context: Based on the foregoing, and "under the facts interpreted most favorably to plaintiffs], it was not reasonable for [Atchison] to adversely treat [plaintiffs] because [they were women]."
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 365 F.3d 130, 130
citation_a.parenthetical: denying qualified immunity where it was possible that a jury could find that the individual defendants discriminated against plaintiff on the basis of sex in violation of SS 1983
citation_a.sentence: Kantha v. Blue, 262 F.Supp.2d 90, 109 (S.D.N.Y.2003) (denying qualified immunity on plaintiffs § 1983 disparate treatment claim); see also Back, 365 F.3d at 130 (denying qualified immunity where it was possible that a jury could find that the individual defendants discriminated against plaintiff on the basis of sex in violation of § 1983); Dawson, 351 F.Supp.2d at 198 (denying qualified immunity with respect to plaintiffs § 1983 claim where the individual defendant was “the cause” of the alleged sex discrimination and “under preexisting law a reasonable defendant official would have understood that his acts were unlawful”).
citation_b.signal: no signal
citation_b.identifier: 262 F.Supp.2d 90, 109
citation_b.parenthetical: denying qualified immunity on plaintiffs SS 1983 disparate treatment claim
citation_b.sentence: Kantha v. Blue, 262 F.Supp.2d 90, 109 (S.D.N.Y.2003) (denying qualified immunity on plaintiffs § 1983 disparate treatment claim); see also Back, 365 F.3d at 130 (denying qualified immunity where it was possible that a jury could find that the individual defendants discriminated against plaintiff on the basis of sex in violation of § 1983); Dawson, 351 F.Supp.2d at 198 (denying qualified immunity with respect to plaintiffs § 1983 claim where the individual defendant was “the cause” of the alleged sex discrimination and “under preexisting law a reasonable defendant official would have understood that his acts were unlawful”).