00 P.M.
to asked to borrow the money and made me feel real bad. I do not know what kind of person you think I am,
but even that I did not asked for that money, I will pay you every single dollar you lent me, because I happen
41
to be a decent and grateful person. Even that this job and you have tried to change me, I’m still a good person
inside, that only fights back when she gets pushed or abused.
[¶ 18] I will like for you to take some time and think of all the good things and the good atmosphere we could have
in this office, instead of creating this miserable environment.
[¶ 19] The new Job Description you had given me on Tuesday, September 26, 1995, I will consider it as a revision
to the first one you gave me, because I know the things that you added to it, is because of the argument we had
on September 20, 1995, because when you gave me the letter changing my title you never mentioned about
giving me a new job description.
Sincerely,
/s/L. Gonzalez
Luz N. Gonzalez
Property Manager
cc:
[¶ 20] NOTE: I need to mention that when you hired me, it was for Pine Echo (Family and Elderly sites) and Barrett
Park. When you fired Richard Brevick, you had asked me if I could help you collecting the rent and I even
expressed to you that I will do only that because I knew nothing about Farmers Home Housing, but I ended
doing all the work and now you blamed me for the vacancies overthere too. That is why you decided to add
Charleston Park to the new job description.
42
BLACK, Circuit Judge, specially concurring:
In part IV.B. of the opinion, the Court holds that a
government official who implements a plan to discriminate against
black persons in public housing and fires a subordinate employee
for refusing to discriminate pursuant to the plan has no qualified
immunity. I completely agree.1 I write separately because of the
explanation given for today’s decision.
Part IV.B. of the opinion sets out two alternative bases for
finding clearly established law to overcome qualified immunity:
first, the plain language of 42 U.S.C. § 3617; and second, the
clear command of 24 C.F.R. § 100.400(c)(3), which interprets 42
U.S.C. § 3617. Section 3617 is a very general statute and is not
sufficiently fact-specific to satisfy the requirements of Lassiter
v. Alabama A&M Univ., Bd. of Trustees, 28 F.3d 1146, 1149-50 (11th
Cir. 1994) (en banc). As this Circuit has made clear, it is the
“exceptional case where the words of a federal statute or federal
constitutional provision will be specific enough to establish the
law applicable to particular circumstances clearly and to overcome
qualified immunity even in the absence of case law.” Santamorena
v. Georgia Military College, 147 F.3d 1337, 1340 n.6 (11th Cir.
1998) (emphasis added) (quoting Lassiter, 28 F.3d at 1150 n.4).
Thus, the federal regulation is the only the only remaining source
1
I also concur with the majority in parts I, II, III, and IV.A. of the
opinion.
43
of clearly established law. Neither party cited 24 C.F.R.
§ 100.400(c)(3) in the briefs to this Court or the district court.
We requested supplemental briefing as to whether 24 C.F.R.
§ 100.400(c)(3) even applies to the facts of this case and were not
informed of any United States Supreme Court or Eleventh Circuit
case in which 24 C.F.R. § 100.400(c)(3) is mentioned.
Even if a regulation can be the basis of clearly established
law, neither this Circuit nor the Supreme Court has ever so held.
Moreover, I doubt that a regulation which on its face purports only
to be an executive department’s “interpretation of [unlawful]
conduct” can be the basis of clearly established law.2 In the
context of qualified immunity, I believe courts should not give
much weight to executive branch regulations interpreting statutes
when the regulations have not been held by a court to be accurate
interpretations. At any rate, 24 C.F.R. § 100.400(c)(3) should not
be deemed the source of clearly established law in this case, where
the Court today recognizes its application for the first time.
The purpose of qualified immunity is to protect government
officials from liability for conduct they could not reasonably have
known was unlawful. Much of federal constitutional law and
statutory law is unpredictable and unclear in its application to
particular circumstances. Thus, as the Court states, we require
2
The regulation “provides the Department’s interpretation of the conduct
that is unlawful under section 818 of the Fair Housing Act.” 24 C.F.R.
§ 100.400(a).
44
materially similar case law or a very specific statute before
saying that a government official should have known her conduct was
unlawful.3 There is no specific pre-existing case law applicable
to this case.
On the other hand, we have recognized that in the extremely
rare case a government official’s conduct may be so egregious, in
fact evil, as to be obviously contrary to federal law, so that no
case law or statute needs to have recognized previously that
materially similar conduct is unlawful. The facts alleged here, if
true, make this that extremely rare case. More than a century
after the Civil War and more than a quarter century after the great
crusade for civil rights for black persons in this country, no
government housing official could reasonably believe that she may
lawfully discriminate against black persons on the basis of race,
or that she might punish another public official for refusing to
discriminate in the course of her official duties against black
persons on the basis of race.
3
See Opinion at ___ (“Ordinarily, a plaintiff who seeks to overcome a
state official’s affirmative defense of qualified immunity must cite case
law, in force at the time of the defendant’s actions, that would have
made it absolutely clear that the defendant’s conduct violated federal
law [and] we have acknowledged the possibility that some federal
statutory provisions will be sufficiently clear on their own to provide
defendants with fair notice of their obligations under the law.”).
45