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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT