Michael Segaline v. Washington Department of Labor and Industries, et al.

I. Did the Washington State Court deprive an electrician of his Liberty rights when it reversed a jury verdict of $953,000 and dismissed his case based on qualified immunity for its State agent, where the trial court found issues of fact, and the jury verdict was supported by substantial evidence, that the State agent reasonably knew there was no danger, and provided no pre- and post-Due Process? Yes. A. Does the Washington State Court decision conflict with This Court’s established authorities, from Harlow to White, that Trial courts must determine and resolve genuine issues of fact regarding what a reasonable State agent knew, under the facts and circumstances of the Rights deprivation, and whether a reasonable government official could have believed he provided minimal process? Yes.

1. Have other Federal Courts consistently followed This Court’s rule of law for considering Qualified Immunity by deferring to the trial court to resolve facts regarding reasonableness? Yes.

2. Did the Washington State Court ignore substantial evidence of arbitrary, unreasonable State action in the trial record to reverse the jury decision and shield its State employee from qualified immunity? Yes.