Opinion ID: 595259
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Evidence of a preexisting custom or practice.

Text: 27 Gillette also argued at trial that he was disciplined pursuant to a preexisting policy or custom of the City--namely, that public safety employees wishing to criticize emergency operations should be silent, cooperate, and complain later or risk disciplinary reprisals. To prevail on this theory, Gillette had to prove the existence of a widespread practice that ... is so permanent and well settled as to constitute a 'custom or usage' with the force of law. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. at 127, 108 S.Ct. at 926 (internal quotations omitted). A section 1983 plaintiff may attempt to 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. See McRorie v. Shimoda, 795 F.2d 780, 784 (9th Cir.1986). No such evidence was produced by Gillette. Nor did Gillette present evidence of a pattern of similar dismissals in violation of employees' First Amendment rights. In fact, there is no evidence in the record that any other City employee has ever been disciplined for publicly criticizing the handling of an emergency call. 28 Gillette also failed to present evidence that the City Manager or the City Council helped formulate or were aware that any such informal policy existed. When questioned at trial, the City Manager flatly denied that the City had a work now--grieve later policy. Additionally, Gillette did not present any evidence as to how long this alleged informal policy existed, which is a crucial element of the inquiry given the Supreme Court's emphasis that the practice be so permanent and well settled as to constitute a 'custom or usage' with the force of law. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. at 127, 108 S.Ct. at 926 (emphasis added) (internal quotations omitted). Fire Chief Hall did testify that remaining silent during an emergency and complaining later was a practice [among fire fighters] that we want to have followed. However, to infer from this statement that the City had an informal policy of disciplining or terminating fire fighters who did not follow this practice requires too large a leap. We therefore conclude that a reasonable jury could not have found that Gillette was terminated pursuant to an informal City policy of work now--grieve later. 29