source: Caselaw Access Project

author: RESTREPO, Circuit Judge.

license: Public Domain

text:
    Jill E. MANCINI, Appellant in No. 15-2873 v. NORTHAMPTON COUNTY; John Brown, in His Individual and Official Capacity; Victor E. Scomillio, in His Individual and Official Capacity Northampton County, Appellant in Nos. 15-2790 and 15-3012
    No. 15-2790, No. 15-2873, No. 15-3012
    United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    Argued: March 14, 2016
    (Filed: September 9, 2016)

      Samuel E. Cohen, Esq., Patrick J. Reilly, Esq. [ARGUED], Gross McGinley, 33 South 7th Street, P.O. Box 4060, Allentown, PA 18105, Counsel for Appel-lee/Cross-Appellant
    David L. Schwalm, Esq. [ARGUED], Jill L. Walsh, Esq., Thomas Thomas & Hafer, 305 N. Front Street, P.O. Box 999, Harrisburg, PA 17108, Jill L. Walsh, Esq., Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, 1550 Pond Road, Suite 210, Allentown, PA 18104, Counsel for Appellant/Cross-Appellee
    Before: FUENTES, CHAGARES, and RESTREPO, Circuit Judges
   OPINION OF THE COURT

RESTREPO, Circuit Judge.

Jill Mancini, a former assistant county solicitor in Northampton County, Pennsylvania, brought this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Northampton County,-County Executive John Brown, and County Solicitor ■Victor Scomillio, in connection with their termination of her employment. Mancini, a Democrat, alleged that she was a protected career service employee and that the newly elected Republican administration wrongfully dismissed her in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause and the First Amendment. A jury found that Northampton County, but not Brown or Scomillio, violated Mancini’s procedural due process rights and awarded her $94,232 in damages. The jury found in favor of all Defendants on Mancini’s First Amendment claims. We conclude that the able trial judge appropriately handled the numerous issues raised by the parties, and we will affirm.

This case requires us to consider whether there is an exception to the ordinary requirements of procedural due process when a government employee with a protected property interest in her job is dismissed as part of a departmental reorganization that results in the elimination of her position. We have not previously considered this so-called “reorganization exception.” We hold that a reorganization exception to constitutional procedural due process cannot apply as a matter of law where, as here, there is a genuine factual dispute about whether the reorganization was pretext for an unlawful termination.

I.

A. Factual Background

1. Mancini’s Employment in Northampton County

Mancini began her employment with Northampton County in 2001 as a part-time assistant district attorney. In December 2006, the Northampton County Council approved a request from Karl Longen-bach, then County Solicitor, to create one full-time assistant county solicitor position. Prior to that time, the Northampton County assistant solicitors were all part-time employees. The County Council eliminated a vacant part-time assistant county solicitor position when it created the full-time position. In February 2007, Mancini was hired into the newly created full-time position, which she believed was part of the Northampton career service. In 2012, the Northampton County Council created a second full-time assistant county solicitor position, which was filled in early 2013.

In November 2013, Defendant John .Brown was elected County Executive of Northampton County. He tapped Defendant Victor Scomillio to serve under him as County • Solicitor. Before taking office, Brown and Scomillio decided that they would make changes to the staffing of the Solicitor’s Office. According to Mancini, Scomillio told her on December 23, 2013, that her position would be eliminated on January 7, 2014.

On January 7, 2014, Brown formally requested that the County Council eliminate the two full-time assistant county solicitor positions and replace them with two additional part-time positions. Mancini filed a grievance that same day challenging her forthcoming dismissal on numerous grounds, including that her discharge violated Northampton’s Home Rule Charter, its Career Service Regulations, and Northampton County Employee Policy No. 3.525, “Reduction in Force and Recall” (the “Layoff Policy”).

The County Council acted on Brown’s request on January 23, 2014, eliminating the two full-time positions and creating the requested part-time positions. Mancini’s last day of work was Friday, January 24, 2014, the last business day before the reorganization took effect. She was suspended with pay until her February 17, 2014 termination. Mancini was not offered either of the newly created assistant county solicitor jobs, and she was not permitted to displace an existing part-time assistant county solicitor.

Mancini did not receive formal written notice of her termination until a letter dated January 27, 2014, advised her that on January 23 her position had been eliminated. The elimination of her position was the only ground Northampton provided for Mancini’s dismissal. In the notice, the County took the position that the “full time assistant county solicitor positions were career exempt positions.” J.A. 3416.

Northampton County held an informal hearing on Mancini’s grievance on February 19, 2014, two days after it stopped paying her, and nearly a month after she was relieved of her duties. She was not permitted to have counsel present at the hearing. The County denied Mancini’s grievance. Mancini appealed to the Northampton Personnel Appeals Board (the “Board”), which held two hearings on her grievance — one in May 2014 and one in June 2014. Months passed with no decision. Finally, in response to an inquiry from her lawyer, the Board informed Mancini by letter dated November 19, 2014, that the Board was “hopelessly deadlocked.” J.A. 3425. No further action was taken on Mancini’s appeal, and the Board never reached or communicated a final decision to Mancini.

2. The Northampton County Career ■Service

Under the Northampton Home Rule Charter, members of the career service can only be dismissed for “just cause” and they have the right to appeal to the Northampton Personnel Appeals Board for a pretermination just cause determination. See id. at 3326, 2688. The distinction between career service and exempt service has important consequences for Northampton employees, and for our analysis of Mancini’s due process claim. While Mancini’s status as a career service employee is not at issue on appeal, it was contested at trial.

The Northampton Home Rule Charter states that all County employees “shall be members of the career service,” except for nine discrete categories of exempt employees. Id. at 3325. We agree with the parties that Mancini’s position did not fall within the meaning of any one of the nine enumerated exemptions. The Resolution that created Mancini’s full-time assistant county solicitor position did not state whether the position was exempt or career service. However, former County Solicitor Longen-bach testified that he intended the full-time assistant county solicitor position to be part of the career service, and that he believed the position the County Council approved, and that Mancini occupied, was, in fact, a career service position. Linda Markwith, a personnel analyst in the Northampton County Human Resources Department responsible for recruitment and hiring when Mancini was hired as a solicitor, testified that Mancini’s position was designated as career service from the outset and the designation never changed. An email from Markwith to Longenbach confirmed that Mancini’s position was “included in the Career Service category.” Id. at 3388. Meanwhile, defendant Seomillio testified that, based on his research in 2013, he believed Mancini was not a member of the career service and that she could be laid off as part of a reorganization. But, he conceded, if it were determined that she was a career service employee, the County could not terminate her without just cause.

B. Procedural History

Mancini filed a Complaint in the District Court against Northampton County, Brown, and Seomillio (collectively, the “Defendants”) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Relevant to these appeals, she alleged the Defendants violated her Fourteenth Amendment right to procedural due process when they terminated her without a pretermination hearing or just cause determination, and they, violated her First Amendment rights when they terminated her based on her political affiliation. The Defendants responded in their motion to dismiss that Mancini failed to state a claim on either theory because she was an exempt, or at-will, employee and her position was eliminated pursuant to a legitimate, cost-driven reorganization of the Solicitor’s Office. Mancini countered that the “reorganization” was pretext for an unlawful termination and that, as a Northampton County career service employee, she was entitled to pretermination due process, which she did not receive. The District Court denied the Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

The Defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims. They argued that Brown and Seomillio were entitled to qualified immunity because their actions did not violate any clearly established rights. As to Mancini’s due process claims, they also argued that. Mancini had failed to establish that she held a protected property interest in her position or that she was entitled to due process when her position was eliminated by reorganization. The District Court granted Brown and Seomillio qualified immunity for all claims brought against them in their individual capacities. As to the remaining claims, the court reserved judgment on the Defendants’ due process arguments and on all claims against Northampton.

Mancini tried her claims against Northampton County, and Brown and Scomillio in their official capacities. After a five-day trial, the jury returned a split verdict. It found that Northampton violated Mancini’s procedural due process rights, but that Brown and Scomillio did not. Significantly, the jury also found that Mancini’s full-time assistant county solicitor position was a career service position. The jury found no violation of Mancini’s First Amendment rights. The jury awarded Mancini $94,232 in damages and the District Court entered judgment consistent with the verdict.

Northampton moved for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial under Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It asserted four bases for relief: (1) a miscarriage of justice would result if the verdict were allowed to stand because it was contrary to law, the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict, and the verdict was against the weight of the evidence; (2) the elimination of Mancini’s position fell within a so-called “reorganization exception” to constitutional procedural due process; (3) Northampton County law and policy do not require procedural due process where a position is eliminated as part of a reorganization; and (4) Pennsylvania assistant county solicitors are employed at-will as a matter of law and are not entitled to pre-termination procedural due process. Northampton advances these same four arguments on appeal.

The District Court denied Northampton’s Rule 50 post-trial motion. Over Northampton’s objections, the ^District Court granted Mancini $186,018.60 in attorney’s fees and costs as the prevailing party under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. These timely appeals followed. In Appeal No. 2790, Northampton appeals the denial in part of its motion for summary judgment and the denial of its post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial. In Appeal No. 15-3012, Northampton appeals the District Court’s award of Mancini’s attorney’s fees and costs.

II.

The District Court had jurisdiction over this civil rights action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343. We have jurisdiction over the final decisions of a district court. 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

Our review of orders entered on motions for summary judgment is plenary. See Blunt v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 767 F.3d 247, 265 (3d Cir. 2014). “ ‘[W]e may affirm the District Court on any grounds supported by the record,’ even if the court did not rely on those grounds.” Id. (quoting Nicini v. Morra, 212 F.3d 798, 805 (3d Cir. 2000)). “In considering an order entered on a motion for summary judgment, ‘we view the underlying facts and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.’ ” Id. (quoting Pa. Coal Ass’n v. Babbitt, 63 F.3d 231, 236 (3d Cir. 1995)). If the “non-moving party fails sufficiently to establish the existence of an essential element of its case on which it bears the burden of proof at trial, there is not a genuine dispute with respect to a material fact and thus the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Id.

Our review of orders concerning post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law is also plenary and we apply the same standard as the district court. Lightning Lube, Inc. v. Witco Corp., 4 F.3d 1153, 1166 (3d Cir. 1993). The motion may be granted “only if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant and giving it the advantage of every fair and reasonable inference, there is insufficient evidence from which a jury reasonably could find liability.” Id. We “may not weigh the'evidence, determine the credibility of witnesses, or substitute [our] version of the facts for the jury’s version.” Id. “Because the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, we must examine the record in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, giving her the benefit of all reasonable inferences, even though contrary inferences might reasonably be drawn.” In re Lemington Home for the Aged, 777 F.3d 620, 626 (3d Cir. 2015) (quoting Dudley v. S. Jersey Metal, Inc., 555 F.2d 96, 101 (3d Cir. 1977)).

We review the denial of a motion for a new trial for abuse of discretion, unless it was based on an application of law, in which ease our review is plenary. McKenna v. City of Phila., 582 F.3d 447, 460 (3d Cir. 2009). An abuse of discretion occurs if a “court’s decision rests upon a clearly erroneous finding of fact, errant conclusion of law or an improper application of law to fact” or “when no reasonable person would adopt the district court’s view.” Blunt, 767 F.3d at 265 (quotation marks omitted).

We similarly review the reasonableness of attorney’s fees awarded under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 for abuse of discretion. Rode v. Dellarciprete, 892 F.2d 1177, 1182 (3d Cir. 1990).

III.

A. Northampton County’s Appeal of the Due Process Judgment

Northampton appeals the denial of its post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial, and the partial denial of its motion for summary judgment. The County reasserts on appeal the same four arguments it made in its post-trial motion.

1. Sufficiency of the Evidence

The District Court held that sufficient evidence supported the jury’s verdict that Northampton violated Mancini’s due process rights. We agree.

In response to special interrogatories, the jury found by a preponderance of the evidence that “Jill Mancini’s position as a full time assistant county solicitor in Northampton County was a career service position” and that Northampton County “violated Jill Mancini’s due process rights by not providing her with a meaningful pre-termination opportunity to respond to the elimination of her position.” J.A. 1634.

Northampton did not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury’s finding that Mancini held a career service position. See Br. of Northampton at 51-55. Northampton has therefore waived any such argument. See Laborers’ Int’l Union of N. Am., AFL-CIO v. Foster Wheeler Energy Corp., 26 F.3d 375, 398 (3d Cir. 1994) (“An issue is waived unless a party raises it in its opening brief’). We accept in this appeal, as we must, that Mancini was in fact a career service employee. See Lightning Lube, Inc., 4 F.3d at 1166. Nevertheless, given the significance of. Mancini’s status as a career service employee to our decision, we review the evidence from which the jury could have concluded that Mancini was a career service employee.

The plain text of the Northampton Home Rule Charter states that all nonexempt County employees are members of the career service. Full-time professional employees are not listed among the exemptions, and none of the exemptions could fairly include a full-time permanent assistant county solicitor such as Mancini. Karl Longenbach, the County Solicitor who headed the Solicitor’s Office when Mancini was hired and who presented the concept of a full-time assistant county solicitor to the County Council, testified that Mancini occupied a career service position. Linda Markwith, the Northampton Human Resources representative who handled Mancini’s hiring, further testified that the Northampton Human Resources information system designated Mancini as a member of the career service during the entire time she held the position. Defendant Scomillio testified that even though he thought Mancini was an at-will employee, he and Brown decided to eliminate her position though a reorganization of the Solicitor’s Office, rather than terminating her like the other at-will employees they dismissed. Based on these facts, had Northampton challenged this aspect of the jury’s verdict, we would have concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the finding that Mancini was a member of the Northampton County career service.

The evidence was also sufficient to establish that Northampton did not provide Mancini the meaningful process she was due. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a State from “depriv[ing] any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const, amend. XIV, § 1. For a discharged government employee to succeed on a violation of procedural due process claim, the employee must first prove that she possessed a constitutionally protected property right in her continued employment. See Wilson v. MVM, Inc., 475 F.3d 166, 177 (3d Cir. 2007). A “unilateral expectation of continued employment” does not amount to a constitutionally protected property interest in one’s job. Elmore v. Cleary, 399 F.3d 279, 282 (3d Cir. 2005). Where, however, an employee can only be fired for “just cause,” the employee develops a cognizable property interest in her continued employment, and the government may not fire her without providing procedural due process. Dee v. Borough of Dunmore, 549 F.3d 225, 230-32 (3d Cir. 2008).

The Northampton Home Rule Charter provides that no member of the career service shall be “dismissed ... except for just cause.” See J.A. 3326. We have already established that Mancini was a career service employee. Because career service employees in Northampton can only be terminated for just cause, we conclude that Mancini had a protected property interest in her job, and she was entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard on the cause for her termination prior to dismissal.

Fundamentally, procedural due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333, 348, 96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976). The hearing must be “at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” Id. at 333, 96 S.Ct. 893. Except in emergency situations not present here, procedural due process requires that when the government seeks to discharge an employee who possess a protected property interest in her job, “it must afford notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case before the termination becomes effective.” Dee, 549 F.3d at 232 (emphasis added).

Mancini did not receive adequate due process. Even now, Northampton maintains that, in light of the reorganization, it did not need just cause to terminate Mancini and that it would have been idle to provide her with due process. Northampton is incorrect that no process was due. At a minimum, Mancini’s protected property interest in her continued employment entitled her to “notice of the charges against [her], an explanation of the [Defendants’] evidence, and an opportunity to present [her] side of the story.” Schmidt v. Creedon, 639 F.3d 587, 596 (3d Cir. 2011) (quoting Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 546, 105 S.Ct. 1487, 84 L.Ed.2d 494 (1985)). The process she received was deficient on all fronts.

Mancini was notified that the 'full-time assistant county solicitor position was being changed to a part-time position, but the Defendants did not inform her of their charges against her or their reasons for selecting her for dismissal. Without knowing the Defendants’ rationale for selecting her for layoff, Mancini was not able to present her side of the story. Furthermore, the Defendants did not hold a hearing on Mancini’s termination until after she was fired, despite the fact that she had promptly and properly availed herself of the Northampton grievance procedure several weeks before her termination. We hold that this evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict that Northampton did not provide Mancini a meaningful pre-termination opportunity to respond to her planned dismissal. The finding was not contrary to law, and the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying North-' ampton a new trial on Mancini’s due process claims.

2. A “Reorganization Exception” to Procedural Due Process?

Northampton asks us to excuse its conduct by adopting and applying an exception to the ordinary requirements of constitutional procedural due process. Northampton argues that “[although a property right and procedural due process typically go hand-in-hand triggering a requirement for some kind of hearing before discharge, [there is] a limited reorganization exception to due process that eliminates the need for a hearing where a reorganization or other cost-cutting measure results in the dismissal of an employee.” Br. of Northampton at 37 (alterations in original) (quoting Whalen v. Mass. Trial Ct, 397 F.3d 19, 24 (1st Cir. 2005)) (quotation marks omitted). Northampton contends it was not required to provide Mancini with any procedural due process before, or after, it terminated her, because once the reorganization of the Solicitor’s Office occurred, Mancini’s position no longer existed. Any challenge to the injustice of Mancini’s dismissal would have been “futile,” according to Northampton, because as a factual matter there was no longer room for her in the County government. Id. at 39 (quoting Rodriguez-Sanchez v. Municipality of Santa Isabel, 658 F.3d 125, 130 (1st Cir. 2011)).

We have not previously considered the existence of this so-called “reorganization exception” to procedural due process, and we decline to apply any exception to Northampton’s- conduct in this case. Because the jury could have reasonably concluded that the reorganization of the Solicitor’s Office was pretext for unlawfully terminating Mancini, we do not reach the question of whether there are exceptions to the requirements of procedural due process where the government engages in a legitimate person-neutral reorganization.

Although the jury was not directed to make a specific finding on pretext, the jury found that Northampton violated Mancini’s due process rights, and we agree with the District Court that Mancini presented sufficient evidence of pretext to support that finding. Mancini presented evidence from which a jury could reasonably conclude that the Defendants’ purported concern for cost-savings did not actually animate the reorganization. There was ample evidence that the Defendants decided to eliminate the two full-time assistant county solicitor positions, and replace them with part-time positions, based not on identity-neutral, cost-driven reasons, but based on their knowledge of Mancini and the people who would come to occupy the part-time positions.

Evidence of pretext included the following. Scomillio and Brown decided to reorganize the Solicitor’s Office shortly after Brown was elected County Executive in November 2013, even before he took office. Brown testified that when he asked Scom-illio to consider a reorganization, Brown did not know what the budget of the Solicitor’s Office was and he did not have any personal knowledge of whether the office was running efficiently. Without any investigation, without asking Human Resources to conduct a desk audit to determine the volume of work, and without looking at solicitors offices in comparable counties, Scomillio recommended, based on his knowledge of who was on the staff of the Solicitor’s Office, that they shift the work of the full-time solicitors to part-time solicitors. Scomillio had experience with the individuals he planned to hire as part-time solicitors and he believed they would work more efficiently than the existing staff.

When they decided to conduct the reorganization, Brown and Scomillio had concerns about the competency of the Solicitor’s Office in general, and about Mancini in particular. Brown testified that the “reputation of the [Solicitor’s Office] was not strong.” J.A. at 2496. Scomillio testified that his prior experience with Mancini, when she worked in the district attorney’s office, “wasn’t good” and he “didn’t come off with a good experience about her abilities.” Id. 2657. Scomillio had no interest in keeping Mancini on staff after she reacted negatively to his suggestion of a reorganization and informed him that she could only be fired for cause. Scomillio also testified that Daniel Spengler, his predecessor, advised him to retain the position of full-time assistant solicitor but was “equivocal at best regarding his feeling about Attorney Mancini and her ... work ability.” J.A. at 2650. Instead of taking Spengler’s advice to keep the full-time positions but not Mancini, the Defendants eliminated the full-time positions and told Mancini that her job no longer existed. They redistributed Mancini’s work to part-time solicitors — both old and new — without giving, her the option to remain employed with the County.

Evidence that Northampton failed to comply with its Layoff Policy casts further doubt on its claim that it engaged in a bona fide reorganization plan. Under the Layoff Policy, career service employees are entitled to retention priority over part-time employees, to notice of existing vacancies and the right to displace less senior employees in the same or lower job title, and to be placed on a recall list to fill subsequent vacancies in the same or lower job title. The Layoff Policy thus favors regular and full-time career service employees over part-time employees, and requires the County to give notice of vacancies to career service employees who are subject to layoff. Despite these enumerated rights, Northampton laid-off Mancini, a regular, full-time career service employee, and distributed her work to part-time employees of the same title without allowing her to displace a less senior assistant county solicitor or to assume one of the newly created positions.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Mancini and drawing all reasonable inferences in her favor, the evidence was more than sufficient for a jury to determine that the Defendants targeted Mancini based on her personal performance, and that the reorganization was pretext for firing her. Northampton’s argument that “pre-termination hearings are not required by due process where a bona fide government reorganization plan bases dismissals on factors unrelated to personal performance” is therefore misplaced. Br. of Northampton at 39 (quoting Rodriguez-Sanchez, 658 F.3d at 130) (emphasis added). The cases on which Northampton relies do not apply where a reorganization was pretextual. See id. at 35-40.

Finally, we reject Northampton’s argument that a “due process claim is not available if a layoff was made pursuant to a reorganization in fact, regardless of a possible improper motive behind the reorganization.” See Reply Br. of Northampton at 23. We are aware of no court that has permitted the government to subvert the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment "with a sham reorganization. If the government were allowed to undertake sham reorganizations to dismiss an employee who was otherwise entitled to due process, Northampton’s proposed “reorganization exception” would eviscerate a public employee’s procedural due process rights altogether.

In conclusion, we will not permit the government to target an individual for dismissal and then violate that individual’s procedural due process rights under the guise of a reorganization. “To hold otherwise would allow government officials to cry ‘reorganization’ in order to circumvent the constitutional and statutory protections guaranteed” to government employees who may only be fired for cause. Misek v. City of Chicago, 783 F.2d 98, 101 (7th Cir. 1986). There was sufficient evidence from which the jury could conclude that the reorganization was a pretext for targeting Mancini. Northampton was therefore not exempt from providing Mancini, a protected career service employee, with procedural due process when it selected her for dismissal.

8. Northampton County’s Grievance Procedure

Northampton next argues that its own law and policy contain a reorganization exception that permitted the County to terminate Mancini without providing her procedural due process. See Br. of Northampton at 40-45. The District Court properly denied Northampton’s request for judgment as a matter of law on this basis. The Northampton Home Rule Charter, Grievance Policy, and Layoff Policy entitled Mancini to a hearing before the Personnel Appeals Board to challenge the legitimacy of her discharge, despite the purported reorganization.

The Northampton Home Rule Charter, as discussed above, establishes the right of career service employees to remain employed, except on a finding of “just cause.” The Charter makes no exception or special provision for reorganizations. Mancini, as a member of the Northampton career service, was therefore entitled to a pretermin-ation just cause determination, regardless of any bona fide reorganization plan. See Dee, 549 F.3d at 232; Elmore, 399 F.3d at 282.

Under Northampton County Employee Policy No. 3.15, “Grievance Procedure” (the “Grievance Policy”), career service employees have the right to appeal “a suspension or discharge from employment,” or to challenge “an alleged violation of the County’s Home Rule Charter, Administrative Code, Career Service Regulations, County policy, or departmental procedure relating to terms and conditions of employment.” J.A. 3374. The four-step escalated grievance process culminates in a formal hearing before the Northampton County Personnel Appeals Board. Id. at 3376-78. Following the hearing, the Board must issue to the parties a final written adjudication that contains the “findings and reasons as adopted by the majority of the Board.” Id. at 3378. Like the Home Rule Charter, the Grievance Policy contains no exceptions for employment actions taken as part of a reorganization or cost-driven layoff. Mancini, a career service employee, properly filed a grievance after receiving notice of her impending dismissal. She alleged wrongful discharge, unlawful discrimination, and violations of Northampton’s Career Service Regulations and Layoff Policy. She was therefore entitled to pursue her claims through the Northampton County grievance process.

Northampton boldly asserts that its Layoff Policy “does not offer a right to due process in response to a legitimate reorganization.” Br. of Northampton at 43. The Layoff Policy, however, does not provide the escape hatch Northampton seeks. It, too, entitled Mancini to due process. The Layoff Policy governs dismissals where the “County may need to institute a Reduction in Force (RIF, Layoff) due to economy, efficiency, restructuring, reorganization, or other related reasons.” J.A. 3380. By its own terms, the policy applies “to all County employees.” Id. The Layoff Policy permits employees to appeal a layoff to the Personnel Appeals Board on the grounds that the “Career Service Regulations were not followed, or that the decision to select this layoff unit was arbitrary, capricious, or a violation of law.” Id. at 3383. Mancini was therefore entitled under the policy to appeal her discharge precisely because the County called it a layoff. Mancini’s grievance specifically referenced violations of the Career Service Regulations as well as violations of the Layoff Policy. If, as Northampton maintains, Mancini was dismissed pursuant to a layoff, under the Layoff Policy she was entitled to a hearing on her claims. We reject Northampton’s selective reading of its own laws. We hold instead that those laws required the County to provide Mancini with a pretermination hearing.

* ❖ -\‘

In sum, we agree with the District Court that Northampton County is not entitled to a judgment that, as a matter of law, it was not required to provide Mancini with procedural due process prior to terminating her employment. We will therefore affirm the orders of the District Court denying Northampton’s motion for summary judgment and denying its post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial.

B. Attorney’s Fees

Over Northampton’s objection, the District Court awarded Mancini $186,018.60 in attorney’s fees and costs as the prevailing party under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Northampton argues that Mancini’s requested attorney’s fees were not reasonable because she “prevailed only minimally, on a single claim out of 15 available claims, receiving a jury award that was 5% of the damages requested.” Br. of Northampton at 55; see id. at 55-58; Reply Br. of Northampton at 31-32 (“Plaintiff was negligibly successful, recovering $94,232 where she had sought nearly two million dollars.”). The District Court reduced the fees by the amount Mancini’s counsel incurred preparing for oral argument on her post-trial motion ($1,627.67), and subtracted an additional $126 to adjust for a duplicative entry on a bill. After these adjustments, the District Court awarded Mancini her requested fees, explaining that “[t]he Supreme Court ... has expressly rejected the County’s proffered ‘mathematical approach.’ ” J.A. 37-8 (citing Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 435, n.11, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983)).

Under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, a “prevailing plaintiff’ in a civil rights action should ordinarily recover her attorney’s fees. See Hensley, 461 U.S. at 429, 103 S.Ct. 1933. A plaintiff is a “prevailing party” for the purposes of an attorney’s fee award if she succeeds “on any significant issue in litigation which achieves some of the benefit the parties sought in bringing suit.” Truesdell v. Phila. Hous. Auth., 290 F.3d 159, 163 (3d Cir. 2002) (quoting Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433, 103 S.Ct. 1933). Where a plaintiff does not succeed on every claim, the Supreme Court has rejected a fee calculation approach that compares the total number of issues in the case with the number of issues on which the plaintiff prevailed. See Hensley, 461 U.S. at 435 n.11, 103 S.Ct. 1933. Rather, where the plaintiffs claims involve a “common core of facts,” or are based on “related legal theories,” but the plaintiff obtained only partial or limited success, the district court may choose to reduce the award if a full compensatory fee would be unreasonable in consideration of the degree of success obtained. Id. at 435-36, 103 S.Ct. 1933. How to measure the degree of success is left to the district court’s discretion. Id. at 436-37, 103 S.Ct. 1933.

The District Court in this case held that Mancini’s claims all shared “a common core of facts” because “[a]ll three claims emerged from how and why Mancini was terminated from her employment.” J.A. 38. Furthermore, Mancini “prevailed on a crucial issue which informed inquiries into all three claims and occupied much of the trial testimony: The jury found she was a career service employee.” Id. The District Court therefore concluded that “although Mancini ultimately prevailed only on one claim and received a portion of the relief she sought, reduction would be inappropriate because her claims are interconnected'.” Id.

The District Court did not abuse its discretion. Mancini prevailed on her due process claim against Northampton as well as a central issue in the case. There was substantial overlap in the evidence required to prove Mancini’s due process, First Amendment, and equal protection claims, including the circumstances surrounding the creation of the full-time assistant solicitor positions and the decision to eliminate those positions and replace them with part-time assistant solicitors. The District Court considered the extent of Mancini’s success and made a reasoned judgment that the time Mancini’s attorneys spent on her unsuccessful claims did not warrant a reduced fee. Finding no abuse of discretion, we will affirm the District Court’s award of attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses.

IV.

For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment and we will dismiss Mancini’s cross-appeal.

      . Under the Pennsylvania Constitution, counties “have the right and power to frame and adopt home rule charters.” Pa. Const, art. IX, § 2. A county "which has a home rule charter may exercise any power or perform any function not denied by this Constitution, by its home rule charter or by the General Assembly at any time.” Id.; see 53 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2961.

      . The nine exemptions from the career service are:
      (1) all elected officials; (2) the heads of agencies immediately under the direction and supervision of the County Executive; (3) one confidential or clerical employee for each of the above officials, except for members of the County Council; (4) the Clerk of Council and the staff of the County Council; (5) the members of authorities, boards, and commissions; (6) permanent, part-time professional employees; (7) provisional, probationary, and temporary employees; (8) officers and employees required to be included in a state merit or civil service system; and (9) officers and employees whose inclusion in the career service would be prohibited by the law of Pennsylvania. J.A. 3325.

      . Mancini's equal protection claims were dismissed before the case was submitted to the jury and are not a subject of these appeals.

      . Mancini cross-appealed seeking a new trial on her First Amendment claims (Appeal No. 15-2873), but at oral argument before this Court she withdrew her appeal, agreeing with the Court that a second trial would be redundant. We therefore do not reach the issues she presented in her cross-appeal. In addition, even if Mancini had not withdrawn her cross-appeal, we have reviewed her arguments regarding her First Amendment claims and find those arguments unconvincing in view of the jury's factual determinations.

      . Evidence supporting a finding that the purportedly neutral, cost-driven reorganization was in fact pretext for targeting Mancini is discussed in the next section.

      . Northampton is incorrect in its view that the jury found that the reorganization of the Solicitor’s Office was legitimate. The jury found that Mancini’s political affiliation was not a substantial or motivating factor in the elimination of her position. However, this does not rule out a multitude of other improper bases for her termination, including the possibility that Northampton orchestrated a sham reorganization to target Mancini and circumvent the process she was due as a member of the career service.

      . Longenbach resigned as County Solicitor at the end of 2012. Daniel Spengler was appointed to serve the final year of Longen-bach's term.

      . In Whalen v. Massachusetts Trial Court, the First Circuit held that a "limited 'reorganization exception’ ” did not apply to a court clerk because his job performance and other individual qualifications were decisive factors in the decision of the Springfield District Court to terminate him during a deficit-driven layoff. 397 F.3d at 22-26. The First Circuit held that the Government violated Whalen’s due process rights because it targeted him, not his position, in the layoff. Id. at 25-26. Similarly, Mancini was one of only two people "reorganized” out of a job in the Solicitor's Office and there was evidence that the Defendants targeted her based on her individual qualifications and not her position.
      In Rodriguez-Sanchez v. Municipality of Santa Isabel, the First Circuit did permit the government to lay off employees during a reorganization without the process they were otherwise due, but the neutral reduction in force in that case bears little resemblance to the evidence Mancini presented. See 658 F.3d at 132. Rodriguez-Sanchez involved the claims of ninety-eight terminated employees of the Municipality of Santa Isabel, Puerto Rico. See id. at 129. An independent accounting firm determined that Santa Isabel’s $7 million deficit was largely due to the size of the city’s, workforce. Id. at 127, 130. There was no question that the system-wide layoff plan alleviated the deficit problem. Id. at 130. Significantly, the record in Rodriguez-Sanchez was devoid of evidence of pretext, and the mayor had no knowledge of the identities of the individuals selected for layoff. Id. at 130-31. The First Circuit was thus satisfied that Santa Isabel had engaged in a bona fide reduction in force in response to a deficit crisis. Id. at 130-32. Unlike the system-wide, identity-neutral layoff scenario the First Circuit confronted in Rodriguez-Sanchez, Mancini was one of only two solicitors laid-off for purported budgetary reasons, and her identity was well known to County Executive Brown. There was no independent evaluation of the cost-savings that would result from the Defendants' plan, and there was evidence that the Defendants considered Mancini's individual qualifications when selecting her for layoff.

      . The Layoff Policy applies to all County employees, “except where collective bargaining agreements, Pennsylvania State regulations, and/or State Civil Service regulations conflict,” but none of these exceptions are implicated here. J.A. 3380.

      . We note the irony of Northampton's argument that the Layoff Policy deprived Mancini of rights, when in fact, as discussed above, the policy enumerates the array of rights and privileges Northampton grants to full-time career service employees in the event of a reduction in force.

      . We also find no merit to Northampton's contention that Ness v. Marshall, 660 F.2d 517 (3d Cir. 1981), dictates the outcome of Mancini’s Due Process claims. Ness concerned the First Amendment rights of solicitors for the City of York, who, under that city’s administrative code, were political appointees and could be terminated at-will. Id. at 521-22. Contrary to Northampton's suggestion, we have never held that every town or county solicitor in Pennsylvania is employed at-will as a matter of law.

      .Northampton does not contest the reasonableness of Mancini's lawyers’ rates. See Br. of Northampton at 55-58. Northampton also does not contest the reasonableness of the award of costs and expenses. See id. These issues are therefore waived. See Laborers’ Int’l Union of N. Am., AFL-CIO, 26 F.3d at 398.


author: FUENTES, Circuit Judge.

text:
    Rashied K. GOODWIN v. Detective Edward CONWAY; Detective C. Lissner; Detective Randy Sidorski; John Does 1-10, unknown supervising officers in the Somerset Prosecutor’s Office Detective Edward Conway; Detective C. Lissner; Detective Randy Sidorski, Appellants
    No. 15-2720
    United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    Argued March 14, 2016
    (Opinion Filed: September 12, 2016)

      Eric S. Pasternack, [ARGUED], Lisa A. Puglisi, Office of Attorney General of New Jersey, P.O. Box 112, 25 Market Street, Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex, Trenton, NJ 08625 Counsel for Appellants.
    Catherine M. Aiello, [ARGUED], Natalie J. Kraner, Megan B. Treseder, Lowen-stein Sandler LLP, 65 Livingston Avenue, Roseland, NJ 07068, Counsel for Appellee.
    Before: FUENTES , CHAGARES, and RESTREPO, Circuit Judges

       Honorable Julio M. Fuentes assumed senior status on July 18, 2016.

   OPINION OF THE COURT

FUENTES, Circuit Judge.

Rashied Goodwin was arrested pursuant to a warrant for allegedly selling heroin to an undercover police officer. A grand jury indicted him but the charges were eventually dropped. Goodwin then brought this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution against the three detectives involved in securing his arrest warrant. He claims that the detectives submitted a false warrant application because they knew or should have known that he was in jail at the time of one of the undercover drug deals. He argues that his incarceration was evident from a booking sheet the detectives had when they applied for his arrest warrant. The detectives moved for summary judgment and asserted a qualified immunity defense.

The District Court denied the detectives’ motion, holding that there was a genuine dispute as to whether the detectives possessed the booking sheet when they submitted the warrant application, which precluded granting summary judgment on the issue of whether the detectives had probable cause to arrest Goodwin. According to the District Court, the detectives’ 'qualified immunity defense also hinged on this factual dispute.

At oral argument before this Court, defense counsel conceded that the detectives were indeed aware of the booking sheet before submitting the warrant application. The only issue we must decide is whether that booking sheet and any inferences derived therefrom preclude a finding of probable cause. We conclude that they do not. Despite the booking sheet, the detectives had probable cause when they applied for Goodwin’s arrest warrant, and they are therefore entitled to qualified immunity. Accordingly, we will reverse the order of the District Court.

I.

A.

In late September 2009, the Somerset County Organized Crime and Narcotics Task Force learned from a confidential informant that an individual known as “Snipe” was selling heroin in the Wat-chung/North Plainfield area of New Jersey. At some point during the week of September 27, 2009, Detective Lissner, acting undercover, accompanied the confidential informant to buy heroin from Snipe in a Sears parking lot in Watchung at approximately 3:30 p.m. Snipe approached Lissner’s car and handed the drugs to the confidential informant through the front passenger side window. Lissner asked Snipe if he could make future buys from him without the confidential informant present. Snipe said that was fine and gave Lissner his cell phone number. In his follow-up report, Detective Lissner described Snipe as a “black male.”

Through a series of phone calls and text messages, Detective Lissner set up a second buy from Snipe on October 16, 2009, again in the Sears parking lot. This time, Snipe sat down in the front passenger seat of Lissner’s car and handed Lissner the drugs. Following the exchange, Snipe drove out of the parking lot and headed towards Plainfield. Detective Lissner provided no physical description of Snipe in. his follow-up report.

Two other members of the Task Force, Detective Conway and Detective Sidorski, observed the drug deals from afar. No' pictures or videos of Snipe were taken. The most detailed physical description of Snipe is found in Detective Conway’s investigation report of the first buy: “black male, dark complexion, approximately 5'8, thin build, and approximately 30 years old.”

The Task Force worked to identify “Snipe.” They contacted Lieutenant O’Brien in the Plainfield Police Department, who advised the detectives that he knew “Snipe” as Rashied Goodwin. In his deposition, O’Brien testified that he had previously interacted with Goodwin “on the street,” and that the only person he knew who uses the alias “Snipe” is Goodwin.

On November 13, 2009, Detective Conway obtained a photograph of Goodwin from the Union County jail. His investigation report indicates that he reached out to staff at the jail because he learned that Goodwin had recently been arrested and was being held there. Detective Conway showed a copy of Goodwin’s photograph to Detective Lissner, who positively identified Goodwin as the “Snipe” who sold him drugs. Lissner then initialed and dated the photograph to confirm that he identified Goodwin as Snipe. In his deposition, Liss-ner testified that he “immediately recognized” the individual in the photograph as the person from whom he bought drugs, and that he would not have initialed the photograph unless he was “a hundred percent sure” about the identification.

The detectives prepared an affidavit of probable cause for Goodwin’s arrest'. The affidavit itself refers only to the second drug buy on October 16, 2009. But the affidavit was submitted with a packet of supporting documents that included, among other things: (1) the detectives’ investigation reports describing the first and second drug buys, (2) a supplementary investigation report explaining that the Plainfield Police Department indicated “Snipe” may be Rashied Goodwin’s alias and that Detective Lissner positively identified a photograph of Goodwin as Snipe, and (3) a copy of the photograph of Goodwin with Detective Lissner’s initials.

On November 25, 2009, a warrant was issued for Goodwin’s arrest. Because Goodwin was incarcerated on other charges at the time, Detective Conway faxed the arrest warrant to Union County jail as a detainer. Goodwin was unaware of these charges until the end of December 2009, when he was released from custody and then immediately rearrested. In January 2010, a grand jury returned an indictment for Goodwin, charging him with knowingly and purposefully distributing heroin, and with distributing heroin within I,000 feet of a school.

Some time after the indictment was issued, Goodwin told his public defender that he had been incarcerated from September 26, 2009 through [ ]. At the time Goodwin made this claim, his attorney did not know the date of the first drug buy because the investigation reports included with the affidavit state only that the first buy occurred “during the week of September 27, 2009.” Goodwin’s attorney asked the prosecutor for the exact date of the first drug buy, explaining that it was “essential to [his] client’s defense.” The prosecutor refused to disclose this information, however, in an attempt to protect the identity of the confidential informant. Rather than reveal the-informant’s identity, the prosecutor dropped the charges, and Goodwin was released from jail. The parties now agree that the date of the first drug buy was [ ].

The dispute in this case concerns a booking sheet from the Plainfield Police Department in Goodwin’s Somerset County case file. The booking sheet, which is undated, indicates that Goodwin was arrested and detained on September 26, 2009. Next to “Offender Disposition” is the word “JAILED,” and next to “Time bailed or released” is a blank line. The booking sheet describes Goodwin as a black male, 31 years old, five feet six inches tall, and 150 pounds. Notably, the sheet lists Goodwin’s nickname as “Snipe.”

B.

Goodwin brought this § 1983 action against Detective Conway, Detective Liss-ner, and Detective Sidorski (“Defendants”) for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. The crux of Goodwin’s claim is that Defendants omitted from the warrant application “potential alibi” information derived from the Plainfield booking sheet regarding his incarceration on the date of the first drug buy. Neither party disputes that the “Snipe” who sold drugs to the undercover officer in the first drug buy was the same “Snipe” who sold drugs in the second drug buy. Thus if Goodwin was incarcerated during the first drug buy, he could not have been the “Snipe” involved in the second drug buy.

Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that they had probable cause to arrest Goodwin and that, even if the court found no probable cause, they would still be entitled to qualified immunity. The District Court denied Defendants’ motion, and Defendants appealed.

II.

In this case, Defendants challenge the District Court’s conclusion that the existence of a particular factual dispute precluded summary judgment on the issue of whether Defendants had probable cause to arrest Goodwin. In our view, this is a legal issue, not a factual one. As we have explained, the factual dispute on which the District Court rested its opinion — whether Defendants possessed the Plainfield booking sheet before submitting Goodwin’s warrant application — is no longer in dispute and indeed, has been resolved in Goodwin’s favor. Nonetheless, because we conclude that the booking sheet was immaterial to the probable cause determination, we will reverse the District Court’s decision on the issue of qualified immunity.

III.

Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity unless their conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. Thus, to resolve a claim of qualified immunity, courts engage in a two-pronged inquiry: (1) whether the plaintiff has shown the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right was “clearly established” at the time of the official’s conduct. Here, Goodwin claims that Defendants arrested, detained, and initiated criminal proceedings against him without probable cause, in violation of the Fourth Amendment. A finding of probable cause is therefore a complete defense to Goodwin’s constitutional claims, and, accordingly, would entitle Defendants to qualified immunity.

“[P]robable cause to arrest exists when the facts and circumstances within the arresting officer’s knowledge are sufficient in themselves to warrant a reasonable person to believe that an offense has been or is being committed by the person to be arrested.” While the question of probable cause is generally left to the jury, a court may conclude that probable cause exists as a matter of law “if the evidence, viewed most favorably to [the nonmoving party], reasonably would not support a contrary factual finding.” “A ‘common sense’ approach [must be taken] to the issue of probable cause’ and a determination as to its existence must be based on the ‘totality of the circumstances.’ ”

A. False Arrest/Imprisonment

Goodwin’s main contention is that Defendants submitted a false warrant application and had no probable cause to arrest him. Specifically, Goodwin claims that the booking sheet that Defendants had in their possession made clear that he was in jail when the first drug sale to Detective Liss-ner took place. We note, however, that the supporting documents attached to the affidavit of probable clause included a detailed description of the investigation of “Snipe,” explained that another law enforcement officer indicated that “Snipe” may be Goodwin, and explained that Detective Lissner positively identified a photograph of Goodwin as “Snipe,” the person from whom he bought drugs. This information was sufficient to lead a reasonable person to believe Goodwin had .committed the offense.

The mere existence of an arrest warrant, however, does not shield an officer from liability for false arrest. In Wilson v. Russo, we explained that “a plaintiff may succeed in a § 1983 action for false arrest made pursuant to a warrant if the plaintiff shows, by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) that the police officer ‘knowingly and deliberately, or with a reckless disregard for the truth, made false statements or omissions that create a falsehood in applying for the warrant;’ and (2) that ‘such statements or omissions are material, or necessary, to the finding of probable cause.’ ” Omissions and misrepresentations are “material” if a reconstructed warrant application containing the alleged omissions and excising the alleged inaccuracies would no longer establish probable cause.

Goodwin does not argue that Defendants deliberately or recklessly omitted the booking sheet itself from the warrant application. Rather, he argues that the existence of the booking sheet — which Defendants concede they possessed before submitting the application — provides evidence from which a reasonable jury could infer that Defendants knew or should have known that Goodwin was incarcerated on the date of the first drug buy. Goodwin argues that had this “potential alibi” information been included in the warrant application, it would have seriously undermined a finding of probable cause.

Goodwin’s argument rests on two alternative assertions: (1) the booking sheet is plainly exculpatory, or (2) Defendants had a duty to further investigate Goodwin’s whereabouts on the date of the first drug buy. Both are unconvincing.

First, the booking sheet was not plainly exculpatory. We have explained that “[a]n officer contemplating an arrest is not free to disregard plainly exculpatory evidence, even if substantial inculpatory evidence (standing by itself) suggests that probable cause exists.” In Reedy v. Evanson, for example, we concluded that an officer disregarded plainly exculpatory evidence when he submitted an arrest warrant application that charged the defendant with falsely reporting a crime, yet knowingly omitted from the application the fact that a very similar crime occurred shortly after the crime he claimed the defendant had fabricated. We have also explained that, while a victim witness’s positive identification is usually sufficient to establish probable cause, plainly exculpatory evidence, such as conclusive DNA evidence of the suspect’s innocence, could outweigh that identification and preclude a finding of probable cause.

Here, by contrast, all the booking sheet shows is that Goodwin was incarcerated beginning on September 26, 2009. It does not say when he was released. The fact that the “time released” line is left blank is of no moment, since the document itself is undated. The detectives in this case simply could not infer from the booking sheet itself that Goodwin remained incarcerated through [ ], the date of the first drug buy.

Thus the fact that Defendants were aware of this booking sheet is insufficient to show that Defendants submitted the warrant application with a reckless disregard for the “truth” that Goodwin could not have been Snipe. To the contrary, the booking sheet supports the connection between Goodwin and Snipe because it lists Goodwin’s nickname as “Snipe.” The physical description of Goodwin in the booking sheet also closely matches the physical description of Snipe in Detective Conway’s investigation report. If anything, then, the booking sheet is inculpatory, and supports rather than undermines a probable cause determination.

Second, the booking sheet did not trigger a duty to further investigate Goodwin’s release date. We have explained that the reliability of information provided to officials may sometimes be questionable enough to “put a reasonable official on notice that further investigation [is] necessary.” Even so, the official may still rely on the information unless the further investigation “would give rise to an obvious reason to doubt the accuracy of the information,” so as to “render[ ] the [official’s] reliance upon that information unreasonably reckless.”

In light of the information Defendants had at the time, there was no reason for them to further investigate Goodwin’s release date. Another law enforcement officer unconnected to the investigation suggested that Snipe may be Rashied Goodwin, and Detective Lissner “immediately” made a positive photo identification of Goodwin. Goodwin makes much of the fact that Detective Lissner made this photo identification under “highly suggestivé” circumstances. While this argument may be relevant to evidence suppression at a criminal trial, it is not relevant to the probable cause determination here. Thus, Defendants had sufficient information in front of them to conclude that the drug dealer was Goodwin.

We note that it may be advisable for officers to investigate further in other circumstances. For example, if the officers possessed more concrete evidence that the suspect was released on the exact date of the crime he allegedly committed but were unsure of the exact time of release, or if there was no photo identification involved, further inquiry might be necessary. But here, all the booking sheet told Defendants was that Goodwin was in custody [ ] before the date of the first drug buy. While this may have raised suspicion as to Goodwin’s whereabouts around the time of the first drug buy, it did not undermine probable cause given the other information Defendants had in their possession at the time.

Because Goodwin has not set forth sufficient proof that Defendants deliberately or recklessly disregarded the truth when they submitted the warrant application to secure his arrest warrant, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on his false imprisonment claim.

B. Malicious Prosecution

Goodwin must also show lack of probable cause to prevail on his malicious prosecution claim. We have already held that probable cause existed here. Moreover, a grand jury issued an indictment against Goodwin for the same charges for which he was arrested, which “constitutes prima facie evidence of probable cause to prosecute.” Thus, Goodwin’s malicious prosecution claim likewise fails and Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

IV.

No one disputes that, had Defendants possessed and ignored plainly exculpatory evidence when submitting Goodwin’s warrant application, this would undermine if not eviscerate a finding of probable cause. But that is not the case here. The Plain-field booking sheet indicates that Goodwin was in custody [] before the date of the first drug deal in which he was allegedly involved. At most, then, the booking sheet raised suspicion as to Goodwin’s whereabouts around that time, but it did not trigger an obligation that Defendants confirm his release date given the other information they possessed at the time. Because we conclude that Defendants had probable cause to arrest and prosecute Goodwin, they are entitled to qualified immunity. Accordingly, we will reverse the District Court’s denial of Defendants’ claim for qualified immunity with direction to enter judgment in favor of Defendants.

      . App. 334.

      . Detective Conway observed both drugs deals, and Detective Sidorski observed the second drug deal. App. 332-38; App. 326 ¶ 61.

      . App. 333.

      . App. 256-57 (O'Brien Dep. 23:20-21, 25:2-5).

      . App. 153 (Lissner Dep. 119:3-5, 20-22).

      . Per agreement of the parties, the Court has redacted certain dates which appear as "[]" in this opinion.

      . App. 332. The week of September 27, 2009 ran from Sunday, September 27 through Saturday, October 3.

      . App. 302.

      . Although defense counsel conceded that the detectives possessed the booking sheet at the time they submitted Goodwin’s warrant application, it is unclear from the record whether the booking sheet was actually included in the application itself. As we will later explain, this ambiguity is irrelevant.

      . App. 340.

      . Id.

      . Id.

      . Id.

      . The District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. A “district court's denial of a claim of qualified immunity, to the extent that it turns on an issue of law, is an appealable 'final decision' within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291 notwithstanding the absence of a final judgment.” Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985). We may therefore decide an appeal challenging the district court’s decision on whether the defendant’s alleged actions violated a constitutional right or whether the right was clearly established. Id. at 528, 105 S.Ct. 2806. We may not, however, decide an appeal challenging the district court's determination of “evidence sufficiency, i.e., which facts a party may, or may not, be able to prove at trial.” Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 313, 115 S.Ct. 2151, 132 L.Ed.2d 238 (1995).

      . See, e.g., Plumhoff v. Rickard, - U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 2012, 2019, 188 L.Ed.2d 1056 (2014) ("[The defendants] contend that their conduct did not violate the Fourth Amendment and, in any event, did not violate clearly established law. Thus, they raise legal issues; these issues are quite different from any purely factual issues that the trial court might confront if the case were tried.”).

      . We exercise plenary review of orders rejecting qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage. Wright v. City of Philadelphia, 409 F.3d 595, 599 (3d Cir. 2005).

      . Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231, 129 S.Ct. 808, 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009).

      . Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 735, 131 S.Ct. 2074, 179 L.Ed.2d 1149 (2011).

      . The Fourth Amendment provides that people are “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, ... and no Warrants shall- issue, but upon probable cause....” U.S. Const, amend. IV.

      . Orsatti v. N.J. State Police, 71 F.3d .480, 483 (3d Cir. 1995).

      . Sherwood v. Mulvihill, 113 F.3d 396, 401 (3d Cir. 1997).

      . Paff v. Kaltenbach, 204 F.3d 425, 436 (3d Cir. 2000) (alterations in original) (quoting Sharrarv. Felsing, 128 F.3d 810, 818 (3d Cir. 1997)).

      . 212 F.3d 781 (3d Cir. 2000).

      . Id. at 786-87 (quoting Sherwood, 113 F.3d at 399).

        .Id. at 789.

      . Id. at 790 (quoting Kuehl v. Burtis, 173 F.3d 646, 650 (8th Cir. 1999)).

      . 615 F.3d 197 (3d Cir. 2010).

      . Id. at 223.

      . Wilson, 212 F.3d at 790.

      . United States v. Yusuf, 461 F.3d 374, 385 (3d Cir. 2006).

      . Id. at 386.

      . Id. at 385.

      . See, e.g., Robinson v. Cook, 706 F.3d 25, 34 (1st Cir. 2013) ("[W]e think it unwise to expand the Brathwaite framework [for unduly suggestive identifications] from 'a rule of evidence to a rule of damages’ by applying it in an arrestee’s civil suit alleging that probable cause was undermined by an unreliable identification.” (quoting Phillips v. Allen, 668 F.3d 912, 915 (7th Cir. 2012))).

      . Estate of Smith v. Marasco, 318 F.3d 497, 521-22 (3d Cir. 2003).

        .Rose v. Barde, 871 F.2d 331, 353 (3d Cir. 1989). Defendants argue that Goodwin’s grand jury indictment creates a- rebuttable presumption of probable cause for all of-his claims. But Goodwin’s arrest occurred before the indictment, pursuant to an arrest warrant. The presumption attaches only to the indictment and beyond, and thus has no bearing on an arrest that precedes the indictment. See, e.g., Jones v. Cannon, 174 F.3d 1271, 1285 n.8 (11th Cir. 1999) (explaining that "a subsequent grand jury indictment does not retroactively provide probable cause for a false arrest that had already taken place”).


author: VANASKIE, Circuit Judge.

text:
    UNITED STATES of America v. Adekunle Adetayo ADEOLU, a/k/a Archie Adekunle Adetayo Adeolu, Appellant
    No. 14-3610
    United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    Argued March 23, 2016
    (Opinion Filed: September 12, 2016)

      Karina D. Fuentes, Esq., [ARGUED], Office of Federal Public Defender, 1002 Broad Street, Newark, NJ 07102, Richard Coughlin, Esq., Office of Federal Public Defender, 800-840 Cooper Street, Suite 350, Camden, NJ 08102, Counsel for Appellant, Adekunle Adeolu,
    Jose R. Arteaga, Esq., [ARGUED], Emily McKillip, Esq., Zane David Memeger, Robert A. Zauzmer, Office of United States Attorney, 615 Chestnut Street, Suite 1250, Philadelphia, PA 19106, Counsel for Appellee, United States of America.
    Before: GREENAWAY, JR., VANASKIE and SHWARTZ, Circuit Judges
   OPINION

VANASKIE, Circuit Judge.

Appellant Adekunle Adeolu was the part-owner and office manager of a tax preparation company that prepared fraudulent tax returns by encouraging taxpayers to claim false dependents. Adeolu was ultimately convicted of conspiracy to defraud the United States and of aiding and abetting the preparation of materially false tax returns, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 and 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2). At sentencing, the District Court applied the vulnerable victim sentencing enhancement set forth in U.S.S.G. § 3Al.l(b)(l) based upon Adeolu’s fraudulent use of young children’s personal information. On appeal, Adeolu argues that the children were not vulnerable victims because they did not experience “actual” harm. We write to clarify that a showing of actual harm is not required under the vulnerable victim sentencing enhancement. Rather, our existing test for the application of this enhancement requires a “nexus” between the victim’s vulnerability and the crime’s success, a requirement clearly met in this case. We will therefore affirm the District Court’s application of this enhancement and the sentence it imposed.

I.

Adeolu’s tax preparation company employed approximately fifteen people and prepared fraudulent tax returns in two ways: by selling the taxpayer an individual’s personal information to fraudulently claim as the taxpayer’s dependent; or, by suggesting that the taxpayer fraudulently claim a dependent that the taxpayer personally knew. According to the District Court, the individuals who were fraudulently claimed as dependents ranged in age from one to eighteen years old, including a thirteen-year-old, nine-year-old, six-year-old, and five-year-old child. (App. 1111.) At sentencing, the District Court applied the vulnerable victim enhancement after finding that Adeolu stole these individuals’ personal information in order to file fraudulent tax returns, that these individuals’ youth gave rise to their vulnerability, and that they experienced tangible and intangible harm.

II.

Our review of the District Court’s legal interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines is plenary. United States v. Zats, 298 F.3d 182, 185 (3d Cir. 2002). We review the District Court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines for clear error. Id.

III.

On appeal, Adeolu argues that the vulnerable victim enhancement should not apply because the “minors did not suffer actual harm, such as loss of tax refund proceeds, a fine, or a negative mark on their credit score.” (Appellant Br. at 36.) Our Court, however, has never held that the vulnerable victim enhancement requires a showing of actual harm, whether financial or otherwise. Rather, our three-part test under United States v. Iannone, 184 F.3d 214, 220 (3d Cir. 1999), properly analyzes the “nexus” between a victim’s vulnerability and the success of the defendant’s criminal scheme, thereby encompassing any resulting harm to the victim and rendering an analysis of “actual” harm inconsequential.

A.

The vulnerable victim enhancement states: “If the defendant knew or should have known that a victim of the offense was a vulnerable victim, increase by 2 levels.” U.S.S.G. § 3Al.l(b)(l). Unlike oth■er enhancements, the vulnerable victim enhancement does not explicitly require a showing of harm. Cf. U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 emt. n.3(A) (discussing actual loss and intended loss). The application note to section 3Al.l(b)(l) explains that a “vulnerable victim” is someone who is: (1) “a-victim of the offense of conviction and any conduct for which the defendant is accountable under 1.3 (Relevant Conduct)”; and (2) “unusually vulnerable due to age, physical or mental condition, or who is otherwise particularly susceptible to the criminal conduct.” U.S.S.G. § 3A1.1 cmt. n.2. In light of these requirements, this Court applies a three-part test to determine the applicability of the vulnerable victim enhancement, addressing whether:

(1) the victim was particularly susceptible or vulnerable to the criminal conduct; (2) the defendant knew or should have known of this susceptibility or vulnerability; and (3) this vulnerability or susceptibility facilitated the defendant’s crime in some manner; that is, there was “a nexus between the victim’s vulnerability and the crime’s ultimate success.”

Zats, 298 F.3d at 186 (quoting Iannone, 184 F.3d at 220).

The enhancement does not define the word “victim,” but a victim is commonly understood to be someone who is “taken advantage of.” Victim, Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (1993). This definition is consistent with our prior interpretation of the vulnerable victim enhancement. In United States v. Monostra, we held that “the use of the words ‘susceptible’ and ‘vulnerable’ in § 3A1.1 indicates that the enhancement is to be applied when the defendant has taken advantage of the victim’s weakness.” 125 F.3d 183, 190 (3d Cir. 1997). To determine whether a defendant has taken advantage of a vulnerable victim, we examine whether “there was ‘a nexus between the victim’s vulnerability and the crime’s ultimate success.’” Iannone, 184 F.3d at 220 (quoting Monostra, 125 F.3d at 190). By requiring a “nexus” between the victim’s vulnerability and the defendant’s scheme, we assess whether a victim has been “taken advantage of’ in a manner that facilitates the defendant’s scheme. As such, an analysis of “actual” harm is inconsequential. Any issue regarding the victim’s harm is already encompassed within our analysis of the nexus between a victim’s vulnerability and the crime’s success.

Indeed, “the purpose of § 3A1.1, as we see it, is simply to acknowledge that, while most crimes are committed for other motives, in many instances defendants know or should know of their victim’s particular vulnerability and are therefore more blameworthy for knowingly or even negligently harming them.” United States v. Cruz, 106 F.3d 1134, 1139 (3d Cir. 1997). But a defendant is not more or less blameworthy for the purposes of this enhancement based on the amount of harm that a victim experiences. Applying the enhancement in such a manner would create a disparity in the punishments for defendants who are more successful (and cause more harm) and those who are less successful, despite displaying similar depravity. As the Second Circuit has explained, the interest in punishing a defendant’s depravity “is present regardless of whether a defendant who targets a vulnerable victim is ultimately successful; the ‘choice of victim demonstrates an extra measure of criminal depravity’ in either case.” Kimber, 777 F.3d at 564 (quoting United States v. Hershkowitz, 968 F.2d 1503, 1505 (2d Cir. 1992)). A contrary result would fail to punish a defendant’s reprehensible conduct and fail to protect vulnerable members of society by deterring future criminal conduct. See Zats, 298 F.3d at 188 (“Our objective is to provide extra deterrence for defendants who are especially likely to succeed in their criminal activities because of the vulnerability of their prey.”); Kimber, 777 F.3d at 564 (“The adjustment ‘reflect[s] the public interest in more severely' punishing those whose choice of victim demonstrates an extra measure of criminal depravity.’ ” (alteration in original) (quoting Hershkowitz, 968 F.2d at 1505)); United States v. Dupre, 462 F.3d 131, 144 (2d Cir. 2006) (“[A] sentencing judge should ‘focus not on the likelihood or extent of harm to the individual if the crime is successful, but on the extent of the individual’s ability to protect himself from the crime.’” (quoting United States v. O’Neil, 118 F.3d 65, 75 (2d Cir. 1997))).

In light of these policy considerations and our existing test requiring a “nexus” between the victim’s vulnerability and the defendant’s scheme, there is no need to require a separate showing of “actual” harm. See, e.g., United States v. Kennedy, 554 F.3d 415, 419, 423-25 (3d Cir. 2009) (finding that reimbursed ac-countholders were not “victims” under the fraud enhancement because they suffered no financial loss, but affirming the application of the “vulnerable victim” enhancement without an explicit analysis of whether the accountholders experienced harm). Therefore, we will continue to apply Ian-none’s three-part test to determine the applicability of this enhancement.

B.

We now turn to' our reidew of the District Court’s application of the vulnerable victim enhancement, which we review for clear error. Kennedy, 554 F.3d at 418. First, we agree that the victims here were “particularly susceptible or vulnerable to the criminal conduct.” Zats, 298 F.3d at 187 (quoting Iannone, 184 F.3d at 220). “Victims can be vulnerable for the reasons listed in the application note — age, physical or mental condition — or simply because one is ‘otherwise particularly susceptible to the criminal conduct.’ ” Id. at 187-88 (quoting U.S.S.G. § 3A1.1 cmt. n.2). To make this determination, we examine “the individual victims’ ability to avoid the crime rather than their vulnerability relative to other potential victims of the same crime.” Id. at 188 (quoting United States v. McCall, 174 F.3d 47, 51 (2d Cir. 1998)). Here, the individuals’ youth gave rise to their vulnerability and their inability to protect against Adeolu’s fraudulent scheme. Indeed, our society routinely recognizes the need to protect minors’ personal information by requiring redactions of their names, birthdays, and Social Security numbers. Given a child’s inability to guard against theft of personal information, we find that the first element of this test is satisfied.

Second, we also agree that Adeolu knew or should have known of the victims’ vulnerability. Because their ages were integral to qualifying as dependents, Adeolu knew or should have known that at least one of the children who was fraudulently claimed as a dependent was vulnerable due to age and inability to protect against his conduct. See id. at 190 (“[T]he Government need not prove that every, or even most, of Zats’ victims were vulnerable or that he knew or should have known of the vulnerabilities in every case. The language of the guideline requires only that ‘a victim of the offense was a vulnerable victim.’ ” (citation omitted) (quoting U.S.S.G. § 3Al.l(b)(l))).

Third and finally, we find that there was a “nexus” between the victims’ vulnerability and the success of Adeolu’s fraudulent scheme. Although the Sentencing Guidelines do not require that the defendant “target” the victim, “the enhancement may not be applied absent a showing that the victim’s vulnerability or susceptibility facilitated the defendant’s crime in some manner.” Monostra, 125 F.3d at 190. Here, Adeolu profited from the sale of his victims’ personal information and falsely listed them as dependents because of their youth, showing that Adeolu took advantage of the minors’ vulnerability in a manner that facilitated his criminal scheme. See id. at 191 (“The enhancement is applied not because the victim draws sympathy from us because of the infirmity, and we simply wish to express extra odium for the act. It is also because the infirmity rendered the victim susceptible to the crime committed upon him.”). Therefore, we will affirm the application of the vulnerable victim enhancement.

IV.

For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s application of the vulnerable victim and leadership enhancements and Adeolu’s overall sentence.

      . In affirming the sentence, we reject Adeo-hi’s challenge to the District Court's application of the four-level leadership enhancement under U.S.S.G. §3Bl.l(a) as well as his challenge to the substantive reasonableness of his sentence.

      . For example, Felicia Jones testified that she purchased a fraudulent dependent from a tax preparer at Adeolu's office for $1,000. Another individual, Lassey Mensáh, testified that he purchased a dependent for $800. Additionally, during an undercover investigation, an undercover agent told Adeolu that she did not have any dependents, but Adeolu nonetheless suggested that if she could claim a minor as a dependent, it would eliminate her tax burden. When the undercover agent later provided a minor's information to be falsely listed as a dependent, Adeolu prepared the tax return, which generated a tax refund for the undercover agent. During a separate investigation, another undercover agent told an employee that she did not have any dependents, so the employee suggested that she find one. When the agent returned several hours later, the agent said she was claiming her friend's child as a dependent, and an employee prepared her tax return listing this minor as her nephew.

      . Adeolu also argues that the minors cannot be considered vulnerable merely by virtue of their age. See Appellant’s Br. at 33. While "presumed vulnerabilities among broad classes of victims ... are disfavored,” they are not prohibited, Zats, 298 F.3d at 188, and may be appropriate based on the facts of a particular'case. The District Court's treatment of minors as a group is supported by the fact that minors as a class generally do not file their own tax returns (unless they are working), and are unlikely to check their tax status or monitor for identity theft. See United States v. Crispo, 306 F.3d 71, 83 (2d Cir. 2002) (concluding "class attributes can be sufficient if they make the finding of vulnerability beyond dispute” and thus generalizations were permitted with respect to a toddler’s ability to fend off a kidnapper). Moreover, even if we concluded an individualized determination as to each individual's vulnerability is preferred, the enhancement may be applied when there is a single vulnerable victim, and, as discussed herein, there was sufficient evidence from which the District Court could have concluded that a one-year-old child claimed as a dependent was "vulnerable” within the meaning of the enhancement. We thus conclude that there, was no error in the District Court’s finding of vulnerability across the group of affected minors in this case.

      . In this regard, our position is similar to the Second Circuit’s position on the vulnerable victim enhancement. See United States v. Kimber, 777 F.3d 553, 564 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 170, 193 L.Ed.2d 123 (2015) ("We have never held that actual infliction of harm is a prerequisite to the application of a vulnerable victim adjustment.”).

      . We have used the November 2010 version of this guideline, because this version was in effect at the time of Adeolu’s conviction in 2014. Although some of our cases analyze an earlier version of this guideline, any difference is inconsequential and does not alter our analysis. See Iannone, 184 F.3d at 220 n.5 (noting that the guideline's 1998 amendment "does not affect our analysis").

      . The application notes for the vulnerable victim enhancement also support our holding that a separate showing of actual harm is not required. The application notes explain that “[t]he adjustment would apply, for example, in a fraud case in which the defendant marketed an ineffective cancer cure or in a robbery in which the defendant selected a handicapped victim.” U.S.S.G. §3A1.1 cmt. n.2. Although this note highlights the difference between a vulnerable victim and the general population, the fraud example illustrates that focusing on whether a victim experienced harm would be misplaced. There, the enhancement applied because the defendant "marketed an ineffective cancer cure” without regard for whether the victim suffered financial loss, physical harm, or even potential harm stemming from the defendant’s conduct. This supports our understanding that courts should focus on the defendant’s exploitative conduct rather than the result of that conduct in determining the applicability of this enhancement. See Iannone, 184 F.3d at 220 (”[T]he note suggests that this enhancement is designed to apply where a defendant knowingly or recklessly exploits a victim’s vulnerability in order to facilitate his commission of the crime.”).

      . We will also affirm the District Court’s application of the four-level leadership enhancement, which is applied “[Of the defendant was an organizer or leader of a criminal activity that involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive.” U.S.S.G. §3Bl.l(a). We agree that testimony from an employee, Olug-boyega "Remi” Fisher, credibly establishes that Adeolu was the organizer of fraudulent activity involving at least five participants. Lastly, we will affirm the substantive reasonableness of Adeolu’s 56-month sentence. See Kennedy, 554 F.3d at 418 (reviewing the reasonableness of the defendant's overall sentence for abuse of discretion). The District Court indeed considered mitigating factors in determining Adeolu's sentence, such as his lack of criminal history, his familial and community support, and his intelligence. Thus, we will affirm the entirety of Adeolu’s sentence.