Monell Liability

Can a municipality, local government unit, or local government official be subject to liability for violation of civil rights? Here’s my point of view (NOTE: please read our DISCLAIMER before proceeding).

SECTION 1983

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (§ 1983) –Civil Action For Deprivation of Rights– a plaintiff must not only allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, the plaintiff must also show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a “person” acting under color of state law.  West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48, 108 S.Ct. 2250, 101 L.Ed.2d 40, 56 USLW 4664 (1988) (citation omitted) (quotation marks omitted).  

If a defendant’s conduct satisfies the state action requirement of the Fourteenth Amendment, that conduct is also action under color of state law and will support a suit under §1983.  Id. at 49 (quotation marks omitted).

MUNICIPALITIES, LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS, 
AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS

Under § 1983 –which imposes liability upon every person who, acting under color of the law of any state or territory or the District of Columbia, causes a deprivation of federal rights– municipalities, local government units, and local government officials sued in their official capacities are “persons” and can be subject to liability.  14A C.J.S. Municipalities § 433 (citing Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S. Ct. 2018, 56 L. Ed. 2d 611 (1978); 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983; 14A C.J.S. Official Capacity Actions, § 445 (2006) (citing Monell, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S. Ct. 2018, 56 L. Ed. 2d 611 (1978)).  And a municipal official under a § 1983 action in his or her official capacity is treated as an action against the municipality entity itself.  14A C.J.S. Official Capacity Actions, § 445 (2006) (citations omitted).

MONELL LIABILITY

In order to establish Monell liability against municipalities, local government units, and local government officials sued in their official capacities, a plaintiff must show a constitutional right violation resulting from either (A) an employee acting pursuant to an expressly adopted official policy; (B) an employee acting pursuant to a longstanding practice or custom; or (C) an employee acting as a “final policymaker.”  Delia v. City of Rialto, 621 F.3d 1069, 1081-82 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Webb v. Sloan, 330 F.3d 1158, 1164 (9th Cir.2003); see Ulrich v. City & County of San Francisco, 308 F.3d 968, 984-85 (9th Cir.2002); Gillette v. Delmore, 979 F.2d 1342, 1346-47 (9th Cir.1992)) (quotation marks omitted).

Learn More

If you would like to learn more, then consider contacting an experienced Washington State Employment Discrimination Attorney as soon as possible to discuss your case. Please note: the information contained in this article is not offered as legal advice and will not form an attorney-client relationship with either this author or Williams Law Group, PS; please see our DISCLAIMER.

–gw

Popular Posts