Case law

PEGRAM v. WILLIAMSON

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Feb 5, 2020

doctrine of qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity protects officers who commit constitutional violations, but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe [their] actions were lawful.” Henry v.

STREET v. SANTIAGO

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Feb 14, 2025

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional or other rights … established, prohibiting the application of qualified immunity.

Freeman v. Celebrezze

236 F. Supp. 785 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Dec 28, 1964

Anderson, a Professor at North Carolina State College, who qualified as a vocational expert. Dr. Anderson holds a Ph.D. degree from Columbia University. … He felt that the plaintiff could qualify as a sewing machine operator, a folder of cloth, and perhaps could weigh textiles on scales. Dr.

GIBSON v. FREEMAN

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Nov 3, 2021

Alternatively, “[Te]lven if [D]efendants [Farrell and Hux] are not cloaked in absolute immunity, [Plaintiff’s] constitutional claim would be precluded by qualified immunity. … In contrast to absolute immunity, qualified immunity shields a government official from liability for civil monetary damages if the official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Adefila v. Select Speciality Hospital

28 F. Supp. 3d 517 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jun 25, 2014

In order to establish a prima facie case of discriminatory discharge, she must show “(1) that she is a member of a protected class; (2) that she was qualified for her job and her job performance was satisfactory; (3) that … To establish a prima facie wrongful discharge claim under the ADA, Adefila must show that (1) she “was a qualified individual with á disability,” (2) she was terminated, (3) she “was fulfilling [Select’s] legitimate expectations

HARRIS v. TOWN OF SOUTHERN PINES

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jul 3, 2023

“Qualified immunity protects officers who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe that their actions were lawful.” … The qualified immunity defense is a two-step inquiry “that asks first whether a constitutional violation occurred and second whether the right was clearly established.” Id.

Paris v. Arc/Davidson County, Inc.

307 F. Supp. 2d 743 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Feb 25, 2004

In order to establish a prima facie case of discriminatory discharge, Plaintiff must establish four elements by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she suffered an adverse employment … The evidence presented clearly shows that ARC had experienced financial difficulties as early as July 2001.

FORD v. HOOKS

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Nov 18, 2020

protection from other inmates was clearly established in 2017 … Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Bilka v. Blue Bell, Inc.

712 F. Supp. 509 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · May 11, 1989

At that time, plaintiff was manager of the Textile Technical Services Department which was responsible for establishing quality standards for and auditing the quality of fabrics from Blue Bell’s suppliers. 4. … Although Section 1132(a)(1)(B) clearly authorizes private civil actions to recover benefits or enforce rights under the terms of a covered plan, it does not set forth the appropriate standard of review for actions pursuant

ANDERSON v. KEEGAN

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 16, 2022

Notwithstanding that authority, Defendants’ brief in support of the Motion “contains no citation to cases actually applying the ‘clearly established’ prong of the qualified immunity test,” Hensley … Keegan has failed to establish his “entitlement to qualified immunity,” Henry, 501 F.3d at 378, at this stage of the proceedings. 29

Jones v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n

546 F. Supp. 762 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 7, 1982

Leak was qualified to fill positions at First Federal when she applied in 1978 and in 1979. In order to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination, Ms. … Leak has also established a prima facie case with reference to her 1979 application. First Federal has again indicated that Ms. Leak was not qualified for the job.

Suggs v. Whitaker

152 F.R.D. 501 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Dec 20, 1993

The party asserting work product protection bears the burden of proof of establishing entitlement to it. Sandberg v. Virginia Bankshares, Inc., 979 F.2d 332, 355 (4th Cir.1992). … Opinion work product, which encompasses mental impressions and opinions prepared in anticipation of litigation, is absolutely immune from discovery. Id. at 983-84 . All other documents are non-opinion work product.

Williamson v. Black

537 F. Supp. 2d 792 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 18, 2008

. *794 The first one is that Officer Black is entitled to qualified immunity. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). … First, even assuming there was an interference, an isolated incident of mail tampering, without more, is not sufficient to establish a constitutional violation.

MONROE v. ADAMS

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Oct 31, 2024

Turning first to Defendant Johnson, the Complaint clearly states no claim for relief against him. … Claims under § 1983 based on such a theory are subject to dismissal on the basis of qualified immunity. Id.

SUTTON WOODWORKING MACH. CO., INC. v. Mereen-Johnson MacH. Co.

328 F. Supp. 2d 601 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jul 29, 2004

In the instant case, Mereen-Johnson does not dispute that Plaintiffs and Group Seven qualify as citizens of North Carolina for jurisdictional purposes. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (c). … Reynolds Tobacco Co., 2001 WL 823604 , at *2 (“North Carolina law provides that a dissolved corporation continues its corporate existence indefinitely and is not immune to suit.”)(eiting N.C.

NICHOLSON v. ZIMMERMAN

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 19, 2020

“Defendants violated these clearly established rights in the ways described in summary form herein, and in ways that will be uncovered in discovery and at trial.” (Id., ¶ 51.) … (Compare Docket Entry 33 at 2, 19-20 (urging qualified immunity), with Docket Entry 50 at 9-13 (contesting qualified immunity).)

HOELZER v. THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 31, 2022

UNC Board “are immune from suit under the doctrine of sovereign immunity.” … Sterilizer Co., 126 F.3d 494, 502 (3d Cir. 1997) (“Unlike a plaintiff in an ADA discrimination case, a plaintiff in an ADA retaliation case need not establish that he is a ‘qualified individual with a disability.’

Venable v. Apfel

19 F. Supp. 2d 455 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jul 29, 1998

The Court finds that Plaintiff has established his prima facie case, and has raised an inference that he was discriminated against based on his sex, by showing that he was qualified for the position of OS, that he was not … Furthermore, even if Venable was in fact more qualified, this fact alone does not establish that Defendant’s stated reasons for promoting Caldwell were pretext. See Williams v.

CARVER v. VALLIERE

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Dec 4, 2019

Second, “a prison official must have a sufficiently 2 Movant Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … The Court does not find qualified immunity applicable here, as Plaintiff has alleged facts that make out a violation of a constitutional right that is clearly established at the time of violation. See Pearson v.

United States v. Duke Energy Corp.

214 F.R.D. 383 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Apr 11, 2003

It has also failed to establish that the documents are work product. … In order to come within the qualified immunity from discovery created by Rule 26(b)(3) three tests must be satisfied. The material must be: 1. "documents and tangible things;” 2.