Opinion ID: 71935
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: application of the monell

Text: STANDARD TO THIS CASE 32 In this case, there is no question that the Civil Service Board had the authority to review the decision of Barrett and Younger to terminate Scala. In fact, Scala concedes that [t]he Board had the power to review the City Manager's decision. That concession is hardly surprising, given that: (1) the governing city regulations provide for such review; (2) the Board did actually review the termination decision in this case; and (3) Scala had previously used the Board's review procedures to his benefit, when he convinced the Board to reverse his earlier demotion. 33 Despite the power vested in the Board to review termination decisions within the fire department, Scala contends that either Barrett or Younger, or both, should be considered final policymakers. He argues that Barrett and Younger are final policymakers, because their decisions are not automatically reviewed by the Board; an employee has to appeal to the Board before it will take any action to review decisions made by the appointing authorities. However, that is essentially the same argument that the Praprotnik plurality rejected, and that this Court rejected in Manor Healthcare. See Praprotnik, 485 U.S. at 130, 108 S.Ct. at 928 (explaining that the mere failure to investigate the basis of a subordinate's discretionary decisions does not amount to a delegation of policymaking authority); Manor Healthcare, 929 F.2d at 638 (Manor cannot now contend that the city council would have deferred to [the mayor's] judgment on all zoning issues since Manor failed to trigger the city council's authority.). 3 34 In contending that the absence of automatic administrative review transforms Barrett or Younger into final policymakers, Scala makes no effort to distinguish Praprotnik or Manor Healthcare. Instead, he relies on a pre-Praprotnik, pre-Pembaur case from this circuit, Wilson v. Taylor, 733 F.2d 1539 (11th Cir.1984). As Scala correctly points out, we held in Wilson that even where an appellate process exists to review an official's decision, that official may be held to exercise final authority within the city. Id. at 1546. It is also true that in Wilson, we found it significant that an appeal did not automatically follow a police chief's termination decision. Id. The trouble with Scala's argument, however, is that Wilson is no longer good law, in light of Pembaur, Praprotnik, and their progeny in this circuit. 4 35 In light of Praprotnik and this circuit's precedents applying the principle it announced, it is clear that Barrett and Younger do not become final policymakers for § 1983 purposes simply because persons who disagree with their decisions have to file an appeal in order to have those decisions reviewed. The City's governing documents provide employees with an opportunity for meaningful administrative review of termination decisions at the fire department, and there is no evidence that the Board merely rubber-stamps the decisions of the appointing authorities. In fact, Scala's own prior experience with the Board demonstrates to the contrary, because Scala was able to convince the Board to reverse the demotion he had received in an earlier disciplinary proceeding. 36 Because the City Civil Service Board has the power to reverse any termination decision made by Barrett or Younger, neither of them is a final policymaker with respect to termination decisions at the fire department. The Board reviewed Scala's termination. The result was an affirmance, but there is no evidence (and Scala does not even allege) that the Board's decision approved any improper motive that Barrett or Younger may have had. See Hill v. Clifton, 74 F.3d 1150, 1152 (11th Cir.1996) (affirming summary judgment for city in § 1983 employment case where plaintiff presented no evidence that the city's reviewing authority approved any improper motive underlying the plaintiff's demotion). Accordingly, the district court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of the City. 5