basis of race and the right to be free from retaliation for complaining about general workplace racial discrimination were clearly established at the relevant times. They argue, however, that even assuming their conduct in demoting and discharging Johnson was based in part on unlawful discriminatory and retaliatory motives, their conduct was nonetheless “objectively reasonable” since it also was based on indisputable and adequate lawful motives as well — specifically, Johnson’s admitted failure to obey a direct order at a major fire scene and repeated lies during his disciplinary hearings. The defendants rely primarily on Foy, 94 F.3d at 1528, to support their argument. In Foy, the parents of children remove ousing Dev., 429 U.S. 252, 269-71, 97 S.Ct. 555, 565-66, 50 L.Ed.2d 450 (1977)(<HOLDING>). See id. at 1536. While their conduct may have
holding that a state official can be held individually hable under  1983 for acts taken within the scope of his or her official duties holding that the official charged with responsibility to act must be an official within the doj with the authority to act in the circumstances holding that state official can act lawfully even when motivated by hostility toward a certain protected class holding that state official can act lawfully even when motivated by a dislike for protected behavior holding that home confinement may not be credited toward official detention