Opinion ID: 710090
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Policy or Practice of Differential Treatment of Domestic

Text: 11 Violence Calls. 12
13 Under Monell v. Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 691, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 2035, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978), municipalities may not be held liable under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 unless action pursuant to official municipal policy of some nature caused a constitutional tort. The Supreme Court made clear that in addition to an official policy, a municipality may be sued for constitutional deprivations visited pursuant to governmental 'custom' even though such custom has not received formal approval through the [governmental] body's official decisionmaking channels. Id. at 690-91, 98 S.Ct. at 2035; see also Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 481-82 n. 10, 106 S.Ct. 1292, 1299-1300 n. 10, 89 L.Ed.2d 452 (1986). 14 Proof of random acts or isolated events is insufficient to establish custom. Thompson v. City of Los Angeles, 885 F.2d 1439, 1444 (9th Cir.1989). But a plaintiff may prove the existence of a custom or informal policy with evidence of repeated constitutional violations for which the errant municipal officials were not discharged or reprimanded. Gillette v. Delmore, 979 F.2d 1342, 1348 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct. 345, 126 L.Ed.2d 310 (1993). Once such a showing is made, a municipality may be liable for its custom irrespective of whether official policy-makers had actual knowledge of the practice at issue. Thompson, 885 F.2d at 1444. 3 15 The Navarros claim that the County carried out a policy and practice of not treating 911 requests for assistance relating to domestic violence as emergency calls. The Navarros rely primarily on the deposition of Helen Pena, the 911 dispatcher who answered Maria Navarro's call. In her deposition, Helen Pena testified that it was the practice of the Sheriff's Department not to classify domestic violence 911 calls as Code 2 or emergency procedure calls. See Deposition of Helen Pena (5-13-93) at 32-33. 4 Ms. Pena also testified that dispatchers were not instructed to treat domestic violence calls as emergencies, that there were no clearly delineated guidelines for responding to domestic violence calls, and that as such, the dispatchers were allowed to exercise unbridled discretion. Id. at 40-42. 16 The County points out that Helen Pena testified that there was no written policy or procedure that precluded dispatchers from sending a patrol car to the scene of an impending domestic violence crime, nor any policy or procedure that accorded domestic violence 911 calls less priority than non-domestic violence calls. However, this testimony does not contradict Ms. Pena's admission that it was the practice of the Sheriff's Department not to classify domestic violence calls as an emergency. Because there was no conclusive evidence that the Sheriff's Department has a policy of refusing to send a squad car to non-domestic crimes not yet in progress, or of only treating crimes in progress as emergencies, a practice of not treating domestic crimes as emergencies may have been the cause of the failure to send a squad car to assist Navarro. See City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 391, 109 S.Ct. 1197, 1206, 103 L.Ed.2d 412 (1989) (stating that Sec. 1983 liability only attaches if the municipal practice actually caused the constitutional violation). The fact that dispatchers readily send patrol cars to crimes in progress regardless of their domestic or non-domestic nature also does not refute Ms. Pena's testimony regarding the general practice of the Department not to treat domestic violence calls as an emergency. Finally, the County's defense that the discretion to send a patrol car rests with each dispatcher is not dispositive of the question whether the dispatchers in practice fail to respond to domestic violence calls unless a crime is in progress. 17 Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e) provides that in opposing a motion for summary judgment, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the adverse party's pleadings, but ... must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. The Navarros have satisfied this requirement. Ms. Pena's testimony that dispatchers in practice treat domestic violence calls differently from non-domestic violence calls, if proved, could establish the County's liability under Monell. We must view the Navarro's evidence in the light most favorable to them, the nonmoving party, Jesinger, 24 F.3d at 1130; thus, the district court erred in concluding that there were no genuine issues of material fact as to whether the County had a policy or custom of not classifying domestic violence calls as an emergency. 18
19 The County argues that even assuming that it had a policy of affording victims of domestic violence less police protection than other crime victims, there was no evidence that discrimination against women was a motivating factor behind the administration of the alleged policy. 20 The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment states: No State shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Gender-based classifications must pass the intermediate scrutiny test, i.e., the classification must serve important governmental objectives and must be substantially related to achievement of those objectives. Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 197, 97 S.Ct. 451, 456, 50 L.Ed.2d 397 (1976); see also Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan, 458 U.S. 718, 724, 102 S.Ct. 3331, 3336, 73 L.Ed.2d 1090 (1982). 21 The Navarros contend that the County's custom of treating domestic violence 911 calls differently from non-domestic violence calls impermissibly discriminates against abused women. The custom of according different treatment to victims of domestic violence is gender-neutral on its face. However, it is well established that discriminatory application of a facially neutral law also offends the Constitution. See Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 362-63, 6 S.Ct. 1064, 1068, 30 L.Ed. 220 (1886) (invalidating ordinance which banned the operation of laundries in wooden buildings because all laundromats owned by Chinese operators were housed in wooden buildings). 22 Nevertheless, a long line of Supreme Court cases make clear that the Equal Protection Clause requires proof of discriminatory intent or motive. See, e.g., Personnel Adm'r of Mass. v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256, 279-80, 99 S.Ct. 2282, 2296-97, 60 L.Ed.2d 870 (1979) (finding no evidence that state intended to discriminate against women by granting lifetime preference to veterans for civil service positions, even though over ninety-eight percent of veterans in state were male); Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 270-71, 97 S.Ct. 555, 566, 50 L.Ed.2d 450 (1977) (finding no evidence that city intended to discriminate against racial minorities by refusing to rezone property from single-family to multiple-family units, even though most minorities can only afford multiple-family units); Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 242, 96 S.Ct. 2040, 2049, 48 L.Ed.2d 597 (1976) (Disproportionate impact is not irrelevant, but is not the sole touchstone of an invidious racial discrimination....); Geduldig v. Aiello, 417 U.S. 484, 496-97 & n. 20, 94 S.Ct. 2485, 2491-92 n. 20, 41 L.Ed.2d 256 (1974) (exclusion of disability that accompanies normal pregnancy and childbirth from insurance system did not constitute invidious discrimination, absent evidence that pregnancy was a pretext to effect discrimination against women). 23 In Arlington Heights, the Supreme Court articulated some of the other evidence in addition to disproportionate impact that can establish discriminatory intent. Such evidence includes [t]he historical background of the decision ... particularly if it reveals a series of official actions taken for invidious purposes, irregularities in the passage of legislation such as departures from normal procedural sequence, and legislative or administrative history such as contemporary statements by members of the decisionmaking body, minutes of its meetings, or reports. 429 U.S. at 266-67, 97 S.Ct. at 563-64. 5 24 In Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department, 901 F.2d 696 (9th Cir.1990), we found that the plaintiff, a victim of domestic violence who sued the police for failing to protect her, alleged sufficient facts to suggest animus against her because she is a woman. We pointed out, for example, that the officer who responded to one of her complaints stated that he did not blame her husband for hitting her because of the way she was carrying on. Id. at 701. In the present case, however, aside from the conclusory allegation that the County's custom of not classifying domestic violence calls as an emergency discriminates against abused women, the Navarros have failed to offer any evidence of such invidious intent or motive. See Hynson v. City of Chester, Legal Dep't, 864 F.2d 1026, 1031 (3d Cir.1988) (finding domestic violence and non-domestic violence categories used by police in administering law insufficient to raise claim for gender-based discrimination absent showing of intent to discriminate against women); Watson v. City of Kansas City, 857 F.2d 690, 697 (10th Cir.1988) (same). 25 Nevertheless, even absent evidence of gender discrimination, the Navarros' equal protection claim still survives because they could prove that the domestic violence/non-domestic violence classification fails even the rationality test. Unless a statute employs a classification that is inherently invidious (such as race or gender), or that impinges on fundamental rights, we exercise only limited review. Schweiker v. Wilson, 450 U.S. 221, 230, 101 S.Ct. 1074, 1080, 67 L.Ed.2d 186 (1981). At a minimum, however, the Supreme Court consistently has required that legislation classify the persons it affects in a manner rationally related to legitimate governmental objectives. Id. Although we may not substitute our personal notions of good public policy for those of the legislature, the rational-basis standard is not a toothless one. Id. at 234, 101 S.Ct. at 1082 (quoting Matthews v. Lucas, 427 U.S. 495, 510, 96 S.Ct. 2755, 2764, 49 L.Ed.2d 651 (1976)). 26