This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P worked as a customer service representative for Southwest Airlines (D). Southwest (D) prides itself on being a 'fun-loving, spirited company.' Newly hired employees who have successfully completed an initial probationary period are subjected to a prank commemorating the occasion. One employee was led onto an airplane, the doors were sealed, and the employee was flown to Dallas. Another employee was dressed in a hula skirt and made to perform a hula dance for customers. Aware of this tradition, P knew it was possible that her colleagues would play a prank on her at the end of her probationary period. P's supervisor, Tina Marie Tapia, and other customer service supervisors had discussed various pranks to perpetrate against P. Tapia suggested a mock arrest as she had once been subjected to a similar prank, and had thought the experience amusing. Everyone agreed. Supervisors called the Albuquerque police department and requested that officers come to the Southwest counter. Officers Duane Hoppe and Eldon Martinez arrived at the ticket counter, and the supervisors told them of the plan to arrest P as a celebratory prank. The officers asked if P 'would be okay with it,' and Tapia assured them that she would. With the assistance of the supervisors, the officers developed and executed the plan for staging the arrest. P was working at a ticket counter crowded with customers when the two uniformed and armed police officers approached her. One of the officers ordered P to go with him to answer some questions, and proceeded to escort her to the end of the ticket counter. The other officer informed P that during the course of performing her background check, they discovered an outstanding warrant for her arrest. The officers asked P if she had ever been arrested before, and she replied that she had not. When she began to explain that there must have been some mistake and that there were no outstanding warrants, the officers interrupted her and demanded that she take off her badges and turn them in. P handed her badges to Tapia, who was standing close by. Hoppe and Martinez then asked if P had anyone to 'bail her out,' and she responded tearfully that she hoped Tapia would. After asking for a tissue to dry her tears, P asked if the arrest was a joke. Both officers refused to respond. Hoppe asked if P had any unpaid traffic citations. The officers placed P's hands behind her back and handcuffed her tightly. A crowd of employees and customers formed to watch. One of the officers said, 'We don't want to embarrass you anymore, so we'll take you to the elevator so we don't have to walk in front of all those people.' P continued to cry. The officers led P in handcuffs fifteen feet to the elevator, at which point someone jumped out and yelled, 'Congratulations for being off probation.' The officers removed the handcuffs, and people began to clap. P continued to cry. Later that day, she was found in the break room, weeping, and was sent home. P began seeing a psychologist for treatment. The psychologist diagnosed P as suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. Claiming a violation of her Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, P sued Hoppe, Martinez, and the City of Albuquerque under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. P sued Southwest, Tapia, and Michael Santiago, a Southwest manager, for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Claims of conspiracy, false imprisonment, false arrest, assault and battery, and defamation were asserted against all defendants, along with a claim for punitive damages. The district court granted summary judgment to the officers and the City of Albuquerque. The district court found that P's rights were not clearly established and afforded Hoppe and Martinez qualified immunity and dismissed the § 1983 claims asserted against them. Because P offered nothing that would indicate that any of the challenged actions were authorized or ratified by the City of Albuquerque,' the court granted summary judgment on the § 1983 claims asserted against the city. The court concluded that the state claims lacked merit and dismissed all remaining claims. P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.