Opinion ID: 783348
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Defendant Richardson

Text: 37 Finally, we turn to Ottman's claim that Richardson violated her right to equal protection by creating a hostile work environment. Richardson told Ottman women do not belong in the workplace and women should be barefoot and pregnant. Moreover, Richardson remarked to Ottman, he would never let a woman drive him in a car. Richardson also told Ottman the reason he left his former employer was because a woman was promoted ahead of him. Ottman alleged Richardson made sexist remarks on a weekly, if not daily, basis. 38 To establish liability against Richardson in his individual capacity, Ottman must establish Richardson acted under color of state law, and Richardson deprived Ottman of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or federal law. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Roe v. Humke, 128 F.3d 1213, 1215 (8th Cir.1997). [A] defendant in a § 1983 suit acts under color of state law when he abuses the position given to him by the State. Id. (citation omitted). A clear nexus must exist between the defendant's official conduct and the violation of the plaintiff's rights. See S.J. v. Kansas City Mo. Pub. Sch. Dist., 294 F.3d 1025, 1028 (8th Cir.2002) (absent some nexus between teacher's governmental role and violation of student's rights, section 1983 claim against the individual teacher must fail). 39 Mere employment by a state or municipality does not automatically mean that a defendant's actions are taken under the color of state law. Kern v. City of Rochester, 93 F.3d 38, 43 (2d Cir.1996) (citing Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 319-20, 102 S.Ct. 445, 70 L.Ed.2d 509 (1981)). The Tenth Circuit has rejected the contention that co-worker harassment was done under color of law when the harassment did not involve use of state authority or position. Woodward v. City of Worland, 977 F.2d 1392, 1400 (10th Cir.1992) (citing cases). The dispositive issue is whether the defendant acted pursuant to power he or she possessed by state authority. Edwards v. Wallace Cmty. Coll., 49 F.3d 1517, 1523 (11th Cir.1995). 40 When the alleged harassment does not involve the use of either state authority or position, courts have declined to find co-workers liable under section 1983. Id.; Woodward, 977 F.2d at 1400 (defendant law enforcement officers were not liable under section 1983 for sexually harassing dispatchers employed by a separate employer); Hughes v. Halifax County Sch. Bd., 855 F.2d 183, 186-87 (4th Cir.1988) (co-workers were not acting with state authority when they taunted plaintiff and performed a mock hanging of plaintiff); Murphy v. Chicago Transit Auth., 638 F.Supp. 464, 468 (N.D.Ill.1986) (staff attorneys who sexually harassed fellow staff attorney were not liable pursuant to section 1983). Here, the summary judgment facts clearly establish Richardson was a co-worker with no supervisory control or authority over Ottman. Because Richardson was a private actor, he is not liable pursuant to section 1983. See Edwards, 49 F.3d at 1523; Woodward, 977 F.2d at 1400-01.