instructing that personal liability in civil rights actions depends upon active involvement by the defendant in the constitutional tort; at minimum, the defendant must have encouraged, approved, or knowingly acquiesced in the rights violation actually committed by others
How later courts described this case
- instructing that personal liability in civil rights actions depends upon active involvement by the defendant in the constitutional tort; at minimum, the defendant must have encouraged, approved, or knowingly acquiesced in the rights violation actually committed by others
- explaining that caselaw and Supreme Court precedent established that sexual harassment by government employers violated the Equal Protection Clause
- stating that when genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether the officer committed acts that would violate a clearly established right, then summary judgment is improper
- explaining that “[t]here can be little doubt that, before December 1984, a female public employee had a constitutional right to be treated on the same basis as a male employee.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
NATHANIEL R. JONES, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
Because I find the majority opinion engages in more analysis than necessary to resolve this matter, I concur in the result only.