not entitled to qualified immunity because she has alleged a violation of the Equal Protection Clause and the Individual Defendants had fair warning that their sexual orientation-based discrimination constituted an equal protection violation. (Opp’n at 3:27-12:6.) 1. Plaintiff Has Alleged Defendants’ Violation of a Constitutional Right. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that her rights under the Equal Protection Clause were violated when she was prohibited from participating in a class on the basis of her sexual orientation. (Complaint ¶¶ 18-20.) The Supreme Court has held that arbitrary discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation violates the Equal Protection Clause, as have courts in this circuit. See Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 635, 116 S.Ct. 1620, 134 L.Ed.2d 855 (1996) (<HOLDING>); High Tech Gays v. Defense Industrial Security
holding that an amendment to the colorado constitution that repealed all local and statewide laws prohibiting sexualorientation discrimination violated the federal equal protection clause holding that the state law violated equal protection principles holding that the due process clause contained in the colorado constitution encompasses a guarantee of equal protection holding state constitutional amendment prohibiting civilrights protections for gays lesbians and bisexuals violated equal protection clause holding that a colorado amendment prohibiting legislative judicial or executive action designed to protect gays and lesbians from discrimination violated the equal protection clause