## Facts

- Janelle Perez was employed as a probationary police officer with the Roseville Police Department.
- Perez and another officer, Shad Begley, began an extramarital affair while both were married.
- Begley’s wife filed a citizen complaint about the affair, prompting the department to open an internal investigation.
- The investigation concluded that Perez and Begley were having an affair, but it found no evidence that they engaged in sexual conduct while on duty.
- The department issued written reprimands to Perez and Begley that cited unsatisfactory work performance and conduct unbecoming an officer.
- Department officials involved in discipline decisions later made comments reflecting moral disapproval of the affair.
- A few weeks after the reprimands, the department terminated Perez’s employment; Perez contended the termination was based on disapproval of her private relationship.
- It was undisputed that Perez’s job performance was at or above average.
- Perez sued the City of Roseville and the police department under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the termination violated her constitutional rights to privacy and intimate association.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the city, concluding that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because Perez had no constitutional right to engage in an extramarital affair.
- Perez appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a reasonable jury could find that Perez’s termination was motivated by moral disapproval of her off-duty, consensual sexual relationship, in violation of constitutional protections for privacy and intimate association.
2. Whether the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the ground that the asserted constitutional right was not clearly established at the time of Perez’s termination.

## Decision

- Reversed the grant of summary judgment on Perez’s § 1983 privacy and intimate-association claim.
- Held that the record permitted a reasonable inference that Perez was terminated at least in part because of moral disapproval of her off-duty affair, despite a lack of evidence of on-duty sexual conduct and without a showing that the relationship impaired her job performance.
- Held, on Perez’s version of the facts, that the asserted constitutional protection for private, consensual adult sexual relationships was clearly established enough to defeat qualified immunity at summary judgment.
- Remanded for further proceedings on the privacy/intimate-association claim.
- Noted subsequent case history: the 2018 opinion reported at 882 F.3d 843 was later withdrawn and replaced by a 2019 published opinion.

## Legal Principles

- The Constitution protects a sphere of personal privacy and intimate association that can include consensual adult sexual relationships conducted off duty.
- A public employer generally may not impose adverse employment action based only on moral disapproval of an employee’s private, consensual sexual conduct, absent a demonstrated connection to job performance or legitimate operational interests.
- At summary judgment, where the record supports competing inferences about motive, a court must view the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.
- Qualified immunity bars damages liability unless existing precedent placed the constitutional question beyond debate; if the right is clearly established on the plaintiff’s version of the facts, qualified immunity is not appropriate at the summary-judgment stage.

## Conclusion

In this withdrawn 2018 Ninth Circuit opinion, the court concluded that Perez produced enough evidence for a jury to find that she was terminated because department decisionmakers morally disapproved of her private, off-duty affair, and it therefore reversed summary judgment and rejected qualified immunity on that record, remanding the § 1983 privacy/intimate-association claim for further proceedings.


Perez v. City of Roseville, 882 F.3d 843 (2018)