that an employee can prevail against his or her employer, notwithstanding Collins, in state-created danger cases); Kaucher v. County of Bucks, 455 F.3d 418, 424-25, 431 (3d Cir.2006) (treating plaintiffs’ state created danger doctrine claim as separate and distinct from Collins); Ramos-Pinero v. Puerto Rico, 453 F.3d 48, 55 n.9 (1st Cir.2006) (assuming the state-created danger doctrine could be a theory of liability notwithstanding Collins, but rejecting plaintiffs’ claim on the merits); Gormley, 93 A.3d at 362-63 (concluding that the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity, rejecting the defendants’ reliance on Collins, and holding that the state-created danger doctrine applied). But see Slaughter v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 682 F.3d 317, 321-23 (4th Cir.2012) (<HOLDING>). 4. Applying the State-Created Danger
holding that even though plaintiffs claim was barred by the cgia because it sounded in tort attorney fees were not appropriate where it was a contract claim that was pleaded and thus a contract claim that was dismissed holding age discrimination claim barred holding ftca claim barred bivens claim the moment judgment was entered against the government holding that collins barred a plaintiffs claim against a fire department even though plaintiff raised a statecreated danger claim holding disability discrimination claim barred