Can gay couples denied marriage licenses sue Davis personally?

[closeupready]

Or only the county?

And if the state takes no effective action, can those couples sue the State of Kentucky?

[Lee-Lee]

1. Already are it looks like

http://www.joemygod.com/2015/08/31/kentucky-thrice-rejected-gay-couple-sues-rowan-county-and-clerk-kim-davis-in-federal-court/

[MineralMan]

2. They sure can, and will. Civil Rights cases in Federal Court.

Best of all, all judgments are against the person, not the County. Court costs and attorney's fees can also be collected by the plaintiffs. It's potentially a big deal for that County Clerk.

[closeupready]

3. That's encouraging. If she's denying gay people federal protections (effectively),

which include fiscal ones, then she should be made to reimburse gay people to whom she's denying licenses. For a start.

[hifiguy]

11. Absolutely. And any lawyer worth

his or her degree will be including a nice fat, juicy claim for punitive damages on top of that. And punitive damages are highly likely where the defendant has defied a court order.

[brooklynite]

22. No - they can't sue her personally

She is a Representative of the County. She may not be performing her duty for personal reasons, but that's up to the County to address. The plaintiff has a cause against the County for not providing a service it is supposed to provide.

[MineralMan]

23. Actually they can, and already have.

She is one of the defendants, as is the county. I believe you are mistaken about civil rights lawsuits against individuals acting under color of authority. I don't have time to research that today, though. However, upthread, you can find a story about the federal suit that has already been filed, with that clerk as a defendant.

[Travis_0004]

28. Is she a personal defendant, or being sued in her official capacity

Governments get sued all the time. You usually don't sue government employees personally. I would expect any lawsuit to name the clerk in her official capacity, I doubt they would sue her personally.

She also has Qualified Immunity from lawsuits, so the threshold for suing her is higher. The state also has deeper pockets, so I don't really see the point of suing her personally.

[NYC Liberal]

46. There's certainly precedent for finding a government official personally liable, though.

Look at the case of Yonkers city council and the public housing plan back in the 1980s. Some of the council members were found personally liable for voting against the plan after being ordered to approve it by a federal judge.

As for qualified immunity, that only applies when the issue is one of a Constitutional right (which it is here), AND when the right is NOT clearly established or recognized at the time of the violation. There is a clearly established Constitutional right in this case. Had Davis pulled this stunt a year ago when we had different rulings from different courts on same-sex marriage rights, she would likely be in the clear. But not now, since the Supreme Court has very clearly and decisively ruled that same-sex couples do have a Constitutional right to marry.

[unblock]

52. she's clearly not acting in her official capacity. the agenda is her personal agenda.

if the question comes up, she'd have a tough time arguing that she's acting under any governmental direction, given that she's defying plain law and a court order.

she personally disagrees with it, and is abusing her official powers to serve her personal interests.

i agree that the plaintiffs would probably be better off ignoring this point and going after the county, but if they wanted her to be personally liable, i'd bet the qualified immunity wouldn't protect her in this case.

[tularetom]

4. Yeah but they have to prove damages

They can sue to force her to issue the licenses, but what would be the point? The courts have already ordered her to issue the licenses and she has refused. I would think the next step is to find her in contempt and let her cool her heels in jail for a few weeks while they get somebody to issue the licenses.

Of course you have to keep in mind that this is probably the outcome she is hoping for. She'll become a fundamentalist martyr and probably wind up with a few appearances on Fox news(?) to show for her troubles.

Sadly, this says something about society as a whole. The effectiveness of any law depends heavily on the willingness of the population to obey it.

[closeupready]

5. Damages like money? Here you go:

(Just as a few examples)

You can contribute to a spousal IRA. If you are domestic partners and you don’t work, you can’t contribute to an IRA for retirement savings, since you have no earned income. However, “if you’re married and you have a working spouse and a non-working spouse, the non-working spouse can use the working spouse’s income to qualify for IRA contributions,” Falke says.

You can receive survivor’s benefits from a pension plan. If your spouse is lucky enough to have a pension, and they’ve elected to have survivor’s benefits, you will continue receiving pension benefits after he or she dies. “The benefits are the biggest thing,” says Ted Toal, a financial planner with Rockwood Wealth Management in Annapolis. “Especially for those who are older.”

You can receive Social Security benefits. “Spouses have the option of filing for a spousal benefit, which gives them the potential to collect up to 50% of the other spouse’s benefit amount,” says Michael Lynch, vice president of strategic markets for Hartford Funds in Radnor, PA. There is also the possibility for a larger benefit upon the death of a spouse, he says. Imagine, for instance, that you are collecting $1,000 a month in Social Security benefits and your spouse is collecting $1,200 a month. If your spouse dies, you could start collecting survivor benefits of $1,200—a $200-per-month increase. As a domestic partner, you have no such option.

You’ll save on health insurance. “Usually plans for one plus a spouse are cheaper than if you each have your own plan, even if it’s an employer sponsored plan,” Toal says. This is especially helpful if one of you doesn’t have access to insurance through your employer—if you’re self-employed, for instance.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kateashford/2014/09/26/deciding-not-to-get-married/

[tularetom]

6. It's like calculating the loss of future income for an accident victim and it's highly speculative

And it would be challenged.

But here's what bothers me. At this point what do these couples want to accomplish? Do they just want to make a fool (and a hero to religious wackos) of this stupid woman, or do they want a marriage license. Because all they have to do is drive over to the next county where they presumably have a clerk who follows the law and get the license there.

As far as I know there is no law that says you have to be married in the county where you reside. Hell, I wasn't even married in the state where I lived at the time.

And even if they were to successfully sue her, what are they going to get? Her double wide? Her pickup truck? She has no assets, so unless the county can be brought into it, a lawsuit would be a waste of time.

[snooper2]

7. Mocking her and making her a laughing stock works for me...she already is for the most part

She makes 80K a year...

Be nice to ensure she can't do that in the future...Fundies need to go down

[procon]

19. Ridicule won't work with religious fanatics.

She will wallow in it because mockery and disparagement will only reinforce her sense of martyrdom and serve to rally more crazy religious zealots who support her claims of persecution. The law hasn't stopped her, public censure has no had effect, and press notoriety hasn't forced compliance, so that leaves only one effective way to curb her religious attacks on the citizens who need to use the services of the county clerk's office... a financial loss.

[snooper2]

25. I don't care about the religous fanatics, I care about the rest of the population

People who may not care or be paying attention...casual conversations, Oh yeah, I heard of that nut Kim!

[closeupready]

10. So it would be challenged. So what. That's what happens in lawsuits.

One side says the other side is evil, bad, in every possible shape way or form, and the other side says 'am not!' and challenges the allegations on every single aspect that they can do. Law School 101.

How about telling a woman she can't have an abortion in, say, Baton Rouge, and all she has to do is drive to the next county to get one.

How about telling a black person that, as was told Rosa Parks, you're black and have to ride the bus in the black section, "just mere feet away from the white section", and if you refuse, the bus will remain right where it is until you get to the back of the bus.

[tularetom]

13. Apples, meet oranges

Not even in the same ball park.

So I'll ask again, what would be the purpose in suing this fool? To get a court order requiring her to issue the licenses? There already is such an order.

Do they want to make her look like an ignorant country buffoon? She doesn't need their help to do that, she's doing a fine job of it all by herself. And since she is now caught up in the legal system there is no possible positive result for her. She's ultimately going to lose her job, and her fat paycheck ($80k per year in a county where the median household income is less than $40).

All a lawsuit will accomplish is to keep her in the news and make her a martyr to the fundamentalist crowd. Plus it will delay the actual issuance of the marriage licenses which I thought was the whole point in the first place.

[ipfilter]

17. She's an Apostolic Pentecostal...

Those are the looniest of the fundies. She might become a martyr in the tight circle of that fringe group, but by and large that group is ignored by most fundies. She's attempting to go George Wallace here and needs to be stopped in her tracks by every means necessary under the law. Who cares of the nuttiest fringe of pew jumpers get behind her in her holy war. She's in contempt of court and should be held accountable. Not a single marriage license she has issued in her tenure has meant jack squat in Heaven or Hell but are legal documents recognized by the State of Kentucky. She's just too dim-witted to realize that.

[RKP5637]

26. Exactly! It is all so reminiscent of George Wallace and his antics. n/t

[closeupready]

18. Same thing, 100% the very same thing, and I'm done engaging with you here.

Have a great day.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

12. "At this point what do these couples want to accomplish?"

Dignity.

The acknowledgement that they matter too.

A reminder that the job of the civil servant is to assist people, not shout at them, "get out of my office."

[procon]

24. Sometimes it isn't a matter of what the victor might win in a successful lawsuit,

its what the defendant will lose. Even if this woman has few assets of monetary worth, they are near and dear to her as her only property. Often times the primary (and only) satisfaction of winning a judgement is the public acknowledgement of your righteousness, and being able to see the loser suffer the consequences for their wrongful actions that caused you hardship. Its all very biblical in it's eye for an eye concept, something that should be appreciated by this fanatical woman.

[TipTok]

29. The reason they don't go one county over... aside from the principle...

... is that is establishing a precedent that every religious wackadoodle can enact their own little fiefdom based on what the voices in their head tell them at any given moment.

That woman needs to go to jail, lose that double wide along with her son (who also works in the office).

[SwankyXomb]

33. She's been working there for 25+ years

so there's a pretty good sized public pension available to be seized.

[yardwork]

42. And if she next refuses to marry an interracial couple, you're fine with that?

They can just drive over to the next county? Or the next, as the county clerks would probably start banding together in support of one another if this is allowed.

Seems to me the we have been through this before, in my lifetime, and the courts decided that actually it wasn't ok to make some people drink out of a different water fountain. And so forth.

Either the laws are enforced it they aren't. Blaming the people being denied civil rights seems particularly lame, though. Why those uppity gays! Why can't they just get married in Canada and stop upsetting these nice church ladies.

[tularetom]

44. Where did I say I was "fine" with any of it

All I said was a lawsuit is a waste of time because all would yield is a court order to issue the licenses.

Which is not necessary since there already is a court order directing her to issue the licenses.

The legal system has its hooks into her and it will soon chew her up and spit her out, and the sooner it happens the sooner she will be out of the picture and consigned to the dustbin of history.

And the end result is her office will be forced to issue the marriage licenses anyway.

A lawsuit will just prolong the agony,keep her name in the news and make her a martyr, and most likely a very wealthy martyr at that. Because there is no shortage of fundamentalist nut cases who will contribute to a fund to support her if she loses her clerk gig.

I'm not blaming the victims here. I support them 100% and I wish them all the best. But as far as I'm aware, none of the people who were denied marriage licenses has said word one about a lawsuit. It's people here on DU that are having a hissy fit about it.

[laundry_queen]

47. A lawsuit will deter

the next looneytoons religious clerk who will have to weigh if they want to lose their life's savings or not first before denying a license.

[yardwork]

49. They have filed a lawsuit. ACLU is handling.

And you suggested that they drive over to another county to get their marriage license.

[tularetom]

53. Do they want to get married?

Because if that's what they want, they can do that today. They don't have to wait for their suit to be settled. If they want to make an example out of this dumbass clerk, that's another matter.

But my point is this - they don't have to do anything, the justice system has control of the situation and Davis could find her fat ass sitting in jail as soon as tomorrow, if the judge finds her in contempt, as most people expect him to do.

[dixiegrrrrl]

15. You have to be married at least 8 years to get the Soc. sec. benefits. n/t

[closeupready]

20. If she's deliberately delaying a marriage even one second to cause 1 penny's harm,

it's intolerable, and she (or her future gofundme donors) should be made to pay 1 penny plus punitive damages, attorneys' fees, court costs, and anything else. (I know you agree generally, just putting that out there for others in the thread.)

[RKP5637]

30. Agree so much. I'm no expert, but to me she is clearly impeding/delaying this with

Last edited Wed Sep 2, 2015, 01:45 PM - Edit history (1)

absolutely no logical reason. She is in defiance of law and basically gave SCOTUS the finger. She is also in the realm of abusive power of authority. She and the like need the book and ALL costs thrown out of them. And, she should be removed as unfit to perform her duties.

[closeupready]

32. Isn't that Amish news story a satire, like the Onion?

If not, I misunderstood - I thought it was a satirical 'news' story.

[RKP5637]

34. Hmmmm, I'll have to check! n/t

[RKP5637]

35. Yeah, I think it is. I'll go edit that part out asap. Thanks! n/t

[closeupready]

39. NP.

[RKP5637]

40. ...

[RKP5637]

37. I get really confused with this when I read the SS site.

Is that 8 years for anything? Isn't survival benefits, for example, less than one year?

[dixiegrrrrl]

41. I am not sure about survival benefits.....

Good point....I need to re-research the info.

[Xithras]

27. You can't sue her for damages. Kentucky extends sovereign immunity to state employees and officers.

You can sue her to try and make her do her job, but those suits are already happening so there's not much point.

Suing her for damages is another matter entirely. Kentucky is one of a few states that did NOT model a tort claims exemption based on the FTCA, and it still extends sovereign immunity to state employees which limits your ability to sue them for damages directly. You could sue the county or state, but even there the states laws limit the courts you can file in, and limit the damages you can claim to real losses. Filing a damage claim over this would be fairly futile, as you'd spend more on attorneys to file the case than you could claim in damages.

[mythology]

45. Leave her in there for a couple of months and I doubt she would find it worthwhile

But as you said, the most important aspect is getting the licenses issued in the short term

[mahatmakanejeeves]

8. She's not issuing any marriage licenses.

All couples, gay and straight alike, are receiving equally shabby treatment.

Who says there's been no progress?

[alphafemale]

48. I think the straight couples should be able to sue as well. nt

[yardwork]

50. Definitely. She's violating their rights as well.

[hifiguy]

9. Yes. County and state already passing

on defending her. Defiance of lawful court order is misconduct by any standard and she's on her own for any liability/damages.

[jberryhill]

14. They can, they have, and they are - that's why there is a court order in the first place

The mind boggles at how so many people think Davis has been issued a court order to issue licenses in the absence of a lawsuit.

The case we've all been following is Miller et al. v. Davis et al.

http://www.aclu-ky.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Rowan-complaint.pdf

More to the point, it is:

APRIL MILLER, KAREN ANN ROBERTS,
SHANTEL BURKE, STEPHEN NAPIER,
JODY FERNANDEZ, KEVIN
HOLLOWAY, L. AARON SKAGGS, and
BARRY W. SPARTMAN,
AND
ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Plaintiffs,
v.
KIM DAVIS, both individually and in her
official capacity as Rowan County Clerk, and
ROWAN COUNTY, KENTUCKY,
Defendants.

[dixiegrrrrl]

16. Class action because she is not issuing any licenses, eh?

Not a bright woman, it seems.

[mnhtnbb]

21. Her actions clearly indicate she is incapable of thinking through

the consequences of her actions. My guess would be this woman has an IQ < 100,
which is one of the reasons she has so easily been encouraged to submit to
authority of a fundamentalist group which is determined to stand in the way of
gay couples exercising their civil rights.

[yardwork]

43. I've been thinking the same. I wonder if she is developmentally disabled.

I actually feel sad that she is being manipulated this way.

[RKP5637]

31. I think she is either a damn fool or really has some mental issues, probably

both. She likely walked into this job with an easy vote following her mother who I think was the clerk for 37 years. I believe she also brought a son in, probably her protege to replace her, eventually.

[jberryhill]

36. IMHO she is sincerely misguided

But people can't be objective about their own beliefs in any event.

[RKP5637]

38. That's a good way to look at it, in essence, flawed logic, and she can't find her way out. n/t

[X_Digger]

51. Deprivation of rights under color of law. Big Big Big deal. n/t