Sampson v. County of Los Angeles, No. 18-55450 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Plaintiff filed suit against DCFS and four individual employees under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging sexual harassment in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, retaliation under the First Amendment, and other related constitutional claims.
The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's grant of qualified immunity to defendants on defendant's First Amendment retaliation claim because it was clearly established at the time of defendants' conduct that the First Amendment prohibits public officials from threatening to remove a child from an individual's custody to chill protected speech out of retaliatory animus for such speech.
However, the panel reluctantly affirmed the district court's grant of qualified immunity to defendants on plaintiff's equal protection claim because the right of private individuals to be free from sexual harassment at the hands of social workers was not clearly established at the time of defendants' conduct in this case. Moving forward, the panel explicitly held that public officials, including social workers, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when they sexually harass private individuals while providing them social services.
Court Description: Civil Rights. The panel affirmed in part and vacated in part the district court’s order dismissing a complaint on qualified immunity grounds, and remanded, in an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services and four individual employees alleging sexual harassment in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, retaliation under the First Amendment, and related constitutional claims. The panel first vacated the district court’s grant of qualified immunity to defendants on plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim. The panel held that it was clearly established at the time of defendants’ conduct that the First Amendment prohibits public officials from threatening to remove a child from an individual’s custody to chill protected speech out of retaliatory animus for such speech. Defendants therefore should have known that it was unconstitutional to retaliate against plaintiff for speaking out about the sexual harassment she allegedly suffered. The panel remanded to the district court for it to determine in the SAMPSON V. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 3 first instance whether plaintiff plausibly alleged a retaliation claim under the First Amendment. The panel reluctantly affirmed the district court’s grant of qualified immunity to defendants on plaintiff’s equal protection claim because the right of private individuals to be free from sexual harassment at the hands of social workers was not clearly established at the time of defendants’ conduct in this case. Nevertheless, moving forward, the panel explicitly held that public officials, including social workers, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when they sexually harass private individuals while providing them social services. Concurring in part and dissenting in part, Judge Hurwitz agreed with Judge Murguia that the qualified immunity doctrine, however ill-conceived, barred plaintiff’s otherwise plausible equal protection claim, and therefore concurred in Section IV.B of the majority opinion. Judge Hurwitz dissented from Section IV.A of the opinion, stating that on the issue of whether defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the First Amendment claim, there was no sufficiently similar binding precedent at the time of the conduct at issue that would have warned the alleged violators that their actions were constitutionally forbidden. Concurring in part and dissenting in part, District Judge Zouhary agreed with Judge Murguia that the application of qualified immunity was improper with respect to the First Amendment claim. He stated that when the conduct at issue took place, it was clearly established that public officials may not threaten to remove a child from an individual’s custody in retaliation for protected speech. He therefore joined in Section IV.A of the opinion. As for the Equal 4 SAMPSON V. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Protection claim, Judge Zouhary agreed that defendants’ alleged actions violated plaintiff’s constitutional right to be free of sexual harassment. However, he disagreed that this right was not yet clearly established, and therefore he dissented from Section IV.B of the opinion.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.