White v. Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama
31 F. Supp. 2d 953, 1999 WL 33089, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 444 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity from 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims for money damages unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights, which requires pre-existing law to be developed in such a concrete and factually defined context that it would be obvious to all reasonable government actors that 'what he is doing' violates federal law.
Facts:
- Hahn Le White was an employee of the Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama (U of A).
- Lisa Russell and Martha Cook were White's supervisors at U of A.
- Robert Centor and Ronald Ficken were higher-level officials at U of A who supervised Russell and Cook.
- White, a person of Vietnamese origin, claims that Russell and Cook made remarks, including inquiries about eating dogs, in her presence.
- White alleges these remarks constituted 'hate speech' and violated her federal constitutional right under the Fourteenth Amendment to the equal protection of the law.
- White further alleges that Centor and Ficken tolerated these remarks and did not intervene on her behalf.
Procedural Posture:
- Hahn Le White brought claims against her employer, the Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama (U of A), and four individual defendants (Robert Centor, Ronald Ficken, Lisa Russell, and Martha Cook) in their individual capacities.
- White filed her lawsuit in federal district court, invoking 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- The district court entered an order on February 23, 1998, dismissing some of White's claims.
- On June 30, 1998, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, targeting all claims not previously dismissed by the February 23, 1998 order.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does qualified immunity protect state university supervisors and higher officials from 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims for money damages alleging a Fourteenth Amendment equal protection violation, when the alleged 'hate speech' by supervisors and tolerance by higher officials do not 'rise to the level' of a violation of a clearly established constitutional right in a factually analogous case?
Opinions:
Majority - Acker, District Judge
Yes, qualified immunity protects state university supervisors and higher officials from § 1983 claims for money damages under these circumstances. The court found that the alleged remarks did not violate a 'clearly established constitutional right' as defined by the Eleventh Circuit's stringent standard for qualified immunity. This standard requires pre-existing law to be developed in such a concrete and factually defined context that it would be obvious to all reasonable government actors that their specific conduct violates federal law. General principles of law or broad legal truisms are insufficient; specific, factually analogous case law is necessary. The court could not identify any case from the Supreme Court, the Eleventh Circuit, or elsewhere in the federal system, that specifically dealt with the sensibilities of a public university employee of Vietnamese origin or similar remarks like inquiries about eating dogs rising to the level of a constitutional violation. While the conduct might be rude, incivil, or potentially a violation of Title VII (a separate anti-discrimination law against the employer), it did not meet the high threshold for a clearly established constitutional violation required to overcome qualified immunity for individual officials. The court acknowledged the 'extremely rare case' exception for conduct 'so egregious, in fact evil,' but determined that the alleged remarks in this case did not fit that narrow category. The court also noted the inherent tension between the First Amendment's protection of free speech for supervisors and employees' equal protection rights.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the high burden placed on plaintiffs seeking to overcome qualified immunity in the Eleventh Circuit, especially in the context of alleged 'hate speech' or offensive remarks in the public workplace. It reinforces that highly specific, factually analogous precedent is crucial for demonstrating a 'clearly established' right, making it difficult to hold individual government officials liable for damages unless their conduct directly mirrors prior adjudicated violations. The decision underscores that general notions of offensive behavior, even if rude or uncivil, do not automatically translate into a loss of qualified immunity for officials under § 1983.
