Filarsky v. Delia
| Filarsky v. Delia | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Decided April 17, 2012 | |
| Full case name | Filarsky v. Delia |
| Citations | 566 U.S. 377 (more) |
| Holding | |
| A private contractor temporarily retained by the government to carry out its work is entitled to seek qualified immunity from suit under Section 1983. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Roberts |
| Concurrence | Ginsburg |
| Concurrence | Sotomayor |
Filarsky v. Delia, 566 U.S. 377 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a private contractor temporarily retained by the government to carry out its work is entitled to seek qualified immunity from suit under Section 1983. [1][2]
Background
Delia, a firefighter employed by the City of Rialto, California, missed work after becoming ill on the job. Suspicious of Delia’s extended absence, the City hired a private investigation firm to conduct surveillance on him. When Delia was seen buying fiberglass insulation and other building supplies, the City initiated an internal affairs investigation. It hired Filarsky, a private attorney, to interview Delia. At the interview, which Delia's attorney and two fire-department officials also attended, Delia acknowledged buying the supplies, but denied having done any work on his home. To verify Delia's claim, Filarsky asked Delia to allow a fire department official to enter his home and view the unused materials. When Delia refused, Filarsky ordered him to bring the materials out of his home for the official to see. This prompted Delia's attorney to threaten a civil-rights action against the City and Filarsky. Nonetheless, after the interview concluded, officials followed Delia to his home, where he produced the materials.
Delia brought an action under 42 U. S. C. §1983 against the City, the Fire Department, Filarsky, and other individuals, alleging that the order to produce the building materials violated his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The federal District Court granted summary judgment to the individual defendants on the basis of qualified immunity. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed with respect to all individual defendants except Filarsky, concluding that he was not entitled to seek qualified immunity because he was a private attorney, not a City employee.
Opinion of the court
The Supreme Court issued an opinion on April 17, 2012. [1]
Later developments
References
External links
This article incorporates written opinion of a United States federal court. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the text is in the public domain.