The federal appeals court based in Denver agreed on Monday that an Aurora city council member had not shown a violation of her constitutional rights occurred when she became the subject of a social worker’s false report of child abuse.

Councilwoman Danielle Jurinsky sued Arapahoe County, the department of human services and Robin Niceta, who was criminally convicted last year for prompting an investigation into Jurinsky with her untrue tip. Jurinsky alleged the defendants’ actions violated her rights to due process and equal protection under the law.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit concluded Jurinsky’s allegations fell short, however, because an investigation alone did not violate her rights. Moreover, Jurinsky had not demonstrated how she was treated less favorably than others in similar circumstances.

“Although the amended complaint alleged serious misconduct, it was deficient under the theories of liability Ms. Jurinsky wished to pursue,” wrote Judge Scott M. Matheson Jr. in the Oct. 7 order.

Jurinsky’s lawsuit described how Niceta, in January 2022, made an anonymous call to the human services department to report Jursinky had sexually abused her young son. The department contacted Jurinsky shortly afterward, and she responded the report was likely an act of retaliation against her. Jurinsky had been a vocal critic of then-police Chief Vanessa Wilson, who had a romantic relationship with Niceta.

Jurinsky further alleged Niceta attempted to have the investigation assigned to her.

The lawsuit was intended as a class action on behalf of all children, parents and caretakers whose constitutional rights the county violated, with Jurinsky as the named plaintiff.

Last September, U.S. District Court Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, relying on two main justifications. First, Jurinsky’s federal claim required Niceta to be acting “under color of state law,” and Brimmer saw no indication Niceta’s act of false reporting was exclusively an official act.

“Interfering with an investigation and altering, destroying, or fabricating evidence are plainly not part of a caseworker’s official duties. Instead, these actions fall within the gambit of Ms. Niceta’s personal pursuits,” he wrote.

Second, Jurinsky “has cited no case holding that a plaintiff may bring a constitutional claim based on an inadequate investigation if the government took no action based on the inadequate investigation,” like filing a child neglect case or removing a child from the home, Brimmer added.

Jurinsky appealed to the 10th Circuit, arguing that even without the initiation of child neglect proceedings, the government defendants’ preliminary steps interfered with Jurinsky’s “family unit.”

“The anonymous report should have been declared unfounded immediately, due to its impossibility and the false information provided, but ACDHS recklessly pushed forward for weeks, and did interfere with Ms. Jurinsky’s rights,” wrote attorney Kristi Burton Brown.

The 10th Circuit panel declined to engage with Brimmer’s conclusion that Niceta was not acting pursuant to her official duties. Instead, it agreed that an investigation alone was not the basis of a constitutional due process violation.

“Ms. Niceta’s call triggered an investigation, but ACDHS contacted Ms. Jurinsky to assess the call’s credibility. In doing so, it avoided interference with the familial relationship,” wrote Matheson.

He added that Jurinsky also failed to show how other potential class members were similarly situated to her, but treated differently.

Neither Jurinsky’s lawyer nor the county immediately provided a comment. While the appeal was pending, Niceta was sentenced to four years in prison for the false report.

The case is Jurinsky v. Arapahoe County Department of Human Services et al.