ILNews

7th Circuit: Woman has claim for relief

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed today with a District Court's dismissal of a woman's complaint against the federal government, finding she had stated a claim for relief following her dismissal from her job as a result of a Federal Protective Service investigation.

In Maureen Reynolds v. United States of America, No. 08-1634, Maureen Reynolds appealed the dismissal of her suit against the U.S. under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Reynolds worked as a security officer with General Security Services Corp. at the federal building in Indianapolis. She learned another security officer locked himself out on the roof naked and was let inside by another officer. She wrote up a report, but left out the fact the officer was naked because the nudity wasn't reported to her by the other two officers.

FPS investigated the incident, in which two FPS officers submitted an affidavit to the Marion County Prosecutor's Office that Reynolds had lied to them by not telling them about the nudity. Reynolds was acquitted of the charge but fired as a result of the criminal investigation.

Reynolds sued the U.S., claiming the FPS officers, acting in their official capacity as federal law enforcement officers, instigated a malicious prosecution that led to her termination.

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Reynolds that her suit shouldn't have been dismissed. The alleged misconduct of the FPS investigators doesn't fall outside of the FTCA's discretionary-function exception.

The District Court also incorrectly characterized the FPS investigators as contractors, thus not allowing Reynolds to sue the U.S. under the FTCA, wrote Judge Ilana D. Rovner.

The federal appellate court also disagreed with the District Court's reasoning to dismiss the suit because the FPS investigators' actions didn't entail any searches, seizures, or arrests. The District Court was incorrect in interpreting 28 U.S.C. Section 2680(h) as requiring a law enforcement officer to commit the intentional tort while executing a search, seizure, or arrest, the judge wrote.

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals also found that Reynolds had stated a claim for relief under Indiana tort law.

"We do not, of course, vouch for the accuracy of Reynolds's allegations; our holding is merely that she has stated a claim for relief," she wrote. The federal appellate court vacated the lower court's ruling and remanded for further proceedings.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT