Court Opinion

ID: 9415618
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 19:03:11.057288+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:04.866290
License: Public Domain

ANDERSON, Chief Judge, concurring specially:
I concur in all of Judge Fay’s opinion in this very disturbing case, except to the extent that the opinion addresses the issue of whether Neal was acting under color of state law when he assaulted and raped Griffin. This issue was raised only by the City.1 Because we hold that the jury did not find the City liable for the rape, there is no need to address the City’s challenge relating to whether or not Neal was acting under color of law at that time. The jury found the City liable under § 1983 only for $500,000, and only for acts other than the rape (i.e., the sexual harassment excluding the rape). With respect to that issue, Judge Fay’s opinion clearly establishes both that Neal acted under color of law and that he acted pursuant to a policy or custom of the City.

. The probable explanation for Neal’s failure to raise the issue is because Neal was liable for the rape under several theories, including the state law claim of assault and battery.