United States Eleventh Circuit

In an action by an advertising display company claiming that defendants conspired to ensure that a competing bidder on a municipal project would be awarded the contract, even though acceptance of plaintiff's bid would have been in the best interest of the city, denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity is reversed where the Supreme Court's broad statement that the unequal application of facially neutral law with the intent to discriminate may violate the Equal Protection Clause, in and of itself, did not offer defendants fair warning that their treatment of plaintiff was unconstitutional.

Appellate Information

• Decided 11/16/2009
• Published 11/16/2009

Judges

• PER CURIAM:, Before EDMONDSON, BIRCH and COX, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Eleventh Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• Michael P. Kenny, Cari Katrice Dawson, Christopher Allen Riley, Ryan Jay Lewis, Alston & Bird, LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Defendants-Appellants., J. Matthew Maguire, Jr., Michael J. Bowers, Balch & Bingham, LLP, Mairen C. Kelly, Fisher & Phillips, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.