Cox

The sole issue presented in this appeal is whether the district court properly denied qualified immunity to the individual Defendants/Appellants. Because the law was clearly established that publication of stigmatizing information without a name-clearing hearing violates due process, we AFFIRM.

I.

Background

In the summer of 1998, the Spokane County Road Department applied a seal coat to Bigelow Gulch Road; Unfortunately for the County, the mixture did not set as expected, resulting in damage to approximately eight hundred cars hit by flying rock chips and oil.

*1107 Appellee Claude Cox, the then-Safety/Loss Manager for Spokane County, 1 oversaw the investigation of the liability claims resulting from the Bigelow Gulch project. Cox reported to Marshall Far-nell, the Director of Administrative Services who, in turn reported to Francine Boxer, the County Administrator.

Boxer received numerous complaints from private citizens and a local business regarding Cox’s handling, processing, and payment of the Bigelow Gulch claims. Boxer was especially concerned that Specialty Auto & Truck Painting, Inc. was overcharging the County for repair work.

Boxer and County…

dissenting:

The defense of qualified immunity must fail when, accepting the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, a reasonable public official would have been aware that his conduct violated clearly established constitutional norms. Mena v. City of Simi Valley, 332 F.3d 1255, 1261 (9th Cir.2003). However, although “officials can still be on notice that their conduct violates established law even in novel factual circumstances,” Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 741 , 122 S.Ct. 2508 , 153 L.Ed.2d 666 (2002), courts presented with qualified immunity claims have a responsibility to “determine whether the law was clearly established at the time of the alleged constitutional violation.” Mena, 332 F.3d at 1261 .

Whether or not the majority’s disposition with regard to the issue of characterizing “placement of stigmatizing information in an employee’s personnel file ... when the governing state law classifies an employee’s personnel file as a public record” is sensible, its decision to charge a reasonable public official with notice of its inclination to so decide is disquieting. A reasonable public official can not be expected to contemplate a significant shift in precedent,…