# Lynda Gaines v. E. Casey Wardynski

> Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · September 21, 2017 · 871 F.3d 1203

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9878525

## Case

- **Full name:** Lynda GAINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. E. Casey WARDYNSKI, Individually and in His Capacity as Superintendent of the Huntsville City Schools, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
- **Decided:** September 21, 2017
- **Citations:** 871 F.3d 1203; 42 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 412; 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 18276; 2017 WL 4173625
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Jordan
- **Judges:** Jordan, Carnes, Vinson
- **Nature of suit:** NEW
- **Cited by:** 130 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9878525

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining these are rare situations when constitutional provision is “so clear and the conduct so bad that case law is not needed to establish that the conduct cannot be lawful” (citation omitted)
- holding that, for purposes of qualified immunity, it is the plaintiff’s burden to show 22 that the defendant violated a constitutional right that was clearly established
- holding that, for purposes of qualified immunity, it is the plaintiff’s burden to show that the defendant violated a constitutional right that was clearly established
- explaining that “[c]ases do not often arise under” the broader, clearly established principle exception (citations omitted)

## Opinion text

JORDAN, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
In my view, the constitutional right to freedom of intimate association, whether seen as a pure or hybrid First Amendment right, see Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 618-20 , 104 S.Ct. 3244 , 82 L.Ed.2d 462 (1984), protects a public employee from adverse treatment based on the speech of a close relative or family member. See Adler v. Pataki, 185 F.3d 35 , 41-45 (2nd Cir. 1999); Adkins v. Bd. of Education, 982 F.2d 952 , 955-56 (6th Cir. *1215 1993); Lewis v. Eufaula City Bd. of Education, 922 F.Supp.2d 1291, 1302-03 (M.D. Ala. 2012). See also Collin O’Connor Udell, Intimate Association: Resurrecting a Hybrid Right, 7 Tex. J. Women & Law 231, 284-85 (1998). Nevertheless, I concur in the court’s opinion and qualified immunity-analysis because no cases from the Supreme Court, the Eleventh Circuit, or the Alabama Supreme Court have so far come to that conclusion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9878525. Public record. Not legal advice.