## Facts

- Howard Kevin Knussman, a Maryland State Police trooper, sought paid “nurturing leave” available to a newborn’s “primary care giver” under Maryland law and agency policy.
- Knussman’s wife experienced a difficult pregnancy and was on bed rest late in the pregnancy; Knussman sought leave to care for his wife and newborn after birth.
- Jill Mullineaux, a civilian benefits coordinator, handled leave-related inquiries and approvals for the agency.
- Evidence credited by the jury showed Mullineaux told Knussman that, as a father, he could not qualify as a “primary care giver,” allegedly stating that only a mother could be the primary caregiver unless she was “in a coma or dead.”
- Knussman did not receive the paid “nurturing leave” he requested and instead used other leave options; he claimed emotional distress from the denial.
- Knussman sued the State and multiple officials; the case proceeded to a jury primarily against Mullineaux in her individual capacity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Equal Protection) and theories tied to the FMLA.
- A jury found for Knussman and awarded $375,000 in emotional-distress damages against Mullineaux; no direct pecuniary loss was found.

## Issues

1. Whether Mullineaux was entitled to qualified immunity against a § 1983 Equal Protection claim alleging intentional sex discrimination in administering caregiver leave benefits.
2. Whether qualified immunity barred liability on claims tied to the FMLA (including FMLA-based theories asserted against Mullineaux).
3. Whether the evidence permitted a reasonable jury to find intentional sex-based discrimination, rather than denial based on neutral eligibility criteria.
4. Whether the $375,000 emotional-distress award was excessive given the proof and the absence of economic loss.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the finding of liability against Mullineaux on the sex-discrimination theory and held she was not entitled to qualified immunity.
- The court concluded the evidence supported a finding that Mullineaux applied a sex-based standard (that fathers could not be primary caregivers except in extreme circumstances) not found in the leave criteria.
- The court rejected sufficiency challenges, deferring to the jury’s credibility determinations and its ability to infer discriminatory intent from statements and conduct.
- The court held the $375,000 emotional-distress award was excessive in relation to the evidence.
- The court vacated the damages award and remanded for further proceedings limited to damages.
- Disposition: affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.

## Legal Principles

- Intentional sex discrimination by a state official in public employment or the distribution of public benefits violates the Equal Protection Clause and is actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- Government decisionmaking based on sex stereotypes (including assumptions about caregiving roles) cannot justify differential treatment in benefits administration.
- Qualified immunity does not protect an official who intentionally applies a sex-based rule where the right to be free from invidious sex discrimination is clearly established.
- Emotional-distress damages are recoverable in civil-rights cases, but awards must be supported by the evidentiary record; excessive awards may be vacated and retried or reduced on remand.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit held that a benefits coordinator could be held personally liable under § 1983 for denying a father caregiver leave based on sex-based assumptions and that qualified immunity did not apply, but it vacated the substantial emotional-distress award as unsupported by the record and remanded for a damages-only proceeding.


Knussman v. Maryland, 272 F.3d 625 (4th Cir. 2001)