Teresa R. Manning v. Carolyn Jones, et al.

The circuits are confused regarding when the government can be subject to judicial estoppel. Petitioner sued Carolyn Jones, Iowa College of Law Dean, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, alleging First Amendment discrimination in hiring based upon Petitioner’s conservative views. The case was tried in 2012. Respondent, represented by the Iowa Attorney General, maintained that she was not liable since the faculty made hiring decisions and not her. The jury deadlocked but the District Court entered judgment for Respondent, after having declared a mistrial. On the ensuing appeal Respondent, seeking advantage through the “business judgment rule”, changed position by claiming that “of course” the Dean was the decision-maker. Petitioner then moved in the 8th Circuit to prevent the Dean from arguing the opposite at any second trial, based on judicial estoppel. In a footnote, the 8th Circuit’s opinion granting a new trial held that the Dean had final hiring authority. Nevertheless, Respondent repeatedly argued the opposite on retrial. The jury returned a verdict for Respondent, and a different panel of the 8th Circuit affirmed. The Question Presented is: Should Respondent have been judicially estopped, and was Petitioner denied a fair trial and due process of law because she wasn’t?