Opinion ID: 788670
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Deprivation of a Constitutional right in the exercise of an official policy.

Text: 16 As a preliminary matter, we must determine whether the dress code is an official Hospital policy, for local governmental entities may be held liable under § 1983 only if deprivations of rights result from implementation of an official policy or custom. 17 It is thus error to assess liability to a local governmental unit for employment and personnel decisions made by officials who lack final policymaking authority in that area. 18 Here, the Hospital argues in its appellate brief that Durham, the supervisor who actually disciplined Herrera, has no policymaking authority, much less final policymaking authority. Therefore, urges the Hospital, no final policymaking authority was involved in the decision to suspend Herrera, so there can be no liability here at all. 17 The precedent relied on by the Hospital, however, addresses factual circumstances distinguishably different from those that frame the instant case. Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, for example, addresses when municipal liability may be imposed for a single decision by municipal policymakers. 19 Similarly, City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik deals with defin [ing] the proper legal standard for determining when isolated decisions by municipal officials or employees may expose the municipality itself to liability under § 1983. 20 Those cases, in other words, dealt with isolated acts that arguably were outside official policy; and, under such circumstances, it is appropriate to determine whether the state actor involved had final policymaking authority that would expose the municipality to liability. 18 It is well settled, however, that a municipality may be held liable if its official policies cause [its] employees to violate another person's constitutional rights. 21 In other words, a municipality may be held liable if it cause[s] a constitutional tort through `a policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision officially adopted and promulgated by that body's officers,' 22 even if that official policy is enforced by someone who has no final policymaking authority. This last fact does not change the character of the alleged injury or the policy under which that injury occurred; it is still an injury ... inflicted by a government's `lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy,' for which municipalities [can] be held liable. 23 The crucial question, therefore, is whether the dress code is an official policy of the Hospital, not whether the Hospital employee who enforced the terms of that policy had final policymaking authority. 19 That the Hospital's dress code is an official policy is not seriously contested. Instead, the Hospital misleadingly focuses on the decision-making authority of its employee, Durham. As Plaintiffs correctly point out, though, the dress code policy (1) was adopted by the Hospital's Administrator and its Dress Code Committee, (2) bears a policy number, MCH-1027, and (3) was officially revised in July 1999. Furthermore, some members of the Hospital's Board of Directors—the very entity identified by the Hospital as its official, final policymaker—stated in affidavit testimony that the dress code was valid and enforceable. And, finally, if the dress code was not an official policy or was otherwise invalid, the Hospital had several opportunities to disavow it during Herrera's disciplinary process, but never did. 20 These factors fully support the conclusion that, at the very least, the final policymaker identified by the Hospital (the Board) delegated the authority to establish the dress code to the Administrator. As the Supreme Court explained in Pembaur, if the Board delegated its power to establish final employment policy ... the [delegate's] decisions would represent county policy and could give rise to municipal liability. 24 We conclude that, at a minimum, such a delegation occurred in the instant case, and that the Administrator's establishment and promulgation of the dress code constitute official Hospital policy. 21