PHOENIX (LN) — U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra on May 13 granted in part a joint motion to dismiss a race-discrimination suit brought by Shalanda Marie Looney against Maricopa County and four of its employees, finding her claims barred by qualified immunity and insufficient to establish municipal liability.

Looney, a Black attorney who provided indigent defense services as an independent contractor to the county’s Office of Public Defense Services, alleged that defendants discriminated against her based on her race.

Her claims centered on a theory that the county and its officials discriminated against her by failing to dissuade her from terminating her independent contractor agreement after she notified them of her intent to resign.

Looney alleged that prior to leadership changes in 2021 and 2022, her discrimination concerns were addressed promptly. She claimed that after Rosemarie Pena-Lynch became director and Ellen Hoecker and David Jahntz assumed new roles, she faced selective enforcement of discretionary practices.

Looney alleged that Pena-Lynch issued communications asserting her work fell below expectations and that she needed to adhere to new requirements, such as appearing on video for court hearings.

Looney alleged that similarly situated white contractors with documented performance issues were not subjected to comparable written accusations.

She provided examples of situations where she alleged a white contract attorney provided substandard representation but was never investigated or disciplined way.

Looney also alleged she was prohibited from appearing telephonically while white attorneys were allowed to do so.

On Oct. 4, 2023, Looney submitted a 30-day notice of intent to resign, stating it was due to racial discrimination.

She alleged that during the notice period, defendants could have corrected the discriminatory conduct but did not.

Looney claimed that Kevin Tyne, the county’s procurement officer, had the authority to reject her resignation but instead sent a letter setting a termination date of Nov. 4, 2023.

Looney alleged that the county’s failure to reject her resignation constituted discrimination and that she did not suffer a complete injury until the contract terminated.

Looney’s amended complaint alleged three claims: two under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and one under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

The court noted that because all defendants were state actors, § 1983 was the only permissible vehicle for her claims.

The court found that Looney failed to allege facts showing Maricopa County had a persistent and widespread policy or custom of refusing to correct discriminatory statements.

Looney did not cite any other instance where the county refused to correct or retract discriminatory statements during a contractual notice period.

The court also found that Looney failed to allege sufficient facts establishing that Pena-Lynch, Hoecker, or Jahntz qualified as final policymakers.

Looney argued that these individuals qualified as policymakers because they exercised delegated authority over contract administration and discipline.

The court ruled that discretionary authority over particular functions does not, without more, give rise to municipal liability.

Regarding Tyne, the court found that allowing an independent contractor to terminate her relationship or sending a letter acknowledging that termination could not constitute a constitutional tort without allegations that Tyne was aware of the underlying events.

The court also found that Looney’s claims against the individual defendants were barred by qualified immunity.

Looney failed to clearly allege which actions by which defendants were the basis for her claims.

The court noted that Looney offered no authority finding a constitutional violation in remotely similar situations.

Looney argued that the right to be free from intentional racial discrimination and retaliation in contracting has been clearly established for decades.

The court ruled that this approach to the clearly established law requirement was the exact type of high level of generality approach the Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected.

Looney was granted leave to amend her complaint.

She must file an amended complaint no later than May 27, 2026.

The court directed the Clerk of Court to enter a judgment of dismissal with prejudice if no amended complaint is filed by that date.