Adam Locke v. Mya Haessig

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that parole supervisor violates equal protection by retaliating against parolee for complaining about parole officer’s sexual harassment
• recognizing first prong of qualified immunity analysis requires determination of whether defendant violated a constitutional right
• holding plaintiff must plausibly allege supervisor had requisite state of mind to state a claim for facilitating, approving, or condoning unlawful act
• holding plaintiff must plausibly allege supervisor had requisite state of mind to state a claim for facilitating, approving, or condoning unlawful act
• finding that in 2008 it was clearly established that a parolee had a cognizable claim under the Fourteenth Amendment for sexual harassment by a parole officer
• finding that “[a] reasonable jury could conclude that” the defendant retaliated against the plaintiff “because of his sex—because he was a man rather than a woman complaining of sexual harassment”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).