-------------------------

Court explains when "qualified immunity" is a jury question.

Maestas v. Lujan, 351 F.3d 1001 (10th Cir. November 26, 2003) - This is a Title VII sexual harassment action against the State of Colorado and a 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 action against Nestor Lujan, in his individual capacity. Cynthia Maestas, a state employee, alleges that she was sexually harassed by her supervisor, Lujan. Lujan admits that there was a four month consensual sexual relationship, but he denies the harassment. Lujan raised the defense of qualified immunity. The jury found in Lujan's favor and Maestas argues on appeal that the defense of qualified immunity should not have been submitted to the jury. The determination as to whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity involves a three step process: (1) whether the plaintiff has asserted a violation of a constitutional or statutory right; (2) whether that right was clearly established (3) such that a reasonable person in the defendant's position would have known that his conduct violated that right. The Court notes that the first two steps are legal questions. The third step is an "objective reasonableness" test and the Court holds that this third step can be a jury question where the parties have divergent stories as to what occurred. Therefore, the trial court did not err by submitting to the jury the question of "objective reasonableness". This case summary does not address Maestas's claims regarding the content of the Title VII and Section 1983 jury instructions (since the review in this case is only for "plain error"). Click here to see actual case.