The Seventh Circuit Struggles With Applying 'Monell'
Under a federal statute, Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, individuals may sue state officials for violations of constitutional rights.
July 14, 2020 at 09:25 AM
6 minute read
Under a federal statute, Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, individuals may sue state officials for violations of constitutional rights. As one example, pretrial detainees may assert jail officials acted with deliberate indifference to a serious risk of harm to their safety and well-being. Unlike under the common law, municipal employers cannot be held liable vicariously. Instead, local governments are responsible for constitutional violations only when actions pursuant to municipal policy caused the deprivation of rights. Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 691-92 (1978). A municipality may be held liable for constitutional torts resulting from the decisions of its legislative body or those supervisory officials whose acts are said to be those of the municipality. Liability can rest on an express policy or an established custom. Monell liability can also arise from inaction where the defendant was on notice that conduct was needed to avert a constitutional violation such that the failure to act is the equivalent of a decision to violate the constitution. A Monell plaintiff must also establish causation—the plaintiff must show the municipality's policy or custom was the moving force behind the injury.
In two recent cases, one decided en banc, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit explored the contours of Monell liability. J.K.J. v. Polk County, __ F.3d ___, 2020 WL 2563256 (7th Cir. May 15, 2020) (en banc), involved proven claims that a prison guard sexually assaulted two jail inmates repeatedly. A jury awarded substantial damages against both the individual defendant and the county. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the verdict against the individual; it set aside the verdict against the county based on Monell. Judge Scudder dissented on the Monell claim. On en banc review, the court reinstated the verdict against the county. Recognizing the respect afforded to jury verdicts, the court, in an opinion written by Judge Scudder, found sufficient evidence to sustain the jury's entire verdict. The court relied upon expert testimony addressing material gaps in the county's policies and the county's deficient training and prevention program, which amounted to deliberate indifference to the risk of harm. The court found ample evidence to support liability from the county's inaction in light of known risks of sexual assaults in jail.
No members of the court disagreed with the decision to affirm the judgment against the guard. Four members of the court, however, dissented from the decision to hold the county liable. Judge Easterbrook responded to the claim the county had failed to train guards. He concluded the constitution does not require compliance training; counties must instead avoid unconstitutional polices. Here, training would not have caused the jailor to comprehend the rule. The guard knew his action was illegal. To Judge Easterbrook, an employee's failure to comply with a policy is not grounds for Monell liability. Judge Brennan, who wrote the original panel opinion, also dissented, joined by two of his colleagues. He concluded the court's decision amounted to vicarious liability prohibited by Monell.
Four days later, a panel of the court issued its opinion in Hildreth v. Butler __ F.3d __, 2020 WL 2536620 (7th Cir. May 19, 2020). Plaintiff Hildreth is an Illinois prison inmate who has Parkinson's disease, for which he has been prescribed medicine. On three occasions, defendants failed to refill his prescription on time, causing him to experience withdrawal symptoms. He sued the prison's healthcare provider alleging a Section 1983 violation. The district court granted summary judgment, which the Seventh Circuit affirmed. (The suit was brought against a private healthcare provider the state of Illinois employs to provide prison health care. As a private entity performing governmental functions, the corporate healthcare provider is subject to Section 1983 liability. The Seventh Circuit has held that such private entities are entitled to Monell's limitation on respondeat superior.)
The court, in an opinion written by Judge Brennan and joined by another of the J.K.J. dissenters, found the evidence of policy insufficient to support liability. The practice of delaying filling prescriptions was not so pervasive as to amount to a policy. A policy requires "more than a showing of one or two missteps." The defendant's errors were insufficiently widespread, as they only involved the plaintiff, and they were insufficiently numerous, as he could only identify three occasions where his medicine had been delayed.
Judge Hamilton dissented. First, he observed that the implication of the court's ruling is to require broader and more intrusive discovery into prison practices in order to demonstrate the widespread and recurring nature of the allegations. Second, he concluded the plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence demonstrating the defendant's policies reflect deliberate indifference to serious medical need. The defendant failed to monitor prescription refills adequately to assure that mistakes did not result in harm to Plaintiff. As applied, its policies predictably resulted in harm, as shown by three failures over a period of 19 months, and the failure to establish adequate systems was sufficiently pervasive to amount to an actionable policy. To Judge Hamilton, Monell does not establish a bright line rule based on number of occurrences, such as "more than three." In this case, he found the evidence sufficient.
These cases demonstrate the difficulty in distinguishing a municipal policy from an individual act. Particularly where liability is alleged to result from inaction in the face of risk, the Monell standard presents substantial uncertainty that the Seventh Circuit continues to address. Judges in the Seventh Circuit appear divided on the application of this standard, notwithstanding the recent en banc decision intended to promote uniformity in the Court's decisions.
Michael T. Brody is a partner at Jenner & Block. Brody serves as co-chair of the firm's appellate and Supreme Court practice and co-chair of its class action practice.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDivided State Court Reinstates Dispute Over Replacement Vehicles Fees
5 minute readAm Law 200 Firm to Defend PUMA in Latest Quarrel Over Patented Shoe Technology
Apple Asks Judge to 'Follow the Majority Practice' in Dismissing Patent Dispute Over Night Vision Technology
Who Got the Work: 16 Lawyers Appointed to BioLab Class Action Litigation
4 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250