eBooks, Databases, and other searchable on-line content from askSam


	Contents Prev Next Last

Title Eddy v. Virgin Islands Water and Power Authority

Date 2001

By Alito

Subject Misc

Contents

Page 1

83 of 238 DOCUMENTS

GABRIELLE EDDY v. VIRGIN ISLANDS WATER AND POWER AUTHORITY; JAMES BROWN; JOHN DOE I; JOHN DOE II; JOHN DOE III; JOHN DOE IV; Virgin Islands Water and Power Authority; James Brown; Randolph Harley, Appellants

No. 99-3849

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

256 F.3d 204; 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 15447; 50 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 1173

December 5, 2000, Argued

July 10, 2001, Filed

SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: Subsequent appeal at,

Remanded by Eddy v. V.I. Water & Power Auth., 2004

U.S. App. LEXIS 10066 (3d Cir. V.I., May 21, 2004) PRIOR HISTORY: **1 ON APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS.

(District Court No. 96-cv--00048). District Court Judge: Thomas K. Moore. Eddy v. V.I. Water & Power Auth.,

955 F. Supp. 468, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1569, 35 V.I.

441 (1997)

DISPOSITION: Affirmed the District Court's deci- sion denying summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds because Eddy has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. Dismissed the appeal in- sofar as it contests the sufficiency of the evidence to show that the conduct of either or both of the individual defen- dants shocked the conscience.

CASE SUMMARY:

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff, a governmen- tal employee, was fired after he was injured replacing a switch, work he alleged he warned a supervisor he was unqualified to do. Plaintiff commenced an action against his employer. and several named and unnamed individ- uals. The United States District Court for the District of the Virgin Islands denied defendants' motion for summary judgment, rejecting their defense of qualified immunity.

OVERVIEW: On review, the court found that the defense of qualified immunity was not necessarily waived by the individual defendants merely because they failed to raise it until the summary judgment stage. Thus, the court re- versed and remanded on that issue. The court also reversed the holding that the individual defendants could not assert the defense of qualified immunity because their conduct was not discretionary. Even if defendant employer had

a long-standing policy and pattern of intimidating and coercing employees to engage in unsafe work practices, that did not mean that it specified the precise action taken by the individual defendants, and thus it did not follow that their actions were ministerial. The court affirmed the district court's decision denying summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds because plaintiff had alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, the substantive due process right to be free from conduct by a governmental employer that shocked the conscience. The court dismissed the appeal insofar as it contested the sufficiency of the evidence to show that the individual defendants shocked the conscience.

OUTCOME: Judgment was affirmed insofar as it de- nied summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds because plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly es- tablished constitutional right. Judgment was reversed and remanded insofar as it held that the individual defendants waived the defense of qualified immunity, or that they could not assert the defense because their conduct was not discretionary.

LexisNexis(R) Headnotes

Civil Procedure > Appeals > Appellate Jurisdiction > Collateral Order Doctrine

HN1 Certain collateral orders are considered to be final orders and thus are immediately appealable. To qualify under the collateral order doctrine, an order must (1) con- clusively determine the disputed question, (2) resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action, and (3) be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.

Civil Procedure > Appeals > Appellate Jurisdiction > Collateral Order Doctrine

HN2 The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that an order rejecting a qualified immunity defense at the sum-

256 F.3d 204, *; 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 15447, **1;

50 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 1173

Page 2

mary judgment stage may be immediately appealable, but only to the extent the denial turns on an issue of law. To the extent they turn on an issue of law, decisions denying public officials qualified immunity are considered final under the collateral order doctrine.

Civil Procedure > Appeals > Appellate Jurisdiction > Collateral Order Doctrine

HN3 If courts have jurisdiction to review an order reject- ing qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage, their review of the order is plenary.

Constitutional Law > Civil Rights Enforcement > Immunity > Public Officials

HN4 Under the qualified immunity defense, government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. In determining whether qualified immunity applies in a specific case, courts first determine whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual con- stitutional right at all. If so, they proceed to determine whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Constitutional Law > Civil Rights Enforcement > Immunity > Public Officials

HN5 For qualified immunity purposes, a right is clearly established if its outlines are sufficiently clear that a rea- sonable officer would understand that his actions violate the right. Moreover, in the light of pre-existing law the unlawfulness must be apparent. A right may be clearly es- tablished, however, even if there is no previous precedent directly in point. The ultimate issue is whether reason- able officials in the defendants' position at the relevant time could have believed, in light of what was in the decided case law, that their conduct would be lawful. Constitutional Law > Civil Rights Enforcement > Immunity > Public Officials

Civil Procedure > Pleading & Practice > Defenses, Objections & Demurrers > Affirmative Defenses

HN6 Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense, and therefore under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c), it should be asserted in the appropriate responsive pleading. But under estab- lished Third Circuit law, the failure to do so does not automatically result in a waiver.

Constitutional Law > Civil Rights Enforcement > Immunity > Public Officials

Civil Procedure > Pleading & Practice > Defenses, Objections & Demurrers > Affirmative Defenses

HN7 Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), a responsive plead- ing may be amended at any time by leave of court to include an affirmative defense, and leave shall be freely

given when justice so requires. Unless the opposing party will be prejudiced, leave to amend should generally be al- lowed. Moreover, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c), issues tried by the express or implied consent of the parties are treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings. It has been held that a defendant does not waive an af- firmative defense if he raised the issue at a pragmatically sufficient time, and the plaintiff was not prejudiced in its ability to respond. Thus, even though a motion for sum- mary judgment is not the most appropriate way to raise a previously unpled defense of immunity, in cases in which the plaintiff was not prejudiced, courts have held that there was no waiver.

Civil Procedure > Pleading & Practice > Defenses, Objections & Demurrers > Waiver & Preservation

HN8 A trial court has discretion to find a waiver if a defendant fails to assert the defense within the time limits set by the court or if the court otherwise finds that a defen- dant has failed to exercise due diligence or has asserted the defense for dilatory purposes. On the other hand, an overly strict waiver rule may undermine the qualified im- munity defense, which serves important public purposes. As the First Circuit has written, because the doctrine of qualified immunity recognizes that litigation is costly to defendants, officials may plead the defense at various stages in the proceedings.

Civil Procedure > Pleading & Practice > Defenses, Objections & Demurrers > Waiver & Preservation

HN9 Qualified immunity may be raised in a motion to dismiss at the pleading stage, in a motion for summary judgment after discovery, or as an affirmative defense at trial.

Civil Procedure > Pleading & Practice > Defenses, Objections & Demurrers > Waiver & Preservation

HN10 The defense of qualified immunity is not neces- sarily waived by a defendant who fails to raise it until the summary judgment stage. Instead, the district court must exercise its discretion and determine whether there was a reasonable modicum of diligence in raising the defense. The district court must also consider whether the plaintiff has been prejudiced by the delay.

Constitutional Law > Civil Rights Enforcement > Immunity > Public Officials

HN11 The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that qualified immunity applies to government officials performing dis- cretionary functions, but the definition of a discretionary function is broad. A law that fails to specify the precise action that the official must take in each instance creates only discretionary authority; and that authority remains discretionary however egregiously it is abused. For qual- ified immunity purposes, a duty is ministerial only where the statute or regulation leaves no room for discretion.

256 F.3d 204, *; 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 15447, **1;

50 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 1173

Page 3

The continued validity of the ministerial duty exception has been questioned and that, in any event, it is extremely narrow.

Constitutional Law > Substantive Due Process > Scope of Protection

HN12 Because the Due Process Clause does not purport to supplant traditional tort law in laying down rules of conduct to regulate liability for injuries that attend living together in society, the U.S. Supreme Court has previ- ously rejected claims that the Due Process Clause should be interpreted to impose federal duties that are analo- gous to those traditionally imposed by state tort law. This reasoning applies with special force to claims asserted against public employers because state law, rather than the Federal Constitution, generally governs the substance of the employment relationship.

Constitutional Law > Substantive Due Process > Scope of Protection

HN13 The Due Process Clause does not reach a public employer's ordinary breach of its duty of care relative to its employees.

Constitutional Law > Substantive Due Process > Scope of Protection

HN14 Executive action violates substantive due process if it shocks the conscience.

COUNSEL: SAMUEL H. HALL, JR. (argued), MARIE E. THOMAS, Birch de Jongh Hindels & Hall, St. Thomas, V.I., Counsel for Appellant.

JAMES M. DERR (argued), St. Thomas, V.I., Counsel for Appellees.

JUDGES: Before: MANSMANN, ALITO, Circuit Judges, and ACKERMAN, Senior District Judge n1. MANSMANN, Circuit Judge, concurring.

n1 Honorable Harold A. Ackerman, Senior Judge of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, sitting by designation.

OPINIONBY: ALITO

OPINION: *206

OPINION OF THE COURT

ALITO, Circuit Judge:

This is an appeal from a District Court order denying a motion for summary judgment by the defendants in an ac- tion asserting a constitutional tort claim. The defendants raised the **2 defense of qualified *207 immunity, but the District Court rejected that defense, primarily on

the ground that it had been waived because it was not asserted until summary judgment. We reverse in part and remand for further proceedings.

Plaintiff Gabrielle Eddy was employed by the Virgin Islands Water and Power Authority ("WAPA") as a line- man. The parties disagree about the extent of his training and whether he was trained to perform work at WAPA's facility at Krum Bay, St. Thomas, the location of the accident that led to this lawsuit.

On June 2, 1994, a switch on a high voltage line needed to be replaced. A determination was made that the work would be done without shutting off the power . Defendant James Brown, the acting Superintendent of the Line Department, instructed Eddy to perform the work. Eddy claims that he informed Brown that he was un- qualified to do the work but that Brown told him that he would be subject to discipline and possible termination if he refused. According to Eddy, WAPA provided him with improper clothing, tools, and equipment to perform this work on a live line. Among other problems, Eddy as- serts that he was required to use an ordinary metal ratchet wrench **3 (as opposed to the insulated wrenches nor- mally used for these procedures) and was forced to wear a polyester uniform (instead of the 100% cotton clothing required under OSHA regulations). During the switch re- placement, Eddy's wrench slipped, passed in the vicinity of an electric insulator and, as Eddy characterizes it in his brief, he was engulfed in a fireball. After this incident, WAPA fired Eddy, and OSHA cited WAPA for a number of violations.

Eddy commenced this action against WAPA and sev- eral named and unnamed individuals. In addition to three tort claims under Virgin Islands law, Eddy asserted a claim based directly on the Fourteenth Amendment and a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Eddy voluntarily dismissed two of the three territorial law claims, and the remaining terri- torial law claim is not before us in this appeal. In addition, the District Court dismissed the claim based directly on the Fourteenth Amendment, holding that it was "duplica- tive of " the section 1983 claim, and that dismissal is likewise not before us now.

The defendants moved for summary judgment on the section 1983 claim, but the District Court denied their motion. The Court held that **4 "Eddy clearly has es- tablished that material facts remain in dispute concerning whether the individual defendants' actions were so outra- geous that they 'shock the conscience' of the Court." July

20, 1999 Dist. Ct. Op. at 6-7. The District Court rejected the defendants' defense of qualified immunity because they "did not raise this affirmative defense until filing this

256 F.3d 204, *207; 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 15447, **4;

50 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 1173

Page 4

motion for summary judgment, approximately eighteen months after this case began." Id. at 7. The Court inter- preted dictum in a footnote in an opinion of this Court to mean that "failure to include qualified immunity in

the answer to the complaint results in the involun- tary waiver of this affirmative defense." Id. (citing Frett v. Government of the Virgin Islands, 839 F.2d 968, 973 n.1 (3d Cir. 1988)). The District Court went on to provide two alternative bases for rejecting the defense of qualified immunity. The Court concluded that the defendants had failed to show that their challenged actions were "discre- tionary" rather than ministerial, id. at 7 n.2, and that "it is a proper question for the jury to determine if defendants knew or reasonably should have known that their conduct

*208 would subject **5 them to liability." Id. at 8. This appeal followed. n2

n2 Only named individual defendants James Brown and Randolph Harley seek relief on appeal. See Appellants' Br. at 42.

II.

The appellants invoke our jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291, which authorizes us to hear appeals from "final decisions" of the District Court of the Virgin Islands. The order in question here is not a "final" order in the usual sense, but HN1 certain collateral orders are considered to be final orders and thus are immediately appealable. To qualify under the collateral order doctrine, an order must

(1) conclusively determine the disputed question, (2) re- solve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action, and (3) be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment. See Johnson v. Jones,

515 U.S. 304, 310, 132 L. Ed. 2d 238, 115 S. Ct. 2151

(1995); In re Montgomery County, 215 F.3d 367, 373 (3d Cir. 2000). HN2 The Supreme Court has recognized that an order rejecting **6 a qualified immunity defense at the summary judgment stage may be immediately appeal- able, see Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530, 86 L. Ed.

2d 411, 105 S. Ct. 2806 (1985), but "only to the extent the denial turns on an issue of law." In re Montgomery County, 215 F.3d at 373 (citing Johnson v. Jones, 515

U.S. at 313); Grant v. City of Pittsburgh, 98 F.3d 116,

119-20 (3d Cir. 1996) ("To the extent they turn on an issue of law, decisions denying public officials qualified immunity are considered final under the collateral order doctrine."). HN3 If we have jurisdiction to review an order rejecting qualified immunity at the summary judg- ment stage, our review of the order is plenary. See, e.g., Acierno v. Cloutier, 40 F.3d 597, 609 (3d Cir. 1994).

HN4 Under the qualified immunity defense, "gov- ernment officials performing discretionary functions gen-

erally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statu- tory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800,

818, 73 L. Ed. 2d 396, 102 S. Ct. 2727 (1982). **7 In determining whether qualified immunity applies in a spe- cific case, we "first determine whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right at all." Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603, 609, 143 L. Ed. 2d

818, 119 S. Ct. 1692 (1999); see also Siegert v. Gilley,

500 U.S. 226, 232, 114 L. Ed. 2d 277, 111 S. Ct. 1789

(1991); Torres v. United States, 200 F.3d 179, 184 (3d

Cir. 1999); Giuffre v. Bissell, 31 F.3d 1241, 1247, 1255

(3d Cir. 1994). "If so, we proceed to determine whether that right was clearly established at the time of the al- leged violation." Wilson, 526 U.S. at 609 (quoting Conn v. Gabbert, 526 U.S. 286, 290, 143 L. Ed. 2d 399, 119 S. Ct. 1292 (1999)).

" HN5 A right is clearly established if its outlines are sufficiently clear that a reasonable officer would un- derstand that his actions violate the right." Sterling v. Borough of Minersville, 232 F.3d 190, 193 (3d Cir. 2000). Moreover, "in the light of pre-existing law the unlawful- ness must be apparent." Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S.

635, 640, 97 L. Ed. 2d 523, 107 S. Ct. 3034 (1987). A right **8 may be clearly established, however, even if there is no "previous precedent directly in point." Good v. Dauphin County Soc. Servs. for Children & Youth, 891

F.2d 1087, 1092 (3d Cir. 1989); see also Assaf v. Fields,

178 F.3d 170, 177 (3d Cir. 1999). "The ultimate issue

*209 is whether . . . reasonable officials in the defen- dants' position at the relevant time could have believed, in light of what was in the decided case law, that their conduct would be lawful." Good, 891 F.2d at 1092.

III.

With these principles in mind, we turn to the spe- cific issues before us in this appeal. The first issue that we must address is the correctness of the District Court's holding that the individual defendants waived the defense of qualified immunity by failing to raise the defense until they submitted their motion for summary judgment. This is an issue of law over which we have jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine, and we hold that the District Court failed to apply the proper standard for determining whether a waiver occurred.

HN6 Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense, see Karnes v. Skrutski, 62 F.3d 485, 491 (3d Cir. 1995), and therefore **9 under Rule 8(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure it should be asserted in the appropriate responsive pleading. But under established circuit law, the failure to do so does not automatically result in a waiver. Charpentier v. Godsil, 937 F.2d 859, 863 (3d Cir. 1991);

256 F.3d 204, *209; 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 15447, **9;

50 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 1173

Page 5

see also Pro v. Donatucci, 81 F.3d 1283, 1286 n.2 (3d Cir.

1996); Kleinknecht v. Gettysburg College, 989 F.2d 1360,

1373 (3d Cir. 1993). As we have stated

HN7

Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a), a responsive pleading may be amended at any time by leave of court to include an affirmative de- fense, and "leave shall be freely given when justice so requires." Unless the opposing party will be prejudiced, leave to amend should generally be allowed. Moreover, un- der Fed.R.Civ.P . 15(c), issues tried by the express or implied consent of the parties are

"treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings." It has been held that a "defendant does not waive an affirmative defense if 'he raised the issue at a pragmat- ically sufficient time, and the plaintiff was not prejudiced in its ability to respond.' "

Charpentier, 937 F.2d at 863-64 (internal citations **10 omitted). Thus, "even though a motion for summary judg- ment is not the most appropriate way to raise a pre- viously unpled defense of immunity," Kleinknecht, 989

F.2d at 1374, in cases in which the plaintiff was not prej- udiced, we have held that there was no waiver. See id.; Charpentier, 937 F.2d at 863-64.

It is true that the opinion in Frett, on which the District Court apparently relied, stated that the failure of an an- swer to set forth an affirmative defense "results in the involuntary waiver of the defense and its exclusion from the case," 839 F.2d at 973 n.1, but this statement, which in any event is plainly dictum, does not address the possibility of a late amendment of the answer with leave of court.

We recognize the dilemma that courts face when de- fendants fail to raise the defense of qualified immunity at an early stage of the litigation. On the one hand, permitting the defense to be raised at an advanced stage of the case may waste time and cause prejudice to the opposing side. See Guzman-Rivera v. Rivera-Cruz, 98 F.3d 664, 667

(1st Cir. 1996) (expressing concerns about witnesses be- coming unavailable, memories **11 fading, attorneys fees accumulating, and imposing additional costs on the court system). Accordingly, it has been held that HN8 a

"trial court has discretion to find a waiver if a defendant fails to assert the defense within the time limits set by the court or if the court otherwise finds that a defendant has failed to exercise due diligence or has asserted the defense for dilatory purposes." English v. *210 Dyke,

23 F.3d 1086, 1090 (6th Cir. 1994). The First Circuit has taken a similar approach. See Guzman-Rivera, 98 F.3d at

668. On the other hand, an overly strict waiver rule may undermine the qualified immunity defense, which serves important public purposes. See English, 23 F.3d at 1089. As the First Circuit has written, "because the doctrine of qualified immunity recognizes that litigation is costly to defendants, officials may plead the defense at various stages in the proceedings." n3 Guzman-Rivera, 98 F.3d at 667.

n3 For example, HN9 qualified immunity may be raised in a motion to dismiss at the pleading stage, in a motion for summary judgment after dis- covery, or as an affirmative defense at trial. See Guzman-Rivera, 98 F.3d at 667; English, 23 F.3d at 1089.

**12

We agree with the conclusions of the First and Sixth Circuits that HN10 the defense of qualified immunity is not necessarily waived by a defendant who fails to raise it until the summary judgment stage. Instead, the District Court must exercise its discretion and determine whether there was a reasonable modicum of diligence in raising the defense. The District Court must also consider whether the plaintiff has been prejudiced by the delay.

In view of the circuit precedent noted above, we must reverse the decision of the District Court and remand for a more detailed inquiry regarding the issue of waiver. In particular, the Court must inquire whether the defendants violated any scheduling orders in raising the defense for the first time in their summary judgment motions, whether they delayed asserting the defense for tactical purposes or any improper reason, and, most important, whether the delay prejudiced the plaintiff's case. With respect to this last factor, we note that Eddy, in his opposition to the summary judgment motion, failed to argue that he was prejudiced in any specific way by the delay. See Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, Appendix at 344-47. However, **13 Eddy may be able to make a showing of specific prejudice on remand, and thus we leave it for the District Court, in the first instance, to decide whether there was a waiver under the law of our circuit.

IV. A.

We now turn to the District Court's alternative grounds for rejecting the defendants' claim of qualified immunity. As previous noted, the Court stated in a footnote that this defense would fail even if the defendants had not waived it, because they failed to show that their actions were taken within the scope of their discretionary authority.

256 F.3d 204, *210; 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 15447, **13;

50 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 1173

Page 6

See July 20, 1999 Dist. Ct. Op. at 7 n.2. The Court went on to observe that Eddy had "produced substantial evi- dence demonstrating that Brown's actions follow a long- standing policy and pattern of intimidating and coercing employees to engage in unsafe work practices." Id. And the Court added that "this counters defendants' arguments that their actions were discretionary." Id.

HN11 The Supreme Court has stated that qualified immunity applies to "government officials performing discretionary functions," Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818, but the definition of a discretionary function is broad. "A law that fails to specify the precise action **14 that the offi- cial must take in each instance creates only discretionary authority; and that authority remains discretionary how- ever egregiously it is abused." Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S.

183, 196 n.14, 82 L. Ed. 2d 139, 104 S. Ct. 3012 (1984);

see also Sellers v. Baer, 28 F.3d 895, 902 (8th Cir. 1994)

("For qualified immunity purposes, a duty is 'ministerial'

*211 only where the statute or regulation leaves no room for discretion."). Cf. Varronev. Bilotti, 123 F.3d 75,

82 (2d Cir. 1997) (noting that the continued validity of the ministerial duty exception has been questioned and that, in any event, it is "extremely narrow"); Horta v. Sullivan,

4 F.3d 2, 11 (1st Cir. 1993) (same).

The correctness of the District Court's interpretation of the scope of the ministerial duty exception is a ques- tion of law that we may reach in a collateral order appeal, and we conclude that the District Court's understanding was mistaken. Even if WAPA had a "long-standing pol- icy and pattern of intimidating and coercing employees to engage in unsafe work practices," July 20 Dist. Ct. Op. at 7 n.2, that does not mean that WAPA "specified the precise action," **15 Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. at 196 n.14, that the individual defendants took in this case, and thus it does not follow that their actions were ministe- rial. Accordingly, the rejection of the qualified immunity defense may not be affirmed on this ground.

The District Court's final ground for rejecting the claim of qualified immunity, as we understand it, was that the constitutional right that Eddy asserted -- the substan- tive due process right to be free from conduct by a gov- ernmental employer n4 that shocks the conscience -- was clearly established at the time in question and that, without a trial, it could not be determined whether the defendants' conduct was outrageous enough to reach this level. The District Court's holding may be separated into legal and factual components. The legal component, which we may reach in this appeal, includes two questions: (a) whether Eddy has alleged a substantive due process violation at all and (b) whether the right asserted was clearly estab- lished. The factual component is the question whether

there are genuine issues regarding facts that are material to the determination of whether the defendants' conduct was sufficient to shock **16 the conscience. Under Johnson v. Jones, supra, this is a question of evidentiary sufficiency that we may not address in this appeal. n5

n4 Under the Revised Organic Act, 48 U.S.C.

§ 1561, the Due Process Clause applies to the Government of the Virgin Islands. "Thus, the Organic Act requires the same due process analysis that would be utilized under the federal constitu- tion." Hendrickson v. Reg O Co., 657 F.2d 9, 14 n.2

(3d Cir. 1981).

In this case, the District Court held that WAPA and the individual defendants, who are WAPA em- ployees, are territorial actors. This issue is not be- fore us in this appeal.

n5 The defendants have not argued that the District Court's decision is based on an incorrect interpretation of the intent necessary to support a substantive due process claim of the type that Eddy asserts. In County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S.

833, 849, 140 L. Ed. 2d 1043, 118 S. Ct. 1708

(1998), the Supreme Court stated that "whether the point of conscience shocking is reached when in- juries are produced by something falling within the middle range" between negligence and inten- tional conduct depends on the circumstances of the case and in particular on whether the defendant had the opportunity to deliberate before engaging in the challenged conduct. Here, the District Court, in denying summary judgment, appears to have con- cluded that the summary judgment record was suf- ficient to show that the defendants knew that Eddy

" 'would face a risk of almost certain injury if he performed the work.' " July 20, 1999 Dist. Ct. Op. at 3 (quoting Feb. 5, 1997 Dist. Ct. Op. at 10). The defendants have not argued on appeal that this was the wrong legal standard. Instead, they dis- pute the District Court's evaluation of the facts in the summary judgment record. Under Johnson v. Jones, supra, a factual decision of this nature is not reviewable under the collateral order doctrine.

We are also barred from reaching the defen- dants' argument that the District Court's opinion reveals no factual basis for denying the summary judgment motion of defendant Harley. The question whether there is sufficient evidence in the summary judgment record to hold Harley in the case is pre- cisely the sort of question that we may not entertain in a collateral order appeal. In Johnson v. Jones,

256 F.3d 204, *211; 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 15447, **16;

50 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 1173

Page 7

supra, three police officers whom the plaintiff al- leged had beaten him argued that the District Court had erroneously denied their summary judgment requests because "whatever evidence the plaintiff might have about two other officers , he could point to no evidence that these three had beaten him or had been present while others did so." 515

U.S. at 307 (emphasis in original). The Supreme Court held that this argument concerned a question of evidence sufficiency that was not reviewable in a collateral order appeal.

**17 *212

With respect to the first of the legal issues, the de- fendants contend that the substantive due process right to be free from treatment that shocks the conscience does not apply to a governmental employer's treatment of its employees. As the defendants put it, "the Plaintiff sim- ply cannot raise the 'shocks the conscience' test in an employment relationship context." Appellants' Br. at 14. In making this argument the defendants rely primarily on Collins v. City of Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 117

L. Ed. 2d 261, 112 S. Ct. 1061 (1992), and McClary v. O'Hare, 786 F.2d 83 (2d Cir. 1986), but we believe that the defendants misunderstand those decisions.

In Collins, the widow of a municipal employee who was killed in an accident on the job sued the city for which he had worked under Section 1983, claiming that the city had violated the Due Process Clause. As we explained in our en banc decision in Fagan v. City of Vineland, 22 F.3d

1296, 1304 (3d Cir. 1994), the plaintiff in Collins "ad- vanced two theories of recovery": first, " 'that the Federal Constitution imposed a duty on the city to provide its em- ployees with minimal level of safety and security **18 in the workplace' " and, second, " 'that the city's "deliber- ate indifference" to the deceased's safety was arbitrary Government action that must "shock the conscience" of federal judges.' " Id. (quoting Collins, 503 U.S. at 126). After rejecting the first theory, the Supreme Court turned to the "shocks the conscience" theory and stated:

We also are not persuaded that the city's al- leged failure to train its employees, or to warn them about known risks of harm, was an omission that can properly be character- ized as arbitrary, or conscience shocking, in a constitutional sense. Petitioner's claim is analogous to a fairly typical state-law tort claim: The city breached its duty of care to her husband by failing to provide a safe work environment. HN12 Because the Due Process Clause "does not purport to sup-

plant traditional tort law in laying down rules of conduct to regulate liability for injuries that attend living together in society," . . . we have previously rejected claims that the Due Process Clause should be interpreted to impose federal duties that are analogous to those traditionally imposed by state tort law .

. . . This reasoning . . . applies with special

**19 force to claims asserted against public employers because state law, rather than the Federal Constitution, generally governs the substance of the employment relationship. . .

Collins, 503 U.S. at 128.

Unlike the defendants, we do not read this passage or anything else in Collins to mean that the plaintiff in that case would not have stated a substantive due process claim if she had alleged conduct on the part of the city that satisfied the demanding shocks the conscience test. Rather, we understand Collins to mean that the allegations in that case did not rise to the conscience-shocking level and that HN13 the Due Process Clause does not reach a public *213 employer's ordinary breach of its duty of care relative to its employees. See Fagan, 22 F.3d at 1304

(noting that Collins "unanimously reaffirmed the viabil- ity of the 'shocks the conscience' standard"). Although the Second Circuit's opinion in McClary is less clear, we view it as consistent with our interpretation of Collins. See

786 F.2d at 89 & n.6. We thus reject the argument that, because of Eddy's employment relationship with WAPA, he has not alleged a violation of the Due Process Clause.

**20

In light of our en banc decision in Fagan, we must also reject the argument that the right that Eddy asserts was not clearly established at the time of his injury. As noted, in Fagan, we interpreted Collins, a case involv- ing a workplace accident, as "unanimously reaffirming the viability of the 'shocks the conscience' standard." 22

F.3d at 1304. Cf. County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523

U.S. 833, 140 L. Ed. 2d 1043, 118 S. Ct. 1708 (1998)

(holding, after the events at issue here, HN14 that exec- utive action violates substantive due process if it shocks the conscience). In reaching this conclusion, we do not rely, as the District Court did, on regulations issued by the Occupational Health and Safety Administration. Eddy is asserting a claim against the individual defendants for violating the Due Process Clause, n6 and the defendants

"do not forfeit their immunity with respect to that consti- tutional claim by violating some other statute or regula- tion." Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. at 194 n.12. We also do not rely on the "state created danger" theory of substan-

256 F.3d 204, *213; 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 15447, **20;

50 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 1173

Page 8

tive due process liability, see Kneipp v. Tedder, 95 F.3d

1199 (3d Cir. 1996), as Eddy has to some **21 degree on appeal. n7

n6 Eddy's brief makes it clear that his Section

1983 claim asserts a constitutional violation, not a violation of the OSH Act or OSHA regulations. See Appellee's Br. at 20. Therefore, we need not and do not decide whether a plaintiff may state a claim un- der section 1983 for a violation of the OSH Act, 29

U.S.C. § 651 et seq. or regulations issued thereun- der. See Minichello v. U.S. Industries, 756 F.2d 26

(6th Cir. 1985) (OSHA regulations not relevant to civil liability).

n7 We do not reach the question whether, as Eddy has argued on appeal, the District Court erred in holding that Eddy cannot sue WAPA itself and cannot sue the individual defendants in their official capacities under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This question is not within the scope of our limited jurisdiction un- der the collateral order doctrine.

In summary, we hold as follows. We reverse the deci- sion of the District Court insofar as it holds that the indi- vidual defendants **22 waived the defense of qualified immunity. On remand, the District Court must reconsider this question under the standards set out in our case law. If the District Court concludes that the defense has not been waived under these standards, the individual defendants may assert that defense at trial.

We reverse the decision of the District Court insofar as it holds that the individual defendants may not assert the defense of qualified immunity because their conduct was not discretionary. As we have explained, this holding was apparently based on a mistaken interpretation of the min- isterial exception to the defense. On remand, the District Court may reconsider the applicability of the exception under the correct standard.

We affirm the District Court's decision denying sum- mary judgment on qualified immunity grounds because Eddy has alleged a violation of a clearly established con- stitutional right. We dismiss the appeal insofar as it con-

tests the sufficiency of the evidence to show that the con- duct of *214 either or both of the individual defendants shocked the conscience.

CONCURBY: MANSMANN

CONCUR: MANSMANN, Circuit Judge, concurring:

I join in the Court's decision to affirm the District Court's **23 denial of summary judgment on the ground that an employee's constitutional right to be free from "ar- bitrary, or conscience shocking" injurious conduct by a state instrumentality was clearly established at the time of Mr. Eddy's injury. I write separately because my analysis diverges from that of my colleagues in two respects.

First, as a technical matter, I would not characterize this Court's judgment as a reversal in part, notwithstand- ing our rejection of some of the alternative grounds upon which the District Court relied. The Order under review denied defendants' motion for summary judgment. This Court today upholds that denial. I would characterize this result as an affirmance on an alternate ground. For the same reason, I would award costs to Eddy, as the prevail- ing party on appeal.

Second, while I agree with the majority that the defen- dants' failure to raise the affirmative defense of qualified immunity prior to the summary judgment stage does not automatically result in a waiver, it appears that the District Court may have based its finding of waiver on appropriate discretionary factors such as lack of diligence and result- ing prejudice, n1 rather than on the per se rule properly

**24 rejected by the majority. The matter is of little moment at this stage in view of our affirmance on other grounds. If the District Court's decision was predicated on consideration of the appropriate factors, then it should more clearly articulate its reasoning on remand.

n1 Cf. Yates v. City of Cleveland, 941 F.2d

444, 449 (6th Cir. 1991) (observing that during interval between filing of complaint and delayed assertion of defense, plaintiff "engaged in exten- sive discovery and invested, one would imagine, a considerable amount in time, money and energy").

Contents Prev Next Last