Davis v. Scherer

I. ISSUES:

A. Issues Discussed: Civil Rights (Federal)

B. Legal Question Presented:

Did the Court of Appeals err in deciding that state officials of Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Department forfeited their qualified immunity from a lawsuit, by failing to follow administrative regulations in discharging Gregory Scherer?

A. Background:

To avoid conflicts of interest, the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (Department) required that proposed outside employment of members of the Florida Highway Patrol be approved by the Department. Appellee Gregory Scherer, a Highway Patrol employee, applied for permission from the Florida Highway Patrol to work in the County Sheriff’s Office as a reserve deputy. He originally received permission to accept part-time employment with the County Sheriff’s Office, but the permission was later revoked. When he refused to quit his part-time job at the County Sheriff’s Office, the Director of the Highway Patrol ordered that his employment be terminated.

While Gregory’s administrative appeal was pending, he and the Department settled the dispute and he was reinstated. However, friction between he and his superiors continued and he resigned after he was suspended from the Patrol.

Gregory then filed a suit in the US District Court against appellants, officials of the Department and the Highway Patrol, seeking damages under 42 U.S.C. 1983 claiming that appellants officials had violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by discharging him without a formal termination hearing. The district court ruled in favor of appellee, and held that appellants had forfeited their qualified immunity from suit under 1983 because even though Gregory’s due process rights were not “clearly established” at the time of his discharge, appellants had not followed administrative regulations in discharging appellee. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Appellants appealed, and the US Supreme Court granted certiorari.

IV. THE SUPREME COURT’S DECISION:

“[It is not] always fair, or sound policy, to demand official compliance with statute and regulation on pain of money damages. Such officials as police officers or prison wardens, to say nothing of higher level executives who enjoy only qualified immunity, routinely make close decisions in the exercise of the broad authority that necessarily is delegated to them. These officials are subject to a plethora of rules, ‘often so voluminous, ambiguous, and contradictory, and in such flux that officials can only comply with or enforce them selectively.’ In these circumstances, officials should not err always on the side of caution… ‘[O]fficials with a broad range of duties and authority must often act swiftly and firmly at the risk that action deferred will be futile or constitute virtual abdication of office.’

A plaintiff who seeks damages for violation of constitutional or statutory rights may overcome the defendant official’s qualified immunity only by showing that those rights were clearly established at the time of the conduct at issue. As appellee has made no such showing, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

The ACLU filed as amicus curiae urging affirmance, the US Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the Court of Appeals in a 5-4 vote giving the ACLU an apparent loss.