ABSTRACT
CAPSULE: A municipality may be held liable in a Section 1983 lawsuit and cannot claim the good faith defense. FACTS: The City Council of Independence, Missouri, decided that reports of an investigation of the police department should be released to the news media and turned over to the prosecutor for presentation to the grand jury, and that the city manager take appropriate action against the persons involved in the wrongful activities. Acting on this, the city manager dismissed the chief of police. No reason was given for the dismissal. The chief of police received only a written notice stating that the dismissal was made in accordance with a specified provision of the city charter. The chief of police filed a Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit against the city manager and members of the city council, alleging that he was discharged without notice of reasons and without a hearing, thereby violating his constitutional rights to procedural and substantive due process. ISSUE: Are municipalities and municipal officials entitled to the “good faith” defense if a right is violated while officials are following the provisions of a city policy or custom? NO. SUPREME COURT DECISION: A municipality has no immunity to liability under Section 1983 flowing from violations of an individual’s constitutional rights and, may not assert the “good faith” defense that is available to police officers. REASON: “We believe that today’s decision, together with prior precedents in this area, properly allocates these costs among the three principals in the scenario of the Section 1983 cause of action: the victim of the constitutional deprivation; the officer whose conduct caused the injury; and the public, as represented by the municipal entity. The innocent individual who is harmed by an abuse of governmental authority is assured that he will be compensated for his injury. The offending official, so long as he conducts himself in good faith, may go about his business secure in the knowledge that a qualified immunity will protect him from personal liability for damages that are more appropriately chargeable to the populace as a whole. And the public will be forced to bear only the costs of injury inflicted by the ‘execution of a government’s policy or custom, whether made by
its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy.’” CASE SIGNIFICANCE: The Owen case makes clear that the municipality may be liable if a person’s constitutional right is violated (in this case the right to due process prior to dismissal) by public officials who are acting in accordance with agency policy. Because they were acting in accordance with the provisions of the city charter, the city manager and members of the city council enjoyed a “good faith” defense, but the city did not. The implication is that municipalities must make sure that their policy does not violate individual rights. The fact that something is official policy does not mean that it is automatically valid. The Court ruled that individual blameworthiness is no longer the acid test of liability, substituting in its place the principle of “equitable loss-spreading,” in addition to fault, as a fact in distributing the costs of official misconduct.
