Opinion ID: 716743
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Hiring Policy: Inadequate?

Text: 25 To prove that a hiring policy violated her rights under § 1983, Jane must show that (1) the hiring procedures were inadequate; (2) the school officials were deliberately indifferent in adopting the hiring policy; and (3) the inadequate hiring policy directly caused the plaintiff's injury. 27 With the awareness that stating a claim and proving it present substantially different tasks, we hold that Doe has stated a claim that the School Officials' hiring policies and procedures were inadequate and caused a violation of Doe's constitutional rights. 26 First, Doe's allegations that the School Officials failed to investigate the criminal records of prospective employees satisfies the inadequacy element. Common sense recommends--and state law demands--that, in the interest of the safety of school children, school officials investigate the criminal histories of prospective school employees. 28 The School Officials' total abdication of this responsibility constitutes a facially inadequate hiring process. 27 Second, the hiring inadequacies alleged here reveal a deliberate indifference to Doe's welfare. A hiring process demonstrates deliberate indifference, when it constitutes such recklessness or gross negligence as to amount to conscious indifference to the plaintiff's constitutional rights. 29 The School Officials cite two cases for the proposition that, at most, their hiring procedures represent merely negligent hiring practices. 30 The School Officials, however, disregard, or at least overlook, the following footnote in one of those cases: 28 [I]f a section 1983 claim may arise from egregious hiring practices ... we would ... require a plaintiff to establish actual knowledge of the seriously deficient character of an applicant or a persistent, widespread pattern of hiring policemen, for instance, with a background of unjustified violence. 31 29 Just as the histories of prospective police officers must be scrutinized routinely for violence or unlawful conduct in the interest of the public's safety, the criminal histories of prospective school employees must be scrutinized in the interest of students' safety. 30 Doe has alleged that one-third of the School's Staff in 1993 were convicted criminals, many of them violent criminals. Surely the District's hiring and giving the schoolhouse keys to even one convicted murderer constitutes the hiring of an applicant with seriously deficient character. When that is multiplied to the point that a significant fraction of the custodial staff--here, one-third--consists of convicted criminals, a persistent, widespread pattern of hiring school employees with a background of crime and violence is manifested. Doe has satisfied the second element of his hiring claim. 31 Third, a jury could reasonably conclude that when school officials hire a staff, one-third of whom are violent criminals, give those criminals the keys to the schoolhouse, and place them in constant contact with students, there is a real nexus between the hiring of these criminals-cum-custodians and the constitutional injuries suffered by victims like Jane. 32 We conclude that Doe has alleged a sufficient causal connection between the hiring process and Jane's injuries to defeat a motion to dismiss. 32 In sum, the egregious nature of the criminal records alleged, and the sheer number of Staff members alleged to have criminal records, move Jane's inadequate hiring claim beyond mere negligence and into the realm of a constitutional tort. Although surviving summary judgment, much less proving these allegations by a preponderance of the evidence, may be a daunting task, we cannot say that it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of her claim that would entitle her to relief. 33 33