Opinion ID: 800677
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Alternative Theories of Liability in a Retaliation Claim

Text: There are two other possible paths for holding someone liable for retaliation relevant in this context: subordinate liability and supervisory liability. Individuals who aid in the implementation of an adverse action at the instructions of a superior will be liable along with their superior if they knew or should have known that the adverse action was unlawful. Thaddeus-X, 175 F.3d at 393 ([R]ejecting prison officers' argument that `since they did not have the authority to alter the [prisoner's security] classification, any consequence of that status cannot be their responsibility.' (quoting Villanueva v. George, 659 F.2d 851, 854 (8th Cir.1981) (en banc))). Because this stems from principles of agency, the plaintiff must establish that the superior intended to retaliate but only that the subordinate knowingly participated in the acts of the superior. Thaddeus-X, 175 F.3d at 393 (holding a subordinate's knowing participation in a superior's retaliatory conduct sufficient to give rise to liability of subordinate who merely executed the unlawful orders). Superiors and supervisors, on the other hand, are generally not liable for the acts of those whom they oversee. Respondeat superior is not a proper basis for liability under § 1983. McQueen v. Beecher Cmty. Sch., 433 F.3d 460, 470 (6th Cir.2006). Superiors may be liable, but only if they `either encouraged the specific incident of misconduct or in some other way directly participated in it.' Id. (quoting Shehee v. Luttrell, 199 F.3d 295, 300 (6th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 530 U.S. 1264, 120 S.Ct. 2724, 147 L.Ed.2d 988 (2000)). Having the right to control the offending employee is not enough, simply being aware of the misconduct is not enough, and even administrative approval of an action later found to be retaliatory, without more, is not enough. Id.; see also Siggers v. Campbell, 652 F.3d 681, 695 (6th Cir.2011) (granting summary judgment for warden who merely approved notices filed against the inmate). The supervisor must be said to have directly participated, encouraged, authorized or acquiesced in the claimed retaliatory acts to be liable under § 1983. Shehee, 199 F.3d at 300. Against this legal backdrop, we turn now to examining the acts and motivations of each of the named defendants.